APSE Diversity Fellows learn keys to successful leadership styles

Several factors mold leadership styles.

 

Duke men’s basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski, for one, cites his mother as a paramount influence on how he leads his program.

 

“And she never went to high school,” Krzyzewski said in a “Charlie Rose” interview from 2001.

 

Indiana University visiting professer Bill Oates touched on this and other themes in his seminar “Leadership Styles: What Can Business Learn From Sports?” on Nov. 5 in Indianapolis. The presentation was part of IU’s series of seminars on leadership given to the inaugural class of the APSE Diversity Fellowship program.

 

Oates, a former editor of The Miami Herald’s international edition, drew from examples from the world of sports, including former Indiana coach Bob Knight and Krzyzewski. Despite their seemingly divergent styles of leadership, Knight and Krzyzewski amassed several hundred victories and won multiple national championships.

 

“You can be effective with any style,” Oates said, “but it has to be your style.”

 

This led into a discussion of the various leadership styles, starting with the pros and cons of four basic leadership styles: Autocratic, bureaucratic, laissez-faire and democratic. For example, for laissez-faire style of leadership Oates mentioned the lack of feedback, being unable to say thank you, as a con.

 

“Two words that are not said enough and that’s ‘thank you,’” he said.

 

Other styles of leadership were touched on, including transformational (the ability to make change happen in yourself, others and organizations); transactional (getting things done by the book); creative (generating innovative ideas); corrective (working with and through others); change (thinking beyond individuals and organizations and about the big picture); intelligence (embracing problems as opportunities); multicultural (driving for innovation by leveraging multicultural differences); pedagogical (shifting from teacher/leader centered style to interactive/connective one); servant (putting needs of workers before needs of leaders); bridging (fostering synergy through communication); and purposeful (sharing a common purpose).

 

With such a wide array of leadership styles to digest, Oates steered the conversation toward the fellows, inviting them to think about what kind of leadership style they would want to embrace, what values they would want to have. And where do those values come from? As Oates showed in the Krzyzewski clip, they can be deeply rooted in personal experiences. But, he explained, that is only the first step.

 

“A value set digs deep,” Oates said. “It’s a matter of being comfortable in your own skin, getting in touch with what your values are and where you sit in the universe with those. You can't be an effective leader if you can't be anything than what you are.”

 

But just because you have a core set of values doesn’t mean you can’t be flexible. Oates discussed the notion of varying your styles and what factors you have to consider when doing that. Besides a manager’s personal background, one has to see what kind of staff they are supervising. Are they self-motivated? Do they need a lot of guidance? In addition, Oates said, you have to consider the company you work for, what their values and goals are, and you have to make sure you properly align yourself.

 

Drawing again from the world of sports, Oates used the 2011 Boston Red Sox as a prime example of what goes wrong when a manager’s leadership style is not varied. A team with a high payroll and higher expectations, the Red Sox fell apart in the last month of the season, losing a seemingly firm grip on a playoff spot. The stories that came out after the season showed a team that was in disarray.

 

But more important, it showed a team that was not responding to the leadership style of manager Terry Francona, who announced he would not return for the 2012 season. His collegial style had worked well in previous years, when the Red Sox won two World Series, but in a season when he needed to vary his style, he was unable to do so.

 

In wrapping up, Oates had the fellows do two activities. The first was a role-playing exercise in which Dennis Freeman played a boss trying to fire an employee with a series of problems (played by Adena Andrews). The point of the exercise was to break down what kind of leadership styles are necessary in having difficult conversations and how best to proceed.

 

The second activity involved the fellows, and APSE President Michael Anastasi, offering anonymous feedback to each other. The idea, Oates explained, was to give the fellows an idea of how they are perceived and what they can work on as they develop leadership skills.

 

Because, as Oates said earlier in the seminar, “you have to be in touch with yourself.”