Making work more flexible leads too more and more project work and teams. They collaborate for a certain time and in changing constellations. Regardless the size of these working groups, roles are assigned that determine the interplay. An important role is the one of a team or project manager. Thus, more and more employees have to care about leadership. By trying to make a good job, they make an effort to fulfill the leadership role as good as possible. In this case the question appears about the appropriate leadership style. Can you get it off the shelf?

The answer starts with the question about the various styles of leadership that are available. The following leadership styles provide potential alternatives.

• Carrot and stick (MbCaS)
  The authoritarian approach is probably the oldest one. In this relationship of obedience you lead with carrot and stick (Management by Carrot and stick). The decisions are made with light speed – at least with the maximum speed of the respective leader. Participation of the employees rarely happens. This style is determined by clear requirements and the fear of punishment (stick). In order to prevent rebellions or a high fluctuation, occasional rewards are needed (carrot).
• Shared guidance (MbP)
  The opposite of MbCaS is the partizipative or democratic leadership style (Management by Participation). The employees are involved in the leadership. This can go as far as to make decisions together. The decision-making process loses thereby speed since alignment loops are needed again and again. This style is defined by open communication and many meetings. Despite the strong participation there are many employees, who do not need involvement. They simply want to get the work time over and done with clear requests.
• Assignment of tasks (MbD)
  A popular approach of leadership is the delegation of tasks (Management by Delegation). At best this leadership style is visible in the corporate organization of work. Roles are described with tasks, authority and responsibility. These roles are defined hierarchically (structural organization) or as processes or process steps (process organization). Executives assign the tasks. The employees manage the fulfillment based on their discretion depending on the conditions.
• Leading with goals (MbO)
  The improved MbD is the leadership with target agreements (Management by Objectives). The employees become a kind of contracting parties, which agree contractually upon deliverables with the client (the superior). For this purpose the products and services are described formally with the desired quality criteria as a requirement specification with more or less detail. In the end the deliverables and/or the results will be evaluated. For the executives it becomes thereby clear what they can expect. The employees know what they have to fulfill.
• Leading with on-site presence (MbWA)
  The speed of today’s business requires new approaches for leadership. On the one hand corporate structures are changing rapidly in such a way that it becomes more time critical or even impossible to develop detailed hierarchical and sequential organization structures. On the other hand the fulfillment duration shortens so strongly that also the time for the detailed alignment of the goals is no longer given. Based on a general leadership and collaboration model the executives steer the staff with continuous on-site presence (in Japanese: Gemba 現場). The control takes place, where the actual fulfillment and potential problems are visible (Management by Walking Around). This ensures individual executive attention for the employees and short-term alignments.
• Ad-hoc leadership (MbF)
  Some tasks require a minimum response time of the manager (Management by Fire). This is valid for tasks, in which surprising and threatening events take place. Decisions are necessary that require a quick response. In order to increase the quality of the decisions, crisis plans are set up in advance that provide probable scenarios with counter measures. Occasionally, these plans are exercised based on respective presuppositions. The executive must decide each case just in time. What are the assumptions to be considered? What are counter measures to be initiated? The roles of the employees are defined in detail, but the actual application depends on the situation.

With all these leadership alternatives it is forgotten that leadership depends on the own personality. An autocratic or authoritarian or democratic or egalitarian or liberal attitude leads eventually also to a respective leadership style. And this happens although the person decides rationally to use another leadership style. Unfortunately it is difficult to slip out of your own skin and to appropriate a desired style of leadership off the shelf. The actual personality will mainly succeed. Accept it and improve your personal style.

Bottom line: The style of leadership is even with all possible trainings a question of personality. The first question of an executive should be, who am I. Thereupon the personal leadership style can be developed and improved. It is not available off the shelf – even if the training offers would have us believe.