# data[].attributes.body
Continuous Improvement

# data[].attributes.headline
10 Characteristics of Charismatic Leader

# data[].attributes.subject
10 Characteristics of Charismatic Leader

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Executive Search | Executive Recruiters * Y Scouts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Charismatic leadership involves a sense of style, flair, and confidence.

These charismatic leaders have a quality which is hard to pin down, but which attracts followers and inspires people to action. Transformational leaders are often highly charismatic because they are capable of initiating and maintaining a significant level of change in the organization.

The following are some of the most prominent characteristics of charismatic leadership.

1. Communication

Charismatic leaders have extraordinary skills in communication. This helps to motivate employees through tough times and also help them stay grounded when things are good. The leaders are equally comfortable communicating one-to-one or in a group setting.

2. Maturity

Though they have a very powerful personality, a charismatic leader also has maturity and character. They don't believe in empty showmanship, but they draw on their wisdom and knowledge which they have accumulated over the years of life and business experiences. They behave in a mature and responsible manner on all occasions.

3. Humility

Charismatic leaders also have a sense of humility. They place a lot of value on each employee, and have the ability to truly listen to their concerns. The charismatic leader is able to convince the employee of the value that they bring to the organization, and show them how their contributions impact the strategic interests of the company. They inspire great loyalty from their employees.

4. Compassion

Successful charismatic leaders are also compassionate. Charisma alone may not be enough, because there's a very real possibility that it can disintegrate into mere hero worship. Compassion, integrity, honesty, and fortitude are also qualities that successful charismatic leaders exhibit.

5. Substance

Charisma can exist without substance, but only for a very short time. Flashy and glitzy behavior may capture the attention of people, but eventually they will want something substantial beneath the facade. A charismatic leader must not only talk the talk, but also walk the walk. Charm gets him the face time, and substance closes the deal.

6. Confidence

It goes without saying that charismatic leaders are truly confident. They are the glass half full kind of people, and are comfortable with who they are. They understand themselves well and do not try to be anyone else. Charismatic leaders are secure and confident enough to be comfortable in their own skin.

7. Positive body language

One of the first things that you'd notice about a charismatic leader is their warm, open, and positive body language. They make eye contact with were that they are talking to, smile, and introduce themselves to strangers with the genuine joy of making a new contact. They have an endearing swagger, and they are authentic.

8. Listening skills

Charismatic leaders are extremely good listeners. When they listen to you, they don't fidget or look distracted. A charismatic leader pays attention to what is being said, and listens with interest. They are engaged in the conversation and act with empathy.

9. Self-monitoring

One of the attributes of charismatic leaders is that they often tend to watch themselves. They are aware of their powerful personality, and the fact that their followers are watching them constantly. For this reason, they consider it important to portray a good image of themselves to their followers. This can be achieved only with self-monitoring.

10. Self-improvement

A charismatic leader understands that he has certain qualities that make him different from others, and that these are the qualities that get him attention and make him charismatic. So he also knows how important it is to continually improve himself.

Additional Resources:
Curious about your characteristics? These resources will assist on your journey to self-discovery:

Contact us if you are looking to find your next leader!
Y Scouts is an executive search firm that helps nonprofits and social enterprises find exceptional leaders. We believe the right leaders make all the difference. We have pioneered a revolutionary approach to identify exceptional leaders and match them to the positions you need. We're passionate about the power of the right connections. Contact us if you are looking to find an exceptional leader. Or, to be considered for exceptional leadership opportunities with our clients, please take the first step by joining the Y Scouts Leadership Community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These charismatic leaders have a quality which is hard to pin down, but which attracts followers and inspires people to action. Transformational leaders are often highly charismatic because they are capable of initiating and maintaining a significant level of change in the organization. The following are some of the most prominent characteristics of charismatic leadership.

# data[].attributes.body
Weekly Lessons in Leadership

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I've never been a leader of an organization and I've always shied away from management roles in my journalism career, preferring to stay "at the coal face."

Nor have I ever been overly interested in management theory or the structure of organizations. But I am really interested in concepts like purpose and meaning, in the idea of playing to my strengths, and in making a contribution to society. And I'd like to learn how to prioritize my To-Do List and manage my time better. I'm also really open to being mentored or coached by those who've gone before. Those are all reasons why I really enjoyed this book.

Joseph A. Maciariello condenses the management teachings and writings of management guru Peter Drucker - his colleague for 26 years - into a 52-week coaching program that has the potential to benefit a really broad audience. You don't have to be a manager or leader to learn from it.

"A Year with Peter Drucker" covers topics as diverse as navigating change, solving society's big problems, achieving potential, and prioritizing the important over the urgent. And its structure means you can jump to the sections that most interest you and skip over those that aren't so relevant.

I was particularly keen on the final two sections of the book: developing oneself from success to significance, and character and legacy. I've been in a process of transition for a while now - moving out of traditional news journalism into doing work I find more fulfilling and that I believe could be more beneficial to those around me, including different forms of writing and teaching. So I loved hearing about the importance of identifying your strengths, focusing on the unique contribution you can make, and living and working in an intentional way, with an eye on your legacy.

In this clip, from our review of this book, we hear how Drucker himself made career decisions based on his principles.

https://www.mindtools.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Blogaudio_AYearWithPeterDrucker.mp3

Listen to the full Book Insight in the Mind Tools Club ¦ Install Flash Player.

"A Year with Peter Drucker" made me more determined to align my work with my values and to keep thinking about the big picture and the long game. I'm convinced we all have a unique contribution to make - sometimes it just takes a while to discover what that is. The good news is that what's gone before is never wasted - it shapes us and gives us the tools to succeed in our next endeavor.

I also really enjoyed the section on setting your sights on the important, not the urgent. This is a classic time management technique and one that a lot of authors have written about. But, from my experience, it takes a lot of practice to know how to prioritize, to say "No" when we really need to, and to balance short-term actions with long-term goals.

So I'm always happy to read more on the topic, and particularly to hear from someone who clearly knew how to manage his time effectively, judging from the 39 books and countless articles he wrote.

Another highlight of this book for me was Drucker's interview with James Osborne, national commander of The Salvation Army. Drucker held The Salvation Army in high esteem, calling it the most effective organization in the United States. I'd never known much about its inner workings, so it was great to hear how it's structured and how it's survived for so many years by applying some key management principles that businesses would be wise to follow.

Drucker praised the Army for the way it evaluates performance and defines results, and for how it abandons projects quickly when it sees they're not working. He also liked the way it allocates its funds, based on urgent need first, while hoping that donations come in for less urgent things. The resources generally do arrive because people like to support organizations that deliver results and effectively meet a need in society.

Corporations may require a stronger balance sheet, but they can take a leaf out of the Army's book when it comes to focusing on results and making swift decisions about how to spend limited resources.

"A Year with Peter Drucker" is a really useful manual for anyone who's in charge of an organization and wants to learn to lead more effectively, as well as for individuals who want to get more out of their lives and make a lasting contribution. Even if you don't work through all the 52 "weeks" of the book, I'm sure you'll find this a thought-provoking and challenging read.
How can you make sure you're playing to your strengths and putting your unique abilities to their best use? Join in the discussion below!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Weekly Lessons in Leadership " Mind Tools Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I've never been a leader of an organization and I've always shied away from management roles in my journalism career, preferring to stay "at the coal face." Nor have I ever been overly interested in management theory or the structure of organizations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is authentic leadership?

It continues to surprise me how many leaders attempt to be one way at work, while their "true" personality emerges outside of work. Once a CEO reminded me, "Leadership is acting." And it surprises me when these same leaders seem shocked or confused when their employees don't trust them, don't like them, and can't really wait to work elsewhere.

Authenticity has been explored throughout history, from Greek philosophers to the work of Shakespeare ("To thy own self be true." -Polonius, Hamlet). Authentic leadership has been explored sporadically as part of modern management science, but found its highest levels of acceptance since Bill George's 2003 book, Authentic Leadership.

But what is authentic leadership?

While different theorists have different slants on the concept, most agree that:

1. Authentic leaders are self-aware and genuine. Authentic leaders are self-actualized individuals who are aware of their strengths, their limitations, and their emotions. They also show their real selves to their followers. They do not act one way in private and another in public; they don't hide their mistakes or weaknesses out of fear of looking weak. They also realize that being self-actualized is an endless journey, never complete.

2. Authentic leaders are mission driven and focused on results. They are able to put the mission and the goals of the organization ahead of their own self-interest. They do the job in pursuit of results, not for their own power, money or ego.

3. Authentic leaders lead with their heart, not just their minds. They are not afraid to show their emotions, their vulnerability and to connect with their employees. This does not mean authentic leaders are "soft." In fact communicating in a direct manner is critical to successful outcomes, but it's done with empathy; directness without empathy is cruel.

4. Authentic leaders focus on the long-term. A key tenet in Bill George's model is the company leaders are focused on long-term shareholder value, not in just beating quarterly estimates. Just as George did as CEO of , and as Bezos has done for years at Amazon, leaders realize that to nurture individuals and to nurture a company requires hard work and patience, but the approach pays large dividends over time.

__________

What are your motivation triggers? Take the "Your Engagement Profile Quiz" to find out.

Check out Kevin Kruse's new book, Employee Engagement 2.0, and discover how to turn apathetic groups into emotionally committed teams.

Kevin Kruse is a NY Times bestselling author and serial entrepreneur. For insider tips and exclusive content, join his newsletter at kevinkruse.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is authentic leadership? It continues to surprise me how many leaders attempt to be one way at work, while their "true" personality emerges outside of work. Once a CEO reminded me, "Leadership is acting." And it surprises me when these same leaders seem shocked or confused when their employees don't [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Yes, those are two drastically different kinds of management. But here's the thing: Leadership style isn't always so straightforward.

There are numerous styles of leadership that aren't inherently good or bad-they're just different. They all have their benefits and drawbacks, as well as their appropriate uses in certain scenarios.

Read on to find out why understanding your own approach matters, to get a breakdown of eight common leadership styles-along with their pros, cons, identifying characteristics-and to learn how you can change your leadership style.

What Is Leadership...Really?

Complete this sentence: "A leader is..."

What's your answer? Someone who's in a formal position of power? Whoever's ranked above you on the org chart? The person with the corner office and the higher salary?

Those might be the traditional perceptions, but it's important to recognize that anybody can be a leader. Yes, that means you, too.

Fundamentally, a leader is somebody who influences or guides other people through their own actions and behaviors. That might mean someone who's the designated head of a department. But make no mistake-having that seniority isn't a prerequisite.

Even if you're not managing a team on a daily basis, you might still have to step into a leadership role from time to time. Maybe you're spearheading an important cross-functional project or you have to host a meeting.

Those are opportunities for you to fulfill a leadership role and be looked to as an example. They're also moments when your own leadership qualities and style will bubble to the surface. So, don't write off these approaches as something that don't apply to you just because you don't have a C-suite role.

Why Is it Important to Understand Your Leadership Style?

Before we jump right into the nitty gritty, there's one critical question that needs to be answered: Why the heck do leadership styles matter?

"Understanding how you lead and want to lead will give you a better sense of control over the size and scope of your reach and impact," explains Joyel Crawford, a Muse career coach and leadership development consultant.

"Bringing awareness allows you to take ownership and responsibility," adds Tara Padua, executive coach, entrepreneur, and startup advisor. "Our leadership style is a whirlpool of our values, our natural strengths and abilities, [and] our beliefs and experiences. Knowing your leadership style can help you align that whirlpool with your vision, goals, and even your organization's mission and vision."

Put simply, to have an impact as a leader, you need to be an effective one. And in order to be effective, you have to understand exactly where you're starting from-as well as where you want to go. Knowing your current approach gives you a baseline that you can use to identify the improvements you need to make.

8 Different Leadership Styles (and Their Pros and Cons)

Here's the good, bad, and the ugly on eight common, "textbook" approaches to leadership.

These styles are based on the findings of several well-known leadership researchers (such as Karl Lewin, Bernard M. Bass, Robert K. Greenleaf, and more). However, be aware that you'll see different experts define these buckets differently.

1. Transactional Leadership

The best way to understand transactional leadership is to think of a typical transaction: I give you this, and you do this in return.

That's really the basis of this leadership style. Transactional leaders dish out instructions to their team members and then use different rewards and penalties to either recognize or punish what they do in response.

Think of a leader offering praise to applaud a job well done or mandating that a group member handles a despised department-wide task because they missed a deadline. Those are examples of rewards and punishments in a work setting.

Needless to say, this approach is highly directive, and is often referred to as a "telling" leadership style.

Pro: Confusion and guesswork are eliminated, because tasks and expectations are clearly mapped out by the leader.

Con: Due to the rigid environment and expectations, creativity and innovation may be stifled.

You Might Be a Transactional Leader If...

You frequently use the threat of having to stay late when you need to motivate your team.

You're constantly brainstorming clever ways to recognize solid work-your team can't wait to see what you come up with after last month's taco party.

2. Transformational Leadership

Again, with this leadership style, it's all in the name: Transformational leaders seek to change (ahem, transform) the businesses or groups in which they lead by inspiring their employees to innovate.

These leaders are all about making improvements and finding better ways to get things done. And as a result, they inspire and empower other people to own their work and chime in with their suggestions or observations about how things could be streamlined or upgraded.

Under transformational leaders, people have tons of autonomy, as well as plenty of breathing room to innovate and think outside the box.

Pro: Leaders are able to establish a high level of trust with employees and rally them around a shared vision or end goal.

Con: In environments where existing processes are valued, this desire to change things up can ruffle some feathers.

You Might Be a Transformational Leader If...

You look at every single existing process with a discerning eye and a strong sense that it could be better.

You're always encouraging others to get outside their comfort zones and push their own limits.

You could burst with pride whenever you see a team member achieve something that was previously thought to be impossible.

3. Servant Leadership

Servant leaders operate with this standard motto: Serve first and lead second.

Rather than thinking about how they can inspire people to follow their lead, they channel the majority of their energy into finding ways that they can help others. They prioritize the needs of other people above their own.

Despite the fact that they're natural leaders, those who follow the servant leadership model don't try to maintain a white-knuckle grasp on their own status or power. Instead, they focus on elevating and developing the people who follow them.

As Simon Sinek eloquently explains in his book, Leaders Eat Last: Why Some Teams Pull Together and Others Don't, "leaders are the ones who are willing to give up something of their own for us. Their time, their energy, their money, maybe even the food off their plate. When it matters, leaders choose to eat last."

Pro: This approach boosts morale and leads to a high level of trust, which results in better employee performance and a more positive company culture overall.

Con: It's challenging. Constantly pushing your own needs and priorities to the backburner isn't something that comes as second nature for most of us.

You Might Be a Servant Leader If...

You're known for asking, "What can I do to help?" at least three times a day.

You place a high priority on removing roadblocks and helping others get things done.

You never think twice about helping out when you're asked-because you know that your own to-do list will still be there when you return.

4. Democratic Leadership

You might also hear this leadership style referred to as "participative leadership." Leaders in this category run groups and projects like...well, a democracy.

Even if these leaders are technically higher on the org chart, they emphasize working together and actively involve their teams in the decision-making process. Democratic leaders value ideas and input from others, and encourage discussion about those contributions.

They aren't handing down orders from on high, and instead take a much more collaborative approach to getting things done.

Pro: Creativity and innovation are encouraged, which also improves job satisfaction among employees and team members.

Con: Constantly trying to achieve consensus among a group can be inefficient and, in some cases, costly.

You Might Be a Democratic Leader If...

You think the best meetings are the ones where everyone has an equal chance to weigh in.

You can't remember the last time you made an important decision without getting input from at least one other person.

5. Autocratic Leadership

Autocratic leadership exists on the opposite side of the spectrum from democratic leadership.

You can think of this as a "my way or the highway" approach.

Autocratic leaders view themselves as having absolute power and make decisions on behalf of their subordinates. They dictate not only what needs to be done, but also how those tasks should be accomplished.

Pro: Decisions are often made quickly and strategically, and teams are kept on track as a result.

Con: Employees can feel ignored, restricted, and-in the absolute worst of cases-even abused.

You Might Be an Autocratic Leader If...

You think group discussions and brainstorming only slow things down, and it's better if you make important decisions alone.

You dislike it when employees question your decisions-when you've said something, that's final.

6. Bureaucratic Leadership

Bureaucratic leadership goes "by the book," so to speak. With this leadership style, there's a prescribed set of boxes to check in order to be a true leader.

For example, bureaucratic leaders have hierarchical authority -meaning their power comes from a formal position or title, rather than unique traits or characteristics that they possess.

They also have a set list of responsibilities, as well as clearly-defined rules and systems for how they'll manage others and make decisions. They just need to follow that roadmap that's laid out for them.

Pro: There's plenty of stability. Since this is a systematized approach to leadership, things remain constant even through personnel changes and other shifts that threaten to rock the boat.

Con: It's tempting to fall into the "we've always done it this way" trap. This approach can be inflexible and neglect to leave room for creativity or ideas from employees.

You Might Be a Bureaucratic Leader If...

You frequently find yourself asking how your predecessor handled certain scenarios-you want to make sure that you're following the accepted procedure.

You always request confirmation that you're doing things right whenever you're tasked with something new.

7. Laissez-Faire Leadership

Do you remember the term "laissez-faire" from your high school French or history class? If not, let's refresh your memory.

This is a French term that translates to "leave it be," which pretty accurately summarizes this hands-off leadership approach. It's the exact opposite of micromanagement.

Laissez-faire leaders provide the necessary tools and resources. But then they step back and let their team members make decisions, solve problems, and get their work accomplished-without having to worry about the leader obsessively supervising their every move.

Pro: This level of trust and independence is empowering for teams that are creative and self-motivated.

Con: Chaos and confusion can quickly ensue-especially if a team isn't organized or self-directed.
You Might Be a Laissez-Faire Leader If...

You hardly do any of the talking in project status update meetings. Instead, your team members are the ones filling you in on where things are.

You're really only involved in most tasks and projects at two key points: the beginning and the end.

8. Charismatic Leadership

You know what it means to have a lot of charisma, and that's exactly what these leaders possess.

Charismatic leaders have magnetic personalities, as well as a lot of conviction to achieve their objectives.

Rather than encouraging behaviors through strict instructions, these leaders use eloquent communication and persuasion to unite a team around a cause. They're able to clearly lay out their vision and get others excited about that same goal.

Pro: Charismatic leaders are very inspirational and effective at getting an entire group invested in a shared objective.

Con: Due to their intense focus, it's easy for these leaders to develop "tunnel vision" and lose sight of other important issues or tasks that crop up.

You Might Be a Charismatic Leader If...

You're known for giving amazing "rally the troops" types of presentations.

You're usually the one elected to give toasts and speeches at various company events.

How Hard Is it to Change Your Leadership Style?

So you've familiarized yourself with the ins and outs of the above approaches...what if you've realized that you want to make some changes? Perhaps you've pegged yourself as a transactional leader and want to be more transformational, or you think you could incorporate more servant leadership into your existing style.

The good news: You absolutely can change your personal leadership style. "Your leadership style isn't an annual membership," says Crawford. Altering your approach is actually fairly straightforward in concept (although a little more difficult in practice), and you can do it at any time. The key is to swap out ineffective habits for new ones that are more in line with the style you'd like to align with, and "stay committed to practicing your new leadership style and technique."

For example, if you tend to be autocratic and want to incorporate some more democratic practices, try some things that force you to relinquish some power like:

Requesting a second opinion on a decision you're making.

Instituting a weekly brainstorming session with your team.

Asking a colleague to co-lead a project that you otherwise would've handled alone.

If you're struggling to even figure out how you can be more effective or what the best leadership style for you is in the first place, Padua recommends that you start by thinking about a leader or mentor you admired. "What were their qualities?" she asks. "What did they do? What did they say? How did it impact you?"

That exercise can help you identify some traits that you'd like to implement in your own style.

Here's the thing: There's no such thing as a "perfect" leadership style, because leadership isn't one size fits all. All of these approaches come with their benefits and drawbacks, and some of them will be more effective in certain scenarios.

That very idea has paved the way for one final style: situational leadership. It's highly flexible and suggests that leaders should adapt their approach to the specific circumstances they're in.

Regardless of where you think your own current style fits in, there are likely a few changes you can make to be even more effective. Like anything, leadership is a learning process, and it takes a little bit of trial and error to get it right.

"Don't be afraid to make mistakes," concludes Crawford. "That's how we learn. Sometimes you may have to take a few tries at different styles to make things work. Be easy on yourself."

Kat is a Midwest-based freelance writer, covering topics related to careers, productivity, and the freelance life. In addition to The Muse, she's a contributor all over the web and dishes out research-backed advice for places like Atlassian, Trello, Toggl, Wrike, The Everygirl, FlexJobs, and more. She's also an Employment Advisor at a local college, and loves helping students prepare to thrive in careers (and lives!) they love. When she manages to escape from behind her computer screen, she's usually babying her two rescue mutts or continuing her search for the perfect taco. Say hi on Twitter @kat_boogaard or check out her website.

More from Kat Boogaard

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
8 Common Leadership Styles (and How to Find Yours)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Yes, those are two drastically different kinds of management. But here's the thing: Leadership style isn't always so straightforward. There are numerous styles of leadership that aren't inherently good or bad-they're just different. They all have their benefits and drawbacks, as well as their appropriate uses in certain scenarios.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Relationship Management: The Fourth Pillar Of Emotional Intelligence - Positive Communication Pro

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, 'Where have I gone wrong?' Then a voice says to me, 'This is going to take more than one night.'" Charlie Brown, from the cartoon strip "Peanuts" If you come from the old school of business, if you take a traditional view of leadership and work relationships, it's got to be ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A model consisted of five components (Purpose, Inclusive, Empowering, Ethical, and Process) that focuses on a group or organization's positive social development and advancement. Each component can be applied into the Knowing-Being-Doing framework of an exemplary leader.
What are the Components?
Purpose - Having an individual commitment to a goal or activity while establishing a common ground with others who share a similar purpose.
Inclusive - Involving not only everyone but also everyone's ideas and different viewpoints.
Empowering - Giving others the ability to not only be involved but feel involved in group decision making.
Ethical - Being 'fair' to yourself as a leader, other leaders, and to the process you take to achieve your goals.
Process - The path you as a group decide to go in along with how well you stay together, communicate, solve problems, and achieve your goals as a group.

Knowing? Being? Doing?
Knowing - The skills needed to perform and knowing process of how to manage yourself and others to achieve goals.
Being - Self awareness of personal beliefs, values, and goals while understanding that your actions can have significant effect on others.
Doing - Using the knowledge and self awareness to lead a group to achieving previously stated goals. Knowing the skills needed is not enough to be a leader, one must be aware of the influence he can potentially have on others. Similarly, being aware that you have the potential to lead is not enough if you don't possess the knowledge of skills. The combination of skills accompanied with the process of doing completes the framework of an exemplary leadership.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A model consisted of five components (Purpose, Inclusive, Empowering, Ethical, and Process) that focuses on a group or organization's positive social development and advancement. Each component can be applied into the Knowing-Being-Doing framework of an exemplary leader. What are the Components?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is Adaptive Leadership?

Adaptive leadership a leadership model that was introduced by Ronald Heifetz and Marty Linsky. Heifetz defines it as the act of mobilizing a group of individuals to handle tough challenges and emerge triumphant in the end.

But considering how volatile and uncertain the corporate world can be, often find it difficult to keep abreast with all the changes. To survive and thrive in the business world, one needs to be more than high performing. Corporate leaders need to adopt new and techniques to overcome any challenges that come in the way, which is where adaptive leadership comes in.

Technical vs. Adaptive Problems

Adaptive leadership recognizes that there are two kinds of problems: technical and adaptive. With technical problems, a satisfactory pre-determined response is already available and one or more experts who possess solid reputations are sought to address the issue. Overall, technical problems are mechanical and can be solved by professionals.

With adaptive problems, there are absolutely no trained experts to deal with the problems at hand. Also, no set of established rules or procedures exists to address the issue. In most cases, the definition of the problem is vague and there aren't any technical fixes. It is in such situations that the expertise of an adaptive leader becomes useful. Such an individual first helps to define the problem and then mobilizes his co-workers to come up with possible answers.

Four Main Principles of Adaptive Leadership

The following are the four main tenets tied to adaptive leadership:

1. Emotional Intelligence

2. Organizational justice

Another fundamental principle of adaptive leadership is fostering a culture of honesty. Adaptive leaders know the best policies to introduce for the good of the organization. They also know the best ways to introduce these changes so that people embrace them. Adaptive leaders are willing to accommodate other peoples' views, hence, assuring them that they are valued and respected.

3. Development

Adaptive leadership entails learning new things. If one technique is not yielding desired results, an adaptive leader goes out of his or her way to discover new strategies that can work. With new techniques, both the employees and the company at large will experience growth and development.

4. Character

Adaptive leadership is about having a deep sense of character, being transparent and creative. Adaptive leaders may not always be right but they earn the respect of those they work with and practice what they recommend.

Traits of Adaptive Leaders

There are certain traits that every adaptive leader ought to possess, including:

The ability to link organizational change to the primary values, abilities, and dreams of the stakeholders involved.

The capacity to create an environment that embraces diversity of views and takes advantage of such collective knowledge to benefit the organization.

The adaptive leader understands that change can be a painful process. Therefore, he or she can foresee and counteract any reluctant behavior from teammates.

An understanding that large-scale change is a gradual process, which calls for persistence and a willingness to bear the pressure that comes along with that.

Being proactive, looking for opportunities and investing the necessary resources to go after them.

Admitting when they make mistakes and changing or abandoning non-productive strategies.

Being open to experimentation and risk-taking

Liking and encouraging innovation among employees.

Challenges in Implementing Adaptive Leadership

As predicted by Heifetz, adaptive leadership does bring a couple of challenges. This leadership model is all about experimenting, discovering new knowledge, and making numerous adjustments throughout your company. It is only through a change of attitudes and adjustment of policies that you will manage to sustain changes and thrive.

However, shifting individuals' values, beliefs, and perceptions is usually more difficult than flossing a cat's teeth. Making changes requires you to be somewhat disloyal to your past. For instance, if you want to implement a new marketing strategy, then you have to first embrace the fact that your current marketing techniques are ineffective. Most senior executives are reluctant to let go of life-long policies that got their companies started. However, sticking to your old ways can hinder the benefits that could result from new methods.

Perhaps the greatest challenge brought about by adaptive leadership is the unwillingness of leaders to listen to other people's opinions. As explained earlier, adaptive leadership is less about power and more about teamwork. In theory, adaptive leaders should be willing to listen and adapt recommendations provided by co-workers or clients.

In reality, however, only a few select leaders are willing to listen to individuals who disagree with them. What such leaders fail to understand is that listening does not necessarily mean abandoning individual goals. It simply means that you're better informed about your employees' needs. Therefore, you can work more effectively to execute changes.

Key Takeaways

Although adaptive leadership requires a great deal of effort, it provides substantial returns. Based on credible statistics, firms that are adaptive end up with immense gains both financially and operationally. They are able to weather storms and rise to the top even during periods of volatility.

In summary, adaptive leadership can be summed up using four main principles: distributed leadership, optimal talent mix, possessing a transparent character, and developing mutual trust. With regards to distributed leadership, the leader delegates roles to team members. Optimal talent mix entails using everyone's skills rather than just those of top-level executives. A clear charter means that the company or team follows well-defined goals, duties, and ground rules, while trust helps to foster strong bonds among employees, employers, and clients.

Related Readings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Adaptive leadership a leadership model that was introduced by Ronald Heifetz and Marty Linsky. Heifetz defines it as the act of mobilizing a group of individuals to handle tough challenges and emerge triumphant in the end. The people's perception of leadership nowadays is very much different from the past few

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In some jobs, being in touch with emotions is essential. In others, it seems to be a detriment. And like any skill, being able to read people can be used for good or evil.

Some of the greatest moments in human history were fueled by emotional intelligence. When Martin Luther King, Jr. presented his dream, he chose language that would stir the hearts of his audience. "Instead of honoring this sacred obligation" to liberty, King thundered, "America has given the Negro people a bad check." He promised that a land "sweltering with the heat of oppression" could be "transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice," and envisioned a future in which "on the red hills of Georgia sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave-owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood."

Delivering this electrifying message required emotional intelligence-the ability to recognize, understand, and manage emotions. Dr. King demonstrated remarkable skill in managing his own emotions and in sparking emotions that moved his audience to action. As his speechwriter Clarence Jones reflected, King delivered "a perfectly balanced outcry of reason and emotion, of anger and hope. His tone of pained indignation matched that note for note."
Emotional intelligence is important, but the unbridled enthusiasm has obscured a dark side.
Recognizing the power of emotions, another one of the most influential leaders of the 20th century spent years studying the emotional effects of his body language. Practicing his hand gestures and analyzing images of his movements allowed him to become "an absolutely spellbinding public speaker," says the historian Roger Moorhouse-"it was something he worked very hard on." His name was Adolf Hitler.

Since the 1995 publication of Daniel Goleman's bestseller, emotional intelligence has been touted by leaders, policymakers, and educators as the solution to a wide range of social problems. If we can teach our children to manage emotions, the argument goes, we'll have less bullying and more cooperation. If we can cultivate emotional intelligence among leaders and doctors, we'll have more caring workplaces and more compassionate healthcare. As a result, emotional intelligence is now taught widely in secondary schools, business schools, and medical schools.

Emotional intelligence is important, but the unbridled enthusiasm has obscured a dark side. New evidence shows that when people hone their emotional skills, they become better at manipulating others. When you're good at controlling your own emotions, you can disguise your true feelings. When you know what others are feeling, you can tug at their heartstrings and motivate them to act against their own best interests.

Social scientists have begun to document this dark side of emotional intelligence. In emerging research led by University of Cambridge professor Jochen Menges, when a leader gave an inspiring speech filled with emotion, the audience was less likely to scrutinize the message and remembered less of the content. Ironically, audience members were so moved by the speech that they claimed to recall more of it.

The authors call this the awestruck effect, but it might just as easily be described as the dumbstruck effect. One observer reflected that Hitler's persuasive impact came from his ability to strategically express emotions-he would "tear open his heart"-and these emotions affected his followers to the point that they would "stop thinking critically and just emote."
"Whenever we wanted to persuade our staff to support a particular project we always tried to break their hearts."
Leaders who master emotions can rob us of our capacities to reason. If their values are out of step with our own, the results can be devastating. New evidence suggests that when people have self-serving motives, emotional intelligence becomes a weapon for manipulating others. In a study led by the University of Toronto psychologist Stéphane Côté, university employees filled out a survey about their Machiavellian tendencies, and took a test measuring their knowledge about effective strategies for managing emotions. Then, Cote's team assessed how often the employees deliberately undermined their colleagues. The employees who engaged in the most harmful behaviors were Machiavellians with high emotional intelligence. They used their emotional skills to demean and embarrass their peers for personal gain. In one computer company studied by Tel-Aviv University professor Gideon Kunda, a manager admitted to telling a colleague "how excited we all are with what he is doing," but at the same time, "distancing my organization from the project," so "when it blows up," the company's founder would blame the colleague.

Shining a light on this dark side of emotional intelligence is one mission of a research team led by University College London professor Martin Kilduff. According to these experts, emotional intelligence helps people disguise one set of emotions while expressing another for personal gain. Emotionally intelligent people "intentionally shape their emotions to fabricate favorable impressions of themselves," Professor Kilduff's team writes. "The strategic disguise of one's own emotions and the manipulation of others' emotions for strategic ends are behaviors evident not only on Shakespeare's stage but also in the offices and corridors where power and influence are traded."

Of course, people aren't always using emotional intelligence for nefarious ends. More often than not, emotional skills are simply instrumental tools for goal accomplishment. In a study of emotions at the Body Shop, a research team led by Stanford professor Joanne Martin discovered that founder Anita Roddick leveraged emotions to inspire her employees to fundraise for charity. As Roddick explained, "Whenever we wanted to persuade our staff to support a particular project we always tried to break their hearts." However, Roddick also encouraged employees to be strategic in the timing of their emotion expressions. In one case, after noticing that an employee often "breaks down in tears with frustration," Roddick said it was acceptable to cry, but "I told her it has to be used. I said, 'Here, cry at this point in the ... meeting." When viewing Roddick as an exemplar of an emotionally intelligent leader, it becomes clear that there's a fine line between motivation and manipulation. Walking that tightrope is no easy task.
In jobs that required extensive attention to emotions, higher emotional intelligence translated into better performance. In jobs that involved fewer emotional demands, the results reversed.
In settings where emotions aren't running high, emotional intelligence may have hidden costs. Recently, psychologists Dana Joseph of the University of Central Florida and Daniel Newman of the University of Illinois comprehensively analyzed every study that has ever examined the link between emotional intelligence and job performance. Across hundreds of studies of thousands of employees in 191 different jobs, emotional intelligence wasn't consistently linked with better performance. In jobs that required extensive attention to emotions, higher emotional intelligence translated into better performance. Salespeople, real-estate agents, call-center representatives, and counselors all excelled at their jobs when they knew how to read and regulate emotions-they were able to deal more effectively with stressful situations and provide service with a smile.

However, in jobs that involved fewer emotional demands, the results reversed. The more emotionally intelligent employees were, the lower their job performance. For mechanics, scientists, and accountants, emotional intelligence was a liability rather than an asset. Although more research is needed to unpack these results, one promising explanation is that these employees were paying attention to emotions when they should have been focusing on their tasks. If your job is to analyze data or repair cars, it can be quite distracting to read the facial expressions, vocal tones, and body languages of the people around you. In suggesting that emotional intelligence is critical in the workplace, perhaps we've put the cart before the horse.

Instead of assuming that emotional intelligence is always useful, we need to think more carefully about where and when it matters. In a recent study at a healthcare company, I asked employees to complete a test about managing and regulating emotions, and then asked managers to evaluate how much time employees spent helping their colleagues and customers. There was no relationship whatsoever between emotional intelligence and helping: Helping is driven by our motivations and values, not by our abilities to understand and manage emotions. However, emotional intelligence was consequential when examining a different behavior: challenging the status quo by speaking up with ideas and suggestions for improvement.

Emotionally intelligent employees spoke up more often and more effectively. When colleagues were treated unjustly, they felt the righteous indignation to speak up, but were able to keep their anger in check and reason with their colleagues. When they went out on a limb to advocate for gender equity, emotional intelligence helped them keep their fear at bay. When they brought ideas for innovation to senior leaders, their ability to express enthusiasm helped them avoid threatening leaders. On a much smaller scale, they were able to follow Martin Luther King Jr.'s lead in rocking the boat while keeping it steady.

More than two decades have passed since psychologists Peter Salovey at Yale and John Mayer at the University of New Hampshire introduced the concept of emotional intelligence in 1990. Why has it taken us so long to develop a more nuanced view? After Daniel Goleman popularized the idea in 1995, many researchers-perhaps awestruck themselves by enthusiasm for the concept of emotional intelligence-proceeded to conduct studies that were fatally flawed. As University of Lausanne professor John Antonakis observed, "practice and voodoo science is running way ahead of rigorous research."

One of the most persistent problems was the use of self-report measures, which asked employees to rate their own emotional abilities on items like "I can tell how people are feeling even if they never tell me" and "I am generally very good at calming someone down when he or she is upset." Abilities cannot be accurately measured with self-reports. As emotion experts Sigal Barsade of Wharton and Donald Gibson of Fairfield University lament, "One might compare this approach to assessing mathematical skills by asking respondents, 'How good are you at solving algebraic equations?' rather than asking the person to actually solve an algebraic equation."

Thanks to more rigorous research methods, there is growing recognition that emotional intelligence-like any skill-can be used for good or evil. So if we're going to teach emotional intelligence in schools and develop it at work, we need to consider the values that go along with it and where it's actually useful. As Professor Kilduff and colleagues put it, it is high time that emotional intelligence is "pried away from its association with desirable moral qualities."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In some jobs, being in touch with emotions is essential. In others, it seems to be a detriment. And like any skill, being able to read people can be used for good or evil. Some of the greatest moments in human history were fueled by emotional intelligence. When Martin Luther King, Jr.