Long ago, I was in a meeting with my team and a few other colleagues, including my boss. One of the team members presented a new project plan that she came up with. As seniors, my boss and I had a little more experience with the customer and we shared simialr approach to developing the plan.
My boss listened intently without interruption and then started asking the team some questions listened to their perspectives, and also sought out more information about the project, such as conducting research or talking to other experts in the field. He ended the meeting 30 min earlier and suggested we meet after 4 days and suggested a 30 minute meeting and take a decision.
I was curious, and after the meeting I asked my boss why he did not just suggest our approach and just come to the decision immediately and unnecessarily call for another meeting. I said that we could have just got the team executing right way with our approach. After all we had experience to support our logic.
He said that since it was ‘not time-critical and there was no right or wrong approach’ his goal was to understand the different perspectives’ and allow the team to come with a solution that emerged from themselves’ as consensus. He said if the ideas come from themselves, it would have higher ownership and build confidence for the future. “We are anyways there to provide guardrails”, he said.
I had been following that advice from that day 20 years ago and it has been one of the most valuable learnings. Much later in life, I came across the terms – advocacy orientation and inquiry orientation – I realised the power of these concepts.
Advocacy orientation and inquiry orientation refer to two different approaches to communication and problem-solving. Advocacy orientation involves taking a stance on a particular issue and arguing in favor of that position, while inquiry orientation involves seeking to understand multiple perspectives on an issue and finding common ground.
An advocacy orientation focuses on persuading others to accept a particular point of view and may involve the use of persuasive techniques, such as emotional appeals or logical arguments. This approach is often used in situations where there is a clear right or wrong answer and the goal is to convince others to accept the correct answer.
In contrast, an inquiry orientation involves asking questions and listening to others in order to better understand their perspectives and find solutions that can be agreed upon by all parties. This approach is often used in situations where there is no clear right or wrong answer and the goal is to find a solution that works for everyone.
Advocacy orientation and inquiry orientation are not mutually exclusive, and many people may use elements of both approaches in different situations. Which approach is most appropriate will depend on the specific situation and the goals of the conversation.
When building a successful business, the age-old question arises: Are good leaders the key to building good companies or vice versa? The answer, as it turns out, is a bit of both.
A case for ‘it depends’.
Good leaders are essential for any company because they set the tone for the entire organization. They provide direction, set goals, and inspire their employees to work towards a shared vision. Good leaders also create a positive work culture, which is crucial for employee engagement and satisfaction. A good leader will also be able to navigate the company through difficult times and make tough decisions that will benefit the company in the long run.
On the other hand, good companies also play a vital role in developing good leaders. A good company will provide opportunities for employees to grow and develop their leadership skills. They will also have systems in place for mentoring and coaching, which will help to develop the next generation of leaders. A good company will also have a clear vision and values that align with the leader’s, which makes it easier for them to lead the company in the right direction.
A case of how leaders built companies –
In my view, I tend to believe that good leaders make good companies. While good companies may attract good leaders or groom some, ultimately, it is the leadership at the top that sets the direction and tone for the organization. Good leaders have the vision, drive, and ability to make tough decisions that will benefit the company in the long run. They also create a positive work culture, which is crucial for employee engagement and satisfaction. This, in turn, leads to a more productive and efficient workforce and, ultimately, to a more successful company. While a good company can certainly provide opportunities for employees to grow and develop their leadership skills, it is ultimately the leader that is responsible for leading the company to success.
One great example of this is Amazon. Jeff Bezos, the founder, and CEO, are widely considered one of the best leaders in the world. He has set a clear vision and values for the company and has created a culture of innovation and customer focus. This has allowed Amazon to become one of the most successful companies in the world.
Another example is Apple; under the leadership of Steve Jobs, the company was able to create a culture of innovation, design, and focus on customers. He was able to lead the company through difficult times and make tough decisions that ultimately led to the company’s success.
Yet another example of a leader who has had a significant impact on their company’s success is Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla, SpaceX, and Twitter. Musk is known for his ambitious vision and ability to think outside the box. He has led Tesla to become one of the most valuable car companies in the world and has revolutionized the way people think about electric cars. Additionally, his leadership has also led to SpaceX becoming a leader in the private space industry with its reusable rockets and satellite launches. Even with Twitter, much as there have been different views on style, clearly, Twitter today is a lot more agile and a lot more shipping new stuff than the sumber it was in for almost 7-8 years.
Musk has also implemented a unique management style in both companies, where he sets very ambitious goals and encourages (pushes ;)) his employees to work towards them. This approach has led to rapid innovation and development, allowing Tesla, Twitter, and SpaceX to achieve milestones that were once thought impossible. His leadership has also been vital in fostering a culture of innovation and risk-taking within the companies, which has been a key driver for their success.
Bezos, Jobs, and Musk are prime examples of leaders with completely different leadership styles who have had a significant impact on the success of their companies. They have a clear vision, super ambitious goals, and an ability to think outside the box, which has led to rapid innovation and development. Their leadership has also been key in fostering a culture of innovation and risk-taking within the companies, which has been a key driver for their success.
A case of how companies building leaders –
While it is true that organizations like Unilever, GE, and IBM have built great leaders, it is less common that those leaders have gone on to build great companies. These companies are often established and have a long history, with well-established systems and processes in place. While the leaders of these companies have certainly had a significant impact on their performance, they are often working within the framework of an already successful organization.
For example, while leaders at Unilever have been instrumental in shaping the company’s strategy and direction, the company itself has a long history and has been successful for many years. Similarly, while leaders at GE have been able to drive growth and improve performance, the company has been a leader in its industry for decades.
It’s not to say that these leaders haven’t had a significant impact on their companies, but it is a rare case that those leaders have built great companies from scratch. Building a company from scratch requires a different set of skills than managing and leading an already successful one. It requires a more creative and innovative approach and a willingness to take risks.
Needless to say, while organizations like Unilever, GE, and IBM have built great leaders, it is less common that those leaders have gone on to build great companies. These companies are often established and have a long history, with well-established systems and processes in place. While the leaders of these companies have certainly had a significant impact on their performance, they are often working within the framework of an already successful organization.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the relationship between good companies and good leaders is a complex one. While both elements are important for a successful business, they play different roles. Good leaders provide direction, set goals, and inspire their employees to work towards a common vision. They also create a positive work culture which is crucial for employee engagement and satisfaction. On the other hand, good companies provide opportunities for employees to grow and develop their leadership skills; they have systems in place for mentoring and coaching. They have a clear vision and values that align with the leaders. Building a company from scratch requires a different set of skills than managing and leading an already successful one. It requires a more creative and innovative approach and a willingness to take risks. Both elements are needed to create a successful business, and one cannot exist without the other.
Keywords – Good companies, good leaders, business success, company culture, employee engagement, leadership development, innovation, risk-taking, leadership examples, Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Unilever, GE, IBM, interplay of good companies and good leaders, building a successful business, good leaders key to building good companies, managing and leading successful companies, creative and innovative approach, leadership matters, building a company from scratch, key to business growth, key role of leaders in a company, relationship between good companies and good leaders, importance of good leadership in companies, impact of good leaders on companies, company success and leadership, developing leadership skills within a company, company vision and values alignment with leaders, company mentoring and coaching for leadership development, key elements for a successful business.
Tags: Leadership, Business, Success, Companies, Culture, Employee engagement, Development, Innovation, Risk-taking, Examples, CEO, Vision, Values, Mentoring, Coaching, Building a company, Key to growth, Impact of leaders, Company and leadership, Skills development, Alignment, Key elements, Business growth, Management, Business strategies, Entrepreneurship, Organizational development.
Leadership differs from management in a very fundamental way. Management doesn’t have to involve inspiring or motivating others. Situational leadership is a specific style of leadership, where your leadership style is dependent on the situation. You could be leading b either delegating, supporting, coaching o directing depending on the team and complexity of the task. Which essentially makes you practice one or more of the 4 popular leadership styles. The image here is self-explanatory.
Situational Leadership
What You Can Do About Situational Leadership Starting in the Next 11 Minutes
Leadership programs are appropriate for supervisors, managers, entrepreneurs and company executives. A leadership development program can help the company leaders in receiving new capabilities. This is a good 10-minute video on Hershey Blanchard situational leadership that you must watch
Now that you’ve understood, it’s vital that you take one of the critical projects that you are heading and see what amongst these leadership team would require at this point in the current situation.
The Number One Question You Must Ask for Situational Leadership
Leadership is more than only a word, it’s the action of leading. It can also cause a company’s demise. Situational leadership or the one size doesn’t fit all method is all about adapting your style to the particular circumstance.
“Knowing all that I know about this team and this project, what is the leadership that is required to help the project move to the next level, project right now?
Leaders help ordinary folks achieve extraordinary outcomes. They should be sent to various countries and allowed to learn that way. Superior leaders identify great talent, give them direction, then escape the manner.
The Hidden Truth About Situational Leadership
Leaders will need to function as a catalyst for change. Thus, a situational leader should have the needed aptitude in order to adjust their actions in order that they may fit with the present situation as a way to assist and meet the requirements of the faculty. Today, the leader with one principal leadership style can’t survive.
