It hardly needs saying that effective teamwork and motivated team members increase the likelihood of optimising business outcomes. If good business results aren't achieved the buck stops with the team leader for it is the team leader who is responsible for ensuring that the team is motivated to achieve results and effectively deployed to do so.
 

This immediately raises questions about the best way to lead. For instance, to what extent should the team leader involve the team in generating the ideas and opinions that lead to an action plan and to what extent should the team leader retain control of the final decision as opposed to sharing, equalising or releasing that control altogether?

The answer to both these questions is unequivocal and depends on the situation at hand. The implication of this is that effective leaders must be able to analyse each business situation in order to judge the best way of working with, and through, the team in order to optimise results in the specific situation.

Four leadership styles
In terms of the two questions posed above, the chart below defines four different leadership styles (as identified by Lock and Wheeler in 2006) where each style showcases the position taken by the leader in relation to the team.

Leadership styles
No single one of the styles is effective in all leadership situations and no single style is inherently better than another. 

Consider, for example, the directive style where the leadership position is: "I, the leader will make this decision based on my own ideas. I, the leader will not consult you, the team. I will not seek your ideas or your views or opinions. I will tell you what to do." Sounds draconian? But there are situations where this directive style is the most appropriate such as when the decision is highly time critical or when no-one in the team has the expertise to contribute. However, if the leader overuses the directive style the team will soon come to feel that their ideas aren't valued, become demoralised, stop contributing, become stalled in their development or leave the organisation.

Consensual leadership
In today's business world, the perceived wisdom is not to impose decisions on the team – although, as we have seen, there are situations where that can be the right approach. Managers today are encouraged to consult or take a wholly consensual approach. Indeed, there are some situations that merit one or other of these two approaches. The consensual approach requires quite a lot of confidence in managers: the confidence to equalise power, to stand down and allow the team not only to contribute ideas but also to come to a consensual final decision.

A leader needs to be very confident to equalise power because the consensual style in some ways goes against all traditional definitions of leadership and is time consuming and difficult to manage. Yet, when the team is facing situations that require a broad view and where it has as much expertise as the leader, it is likely to be the right choice. Nevertheless, when it is overused, the consensual style can lead to a perceived lack of clear leadership – a talking shop culture rather than an action-oriented one. The consensual style is one that engenders ownership and commitment in an experienced team but it requires a lot of time. However, the loss of time in the initial stages can, if the strategy has been properly selected for the situation, be recovered in the later stages of a project that depends on the commitment of the team for successful implementation.

Leadership through consultation
The consultative strategy is arguably the most popular among managers where the team leader involves the team and yet still retains 'the leadership quality of making a final decision'. Certainly, failing to consult at appropriate times can drive morale down. Low levels of consultation can result in team members failing to understand decisions and feeling that their skills are underutilised. However, overuse of the consultative approach is time consuming and can appear to team members as an inability to make a decision – in the same way that overuse of the consensual style is sometimes seen. Inappropriate use of the consultative style can also be seen as manipulative since, despite many meetings, the final outcome depends on the leader's view.
 

Delegative
Finally, there is the delegative approach. A lot of managers find it difficult to delegate because it can feel like they are not keeping their eye on the ball. Indeed, it is often the case that overuse of delegation can cause a lack of control and authority. It may lead to lowered respect for the leader because of perceived under-involvement. It may also cause stress in the team if they are unsure of their readiness for responsibility for a particular task. On the other hand, in the right circumstances, delegation can lead to high levels of motivation and morale if used in situations where the team is competent and able to thrive on greater autonomy. In such cases, if the leader does not recognise the appropriateness of delegating, the experienced team may become demoralised.

The leadership maze
How can leaders navigate such a maze? How can they decide the best way to manage in each situation to avoid the pitfalls and maximise the advantages by opting for the best strategy? Actually, it isn't so difficult. Every decision-making situation can be systematically assessed to judge which style is best for the situation.

There are information processing principles that underlie such judgement and which can be clearly defined. If the principles underlying such judgement are followed, then the leader's time and energy will be focused to achieve optimal business results as well as team members who feel valued and stay committed.

It is the very fact that we can identify clear principles on which to base this situational assessment that has facilitated the design of an elearning approach to developing leadership judgement.

One such elearning tool is called 'Coach on the Desktop' (CotD) and can be used to support leadership coaching. The coachee enters real-life decisions into the system as they arise and is guided through an exploration of the decision parameters. The principles underlying good leadership judgement have been phrased into questions. Some relate to the nature of the task and some relate to the characteristics of the people involved.

The learning occurs through two mechanisms. Firstly, as more and more decisions are entered so familiarity with the questions to ask to analyse future situations increases. Secondly the individual will have blind spots which prevent judgement in favour of particular styles or which increase judgement in favour of others. These blind spots become highlighted over time as the system records and reports on patterns of responses. For example, it may be noted that the individual always responds in the affirmative when asked if the decision is time critical or invariably responds with a 'no' when asked if the team can be trusted to deal with the situation alone. Such analyses raise very specific development needs which can then be addressed.

Coaching for thinking rather than doing is always more difficult because it requires being aware of and being able to articulate cognitive processes that are unobservable. CotD provides a system that allows the coach and coachee to observe and understand exactly what goes on inside a manager's head when he or she makes decisions on how to best to work with and through the team.

Hogrefe Ltd who publish the CotD are currently offering coaches and line managers the opportunity to trial the system for 60 days with no charge. Please contact Barnaby Lassen on barnaby.lassen@hogrefe.co.uk

Wendy Lord is chief psychologist at Hogrefe