History has shown that there is not any particular leadership style that a person can choose to adopt for universal success and effectiveness. Leadership is contextual and contingent in its tapestry. Many theories of leadership, including the Paul Hershey and Blanchard model of situational leadership, have elucidated this perspective and context.
So, rather than looking and identifying a template for leadership styles for India, it is better if one explores the specific differences in the Indian context that require modification in the adoption of classical and pure leadership styles. We are aware that the Indian society is a ‘high context culture’. What this entails is that in the exercising of leadership between the leader and those who are being led, the ‘why’ is critical. The ‘what’ of the engagement will happen as per the required standard, based on how well is the ‘why’ of the engagement and conversations.
Hence, the leader in India should be skilled in providing meaning to the context, the challenges in the context and how a particular choice of action is more appropriate for a particular situation. Indians are part of the high context culture and this could be traced to our cultural, spiritual and religious roots that have reinforced the importance of purpose, in our living and social processes. As Robyn Benincasa, motivational speaker and author says sometimes a teammate needs a warm hug, sometimes the team needs a visionary coaching, sometimes you need someone to lead the way. For that reason, great leaders choose their leadership style like a golfer chooses his or her club, with a calculated analysis of the matter at hand, the end goal and the best tool for the job.
Daniel Goleman’s Leadership that gets results (HBR 2000) completed a three year study on 3000 middle-level managers to uncover the specific leadership behaviours and determine their effect on the corporate climate and each leadership style’s effect on the bottomline profitability. Golman uncovered the following leadership styles amongst the managers he studied. The six styles are affiliative, pace setting, democratic, authoritative, coercive, coaching. In the Indian context, all these styles are productive and useful, in relevant contexts. The affiliative leader works to create emotional bonds that bring a feeling of belongingness to the organisation. The coaching leader develops people for the future. The democratic leader builds consensus through participation. The democratic style is most effective when the leader needs the team to have ownership of a decision, plan or goal. However, it is not the best choice in emergency.
