Which Leadership Styles Best Address Complex Problems?

In response to COVID–19, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro used power and enforced new rules, Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven gave the freedom to citizens to act responsibly, while German Chancellor Angela Merkel embraced science. 

These solutions are based on cultural references that lack the bigger picture needed to deal with a complex problem like COVID–19. Complexity practitioners should be able to mitigate the weaknesses and exploit the strengths of these leadership approaches, in order to encourage emergence.

Identifying cultural leadership styles

The following graph shows four categories of social organisation, according to people’s group orientation and thirst for rules:

According to this cultural identity model, Hierarchists will aim for more rigid rules that might impede initiative (i.e. emergence), such as Brazil’s lock-down rules. Egalitarians will put their faith in death by meetings and consensus, like Sweden’s example of physical distancing and improving awareness of the communities. Individualists will attest that the only rational thing to do is develop vaccines and antibody tests, as Germany has with its focus on science and innovation. As for Fatalists, they have already started writing their wills. 

Tapping into the strength of each style of leadership

Hierarchists – Questions and Support

Hierarchists can create enabling constraints, provide assurances in times of crisis and give permission for constructive dissent. Instead of limiting their response to providing answers and vision, leaders should also incorporate questions and support.

In this age of demagogues and populism, many leaders resort to providing simple answers to complex problems. Yet they are the only ones with the authority to reverse their own role, from providing the answers to asking questions, which will allow for emergence. The different levels of comfort to asking questions are epitomised in the following COVID-19 responses:

In addition, leaders often do not realise that their followers are not necessarily looking for heroes, but for people who are empathetic and relatable. Such empathy can be achieved through ‘Extra-Ordinarization of the mundane’ (The Tavistock Institute, 2003). For instance, according to The Atlantic, ‘One of Ardern’s innovations has been frequent Facebook Live chats that manage to be both informal and informative. [...] She appears in a well-worn sweatshirt at her home [...] to offer guidance.’ It did not take much from Ardern to do these informal ‘mundane’ chats, yet her followers heralded them as ‘extraordinary’ efforts to reach out.

Egalitarians- Synergy of the Collective

Egalitarians understand the importance of collective responsibility, can walk a mile in others’ shoes and have the ability to generate synergies.

In IKEA, representatives from all levels of the organisation gather to take decisions. This IKEA vertical slice contrasts with other organisations’ executive practices, where decisions are made by top management while the rest of the organisation is not present and does not feel involved in shaping it. 

The most important thing here, however, is not to give way to the Bystander Effect (Latane et al, 1969) where people in large groups are less likely to intervene, possibly because they believe someone else will.

Individualists – Freedom of Innovation 

Individualists experiment with new ideas, are comfortable with uncertainty, and are excellent whistle blowers when things go wrong.

A famous example of positive deviance took place during a severe famine in Vietnam, when Jerry and Monique Sternin from Save the Children noticed positive deviants in the community: some families managed to avoid malnutrition simply by feeding their children differently, using ‘low-class food’ like shrimps and crabs which, although denigrated by the community, are highly nutritious. They also fed their children many times in the day even when they had diarrhoea. By helping the rest of the villagers discover this unusual behaviour and its effects, change was implemented.

On the other hand, without the system support that egalitarians and hierarchies give, there will be little room for promoting exchange and implementing change.

In conclusion, Aristotle once said that virtue is the balance between two extremes. Courage, for example, is in the middle between cowardice and rashness, while modesty is the mean between shyness and shamelessness. Likewise, by striking a balance between the virtues and vices of each of the leadership styles, we can help others to deal with the complexities of the individual and the collective.