1

Leadership Style

Analysis A cross country vision in terms of

leadership profiles

2

© 2011 Dynargie. All rights reserved.

fdsfki+pfas

Executive Summary

- Abstract

This executive summary reports a comparative study of leadership

styles, in a cross country perspective, according to Dynargie’s seminar

Leadership Style Analysis (LSA). It analysis and describes data collected

from the participants of the following countries: Brazil, Czech Republic,

Greece, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and Turkey. The main objective is to

compare and systematize data from the LSA questionnaire in terms of

leadership profile. A quantitative approach of the surveys sample is the

methodology adopted.

Keywords: situational leadership, surveys analysis, leadership profile

3

1) What is Situational Leadership?

In the late 1970s, early 1980’s, Hersey and Blanchard became known as the co-authors of the Situational

Leadership Model. The fundamental underpinning of the Situational Leadership concept is that there is

no single “best” style of leadership.

Effective leadership can be both task and/or relationship oriented. Another premise is that the most

successful leaders are those who adapt their leadership style to the maturity of the individual or group

they are attempting to lead/influence. Maturity means the capacity to set high but attainable goals,

willingness and ability to take responsibility for the task, and relevant education and/or experience of an

individual or a group for the task.

Effective leadership varies, not only with the person or group that is being influenced, but also depends

on the task, job or function that needs to be accomplished.

This Situational Leadership was the theoretical model chosen and adapted for Dynargie seminars.

2) Leadership Styles vs. Readiness

Leadership becomes “situational” when a leader is able to identify employees readiness level regarding a

specific task and, therefore, adjust his/her own leadership style to be more effective. Four readiness

levels are defined:

R1: low competence, low motivation; R2: low competence, high motivation; R3: high competence, low

motivation; and R4: high competence, high motivation – to perform a certain task.

There are four leadership styles characterized in terms of amount of direction and support that the leader

gives to relationship and/or the task:

Style 1 (S1): Directive style is when

leaders define the roles and tasks of the

“follower”, and supervise them closely.

This style is adapted for people who lack

competence and motivation to perform a

certain task (readiness level), that is R1.

4

Style 2 (S2): Coaching style is

appropriated for people who have

commitment. Coaching leaders define

roles and tasks, but also explain the

“whys” behind the guidance they

provide. This style is appropriate for

people with high motivation and low

competence regarding a task

(readiness level 2, i.e., R2).

Style 3 (S3): Participative style is

used if people have experience but lack

confidence or motivation. Leaders use

this specific style to involve the

employees in the problem solving

process (readiness level 3, i.e., R3).

Style 4 (S4): Delegation style is for

people who have both competence and

commitment (i.e., R4). At this stage,

people are capable and willing to work

on a project by themselves with little

supervision or support. When a leader

delegates his/her intervention is at two

levels: (1) defining the goals; and (2)

controlling outputs.

5

3) Research Objectives & Data

The research objectives were defined as two: first, to identify the most representative leadership style in

each country with the Leadership Style Analysis questionnaire; secondly, to identify over and under

leadership tendencies in each country.

The data collected and used for this leadership style compared study was based on surveys

administrated at Dynargie seminars, on leaders and their employees distributed in seven countries:

Brazil, Czech Republic, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and Turkey. We collected 1853

questionnaires along the seven referred countries, in a timeline stretching from 1998 to 2010.

4) Methodology

According to the data collected we applied a quantitative methodology based on criteria. The criterion

distinguishes our universe of 1853 surveys and the validated 1650 that represent our work sample. In

fact, valid surveys were the ones that, simultaneously, contained both Self and Others analysis. This

criteria was adopted in order to standardize the sample, due to fact that the missing values would distort

the analysis results. Average and global frequency were the central tendency measure applied to extract

meaning from the data.

5) Results

a. Leadership Style Analysis

Graphic 1 – Leadership Style Analysis

Dy

PT

GR

TUR

ES

CH

BR

CZ

23%

23%

25%

26%

22%

20%

20%

23%

30%

31%

32%

29%

31%

30%

31%

29%

31%

30%

29%

29%

31%

33%

32%

31%

16%

16%

15%

16%

16%

17%

17%

18%

S1 S2 S3 S4

6

Analyzing the global mean of values, S2 (30%) and S3 (31%) are the most representative leadership

styles, which reflects a global tendency to prioritize relationship focus over task focus. These two

leadership styles represent 61% of the leader’s time. From the four styles analyzed, those are the ones

more time consuming for the leader. On the other hand, Delegation is the leadership style that leaders

use less in all countries.

• My Ideas / His-Her Ideas

Dynargie surveys also allow to see how do leaders find a balance between “My Ideas” and “His /Her

Ideas”.

The formula is quite simple: “My Ideas” represents the sum of Style 1 and Style 2, and “His / Her Ideas”,

consequently are the sum of Style 3 and Style 4. Graphic 2 provide data that is easy to analyze: leaders

impose more often their ideas to their employees instead of listening to their ideas. The only exceptions

are: Brazil, Czech Republic and Switzerland, with a rigorous balance between the two approaches.

Graphic 2 – My Ideas / His-her Ideas

Dy

PT

GR

TUR

ES

CH

BR

CZ

54%

54%

56%

55%

54%

50%

51%

51%

46%

46%

44%

45%

46%

50%

49%

49%

My Ideas His / Her Ideas

7

Graphic 4 Global Frequencies (%)

b. Over and Under Leadership

Over leadership happens when a leader uses style where “My Ideas” prevail (S1, S2) in a scenario

where employees have high competences, leaving no space to grow with probable loss of motivation. On

the other hand, Under leadership happens when a leader uses styles that give space to “Others Ideas”

in a scenario where employees have low competence. Lack of support feeling is a fact as well as

potential helplessness feeling. Graphic 3 shows the logic of calculation for over and under leadership.

Relative frequency assumes the trend – over or under leadership – if the result is bigger than 50% of the

sample. The tendency measure shows that leaders and employees have different perceptions about

leader’s approach in terms of over vs. under leadership. Taking into account Graphic 4 we found a global

tendency of Over leadership in which Self analysis is confirmed and intensified by Others analysis. This

last fact reveals a dissonance in terms of leadership perception.

i. Global Frequency

Over - Self

Over - Others

Under - Self

Under - Others

37%

57%

8%

13%

Over and Under

R 4

R 3

R 2

R 1

S 1 S 2 S3 S4

Graphic 3 – Over and Under Leadership

8

Analyzing Under Leadership, by default, leaders score themselves lower than employees (8% vs. 13%);

Over Leadership, by default, shows that leaders score themselves lower, as well (37% vs. 57%).

Over leadership is an ordinary phenomenon on our sample, in global terms, i.e., both in leader and

employee’s perception. The reality of each country shows some interesting case studies in terms of over

and under of leadership.

Over Leadership analysis

Graphic 5 Over Leadership per country

Spain has the highest difference between the perception of the Self (25%) and the Others analysis (65%).

For the Spanish leader, his/her behavior doesn’t show excessive directivity, but compared to his/her

followers the situation is quite different. The same is applicable to the Turkish and Czech scenario,

notwithstanding the fact that both leaders and followers are aware of the smaller gap that exists between

the two perceptions. Concerning Turkey, we find the highest perception of over leadership by employees:

83% of the situations where they feel competent, they are lead with styles where the leader’s ideas

prevail (S1, S2). Portugal and Greece have similar results in terms of gap perception from the Self and

Others.

The following graphic is related with the under leadership by country.

65%73%

83%

65%

27%

46%

63%

43%47%

68%

25%

15%24%

51%

PT GR TUR ES CH BR CZ

Others Self

9

Under Leadership analysis

Graphic 6 – Under Leadership per country

According to the results, no country has under leadership as a dominant approach. Nevertheless, there

are three relevant situations: a) Greece presents values close to zero, both on Self (1%) and Others

analysis (7%), which means a strong presence of leader’s ideas; b) Brazil, which is the country with

higher values, and finally, c) Czech Republic leaders, analyzed by Others, confirm under leadership with

0%, even though leaders perception of under leadership is 16%.

In conclusion, employees from all the studied countries (excluding Switzerland and Brazil) are

claiming for a more thorough readiness analysis conducted by leaders when a specific task is given to

them.

At this stage it is important to make an individual analysis of each country, according to the

objectives proposed at the beginning of this investigation:

- Brazil dominant leadership styles are S2 (31%) and S3 (32%): focus on consensus and

relationship. There’s a relative balance between directive (51%) and participative behavior (49%),

and there is neither under nor over leadership found on the Brazilian results.

- Greece dominant leadership style is S2 (32%), leaders focus on giving directions, objectives and

standards to develop employer’s competencies. Greek leaders use more often their ideas (56%),

the highest percentage of all countries; have the lowest percentage of under leadership, and a

considerable gap between self (47%) and others perception (65%).

10%

1%

10% 11%

14%20%

16%

16%

7%

22%20%

12%

35%

0%

PT GR TUR ES CH BR CZ

Self Others

10

- Portugal dominant leadership style is S2 (31%), close to Greece. Following the Mediterranean

tendency, Portuguese analysed leaders use more “My Ideas” (54%). And there is also, in terms of

over leadership, a considerable gap between Self (43%) and Others perception (65%).

- Spain main styles are S2 (31%) and S3 (31%). Spanish leaders use more often “My Ideas”

(54%). In terms of over leadership, Spain results present the highest dissonance between self

analysis (25%) and others analysis (65%).

- Leaders from Switzerland use more often S3 (33%), which means a leadership profile focused on

supporting and listening to people’s ideas and suggestions, sharing responsibility. The results

show an absolute balance between My Ideas (50%) and His / Her Ideas (50%). Swiss leaders

have neither over nor under leadership.

- Turkey main styles are S2 (29%) and S3 (29%). However, S1 has also a significant value (26%) –

the highest of all countries. It means there is a tendency of leadership consensus and

relationship, but also a rigorous setting of objectives, priorities and plans. Turkish leaders are

often directive, using more My Ideas (55%). Turkish leaders have an unequivocal tendency for

over leadership, which is confirmed by self analysis (68%) and other analysis (83%) who both

confirm this approach.

- Finally, Czech Republic dominant style is S3 (31%), as well as the Swiss reality. Basically,

leaders often share responsibility. Also similar to Brazil is the fact that there’s a relative balance

between directive (51%) and participative leadership style (49%). Czech leaders also have a

tendency for over leadership. As the general country trend, there’s a gap between self analysis

(51%) and other analysis (63%).

11

Final statements

Finalizing this Executive Summary, it is important to sum up the main trends of the three dimensions

analyzed:

- Leadership Styles

The results presented a double trend: Coaching (S2) and Participative (S3) are the most recurring styles,

as they represent 61% of time consumed by leaders; the mean varies by country between 29% and 32%

for both styles.

- My Ideas vs. Others Ideas

My Ideas overcome Others Ideas. Leaders tend to privilege more often their own ideas, contrasting with

their followers insights.

- Over & Under Leadership

Over leadership is a common pattern taking into account the countries studied, excepting Brazil, Czech

Republic and Switzerland. Employees analysis show that they are more sensitive to situations of both

“over” and “under” leadership, rating these two extreme leadership approaches higher than their leaders

(who rate their leading performance lower regarding these two criteria).

Contact us

Website www.dynargie.com LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/dynargie

E-mail: dynargie@dynargie.com

DYNARGIE – Human Side of Business