In my article on Leaders Letting Go, I discussed the leadership implications as more and more organizations move from the traditional, mechanical model of organization to more organic forms of organization. This transition to more fluid and flexible organic forms is in response to the ever-increasing fierce global competition, and the need to do things "better, faster, cheaper".

The key point of the article was that most leaders need to increasingly let go of personal control and adjust their approach to management to be effective given the new realities. Here I look more specifically at some options or management approaches available to people in leadership roles. An understanding of these various approaches helps a leader determine the form of management that would be most effective as the dominant approach to fit the specific leadership situation.

Manager as Doer/Technician (Direct Control)

The manager serves as subject matter expert and exercises command and control authority. A "hands-on" manager who usually works very hard doing things him or herself, feeling personally responsible to have everything go well. Can work when leadership and management requirements are minimal. Can also work well in emergency situations.

Manager as Conductor (Compliance)

A natural evolution from the Doer/Technician approach when size and complexity prohibit the use of the Doer/Technician approach. There is less "hands-on", but still heavy top-down control. Since personal doing or inspection cannot be fully exercised due to the volume of work, control mechanisms such as rules, practices, and procedures are used (compliance) as a way of exercising management control. This model is characterized by centralized coordination, decision making, and control. "Fire fighting" is typically this manager's modus operandi. Works best when coordination and political needs are critical.

Manager as Coach (Collaboration)

A major shift from the first two approaches in that the manager is willing to relinquish some of his or her power and influence and provide people discretion, authority, and support to manage their own responsibilities. The manager works with the group to develop a shared identity and direction, then serves as a resource for guidance. The manager is still involved in day-to-day operations, "managing in the system", i.e., the groups' work process(es) and people, but does so in a collaborative way. It is ironic that the manager can actually gain control by relinquishing tight personal control. That is, as the people become more involved and empowered, they are able to be responsive to change, innovative, productive, and motivated. "People tend to own things they help create".

Manager as "Working Leader" (Enabling)

The manager views that he or she can add the most value to helping the group achieve its purpose by spending the bulk of time and attention "managing around the system", as contrasted with "managing in the system", as with the Manager as Coach approach. This manager still serves as a guiding resource (coach) to the people, but focuses on managing the context within which the organizational unit operates. That is, the boundaries and interfaces. The manager becomes involved in more leading and less managing, as the reporting managers and workgroup take over even more of the managing responsibilities. The Manager as Coach's primary focus is increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of people and processes within the system or organizational unit he or she manages. The Working Leader's primary focus is to enable his or her system to operate effectively and efficiently within a particular environment or organizational context. The Working Leader serves as a spokesperson, business analyzer, advocate, facilitator, and barrier buster for the organizational unit in interfacing with customers or clients, vendors and suppliers, higher-level management, other organizational units, and relevant external constituencies. "Working Leader" is a good label for this approach in that there is genuine, high-leverage work involved and the focus definitely shifts to one of doing more leading and less managing.

Important Points

The post-heroic or shared responsibility forms of management require different mental models relative to one's view of the role of a leader, work, and workers. Shared leadership also requires the leader to be more skillful in interpersonal relations and facilitative skills, not to mention the need for confidence and self-esteem.

* David L. Bradford and Allan R. Cohen, Power Up: Transforming Organizations through Shared Leadership, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York