個案總覽

Although most managers can recognize an off-kilter leader (consider the highly supportive boss who cuts people too much slack), it's quite difficult to see overkill in yourself. Unfortunately, that's where leadership development tools such as 360-degree surveys fail to deliver, say Kaplan and Kaiser. Dividing qualities into "strengths" and "weaknesses" and rating them on a five-point scale will not account for strengths overplayed. The authors suggest several strategies, based on their years of consulting experience and research, for figuring out which attributes you've employed to excess and adjusting your behavior accordingly. Strengths taken too far have two consequences: First, they become weaknesses. For instance, quick-wittedness can turn into impatience with others. Second, you're at risk of becoming extremely lopsided - that is, diminishing your capacity on the opposite pole. A leader who is very good at building consensus, for example, may take too long to move into action. To strike a balance between two key leadership dualities - forceful versus enabling, and strategic versus operational - you need to see your actions and motivations clearly. That's no easy task since most leadership development tools don't spell out that you're overdoing your strengths. But there are other ways to bring that information to light. You can start with a review of the highest ratings on your most recent 360 report. Ask yourself: Is this too much of a good thing? Another technique is to make a list of the traits you most want to have as a leader. Are you going to extremes with any of them? To check for lopsidedness, you can prompt feedback from other people with a list of qualities you've composed or one you've gleaned from other sources. Once you know which attributes you're overdoing, you can recalibrate.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Modern models of leadership generally acknowledge that effective leaders must possess a number of seemingly contradictory qualities and skill sets. However, say the authors, inadequate performance is usually defined as displaying a lack of those qualities and skills; the idea that performance problems can just as easily spring from taking a given behavior to an extreme has received far less attention. Therefore, those models miss the chance to identify imbalance, which in the authors' view is the most common impediment to developing effective leadership. The authors view versatility, the absence of imbalance, as the key to high performance levels. Versatile leaders are able to continually adjust their behavior, deftly applying the right approach or blend of approaches to the right degree for the circumstances at hand. The authors' research, comprising comprehensive assessments of scores of senior managers, indicates that most managers, when presented with two opposing approaches, such as forceful vs. enabling leadership, will lean strongly toward one and be biased against the other. Employing a 360-degree survey they designed to measure such imbalance, called the Leadership Versatility Index, the authors then demonstrate clearly that high performance levels are correlated with balance and versatility. The challenge for the versatile leader is, thus, to meet what F. Scott Fitzgerald called "the test of a first-rate intelligence": to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. The authors conclude with a discussion of how leaders can begin to improve themselves and those they manage. They identify a number of root causes of imbalance and suggest ways to moderate these factors.