WRT333
Leadership Styles for Group Writing
Meetings
Markel (2004) notes that scientific and technical writing tends to be a group effort, and that collaboration creates both advantages and disadvantages. Advantages include the ability to draw on greater expertise and skills and a wider knowledge base. The group that writes together has a better chance of understanding each other's jobs, creating group cohesion and camaraderie. A group also provides a better understanding of how an audience might read the document, as each member also serves as a reader of each other member's writing.
Disadvantages of group writing include the additional time and energy that it takes to share ideas. Competing or conflicting ideas may be watered down or eliminated, leading to a dull groupthink or a disjointed document. Group members may be marginalized, becoming resentful or unmotivated, reducing group cohesion and producing lasting ill-will.
Having some idea of how to deal with colleagues and coauthors can help a group project succeed, as can knowing how to organize and run meetings. Markel (2004) focuses on structural elements of group meetings, emphasizing an agenda:
- Define group tasks, in terms of deliverables that the group will produce (what, how long, by when?).
- Choose a leader, who will represent the group to superiors, set and run meetings, and handle communication (or delegate it to a secretary from within the group).
- Define tasks, dividing labor.
- Set up procedures for meeting, conducting meetings, communicating within the group.
- Clarify mechanisms for resolving conflicts (who decides?).
- Create common styles (we all write in third person, active voice, using formal language, etc.)
- Set a work schedule (milestones for submitting a proposal, beginning research, drafting results, writing final drafts of manuscripts, etc.).
- Establish materials for evaluations (how will each other's work be judged?).
Working together on any writing group requires basic civility. Markel (2004) reminds us of what should be obvious in setting guidelines for meetings: Arrive on time, stick to an agenda, write down important decisions, summarize accomplishments and make sure everyone understands assignments. Similarly, Markel outlines the basics of playing nice (communicating diplomatically): Listen carefully, let the speaker finish, give everyone a chance, don't be insulting, don't overstate your own position, don't grow an emotional attachment to your own ideas, ask pertinent questions, and pay attention to nonverbal communication.
Leadership Styles
Being an effective organizer and behaving diplomatically when working with others on a common project are essential, and I hope that such basics are not new to college students. But there is another side of working in groups that is more subtle, and I rarely hear it addressed: leadership style. The following, based on material presented at a leadership training conference I attended in 1992 (Center for Creative Leadership, 1988), outlines the issue.
What Leader's Should Do: Leaders are responsible for identifying problems and producing solutions that can be promptly implemented without damaging subordinate morale. The leader is always responsible of the decision and resulting outcomes.
Complying with a Decision Versus Accepting it: Compliance means that subordinates will not openly refuse to implement decisions of the leader. Compliance is adequate when implementing the decision involves routine tasks, no extra effort, no initiative or creativity, and when the performance of the task can be closely monitored. Examples of tasks for which compliance is sufficient include using a different version of a simple reporting form or adjusting work schedules in minor ways (punching in an hour earlier, etc.).
Acceptance of a leader's decision means a whole-hearted commitment which produces enthusiastic, creative, self-directed, vigorous implementation by the subordinate. Acceptance is more likely when
- the leader is seen as both the expert and as someone who cares about the subordinates
- the decision offers the subordinate a chance to get or accomplish something they want
- the subordinates ask the leader to make the decision
- the subordinates have shared in making the decision and feel their information and views have been seriously considered (accepted or not)
Acceptance is an essential and enthusiastic commitment whenever implementation of a decision requires extra effort creativity, or initiative and performance cannot be closely monitored.
Quality of a Decision: The quality of a decision lies in its correctness, regardless of how subordinates react. If a solution to a problem is as effective as other solutions but costs less, then that would be the highest quality solution. If one solution is better at meeting needs than another at the same cost, then that would be the higher quality solution. All of this depends on having accurate information. For an advanced treatment of this, see feasibility study.
Things influencing the quality of a decision could include
- Data on costs, resources needed, quality control specifications, technical specifications, historical information
- Data or opinions from clients or subordinates about market demand and consumer acceptance
- Opinions from subordinates on feasibility, difficulty of implementation, or long-term consequences
- Recommendations on possible courses of action, including suggestions for new methods and alternatives
Opinions or facts about how well subordinates would like one solution versus another would not determine the quality of the decision. It might be relevant to acceptance, but this is a separate issue.
The goal is to decide on the highest possible quality with an appropriate level of acceptance to avoid long-term damage to subordinates' morale, and to accomplish these two objectives as quickly as possible. The best decision balances quality, acceptance, and time based on these considerations:
- Quality reaches its peak when all relevant opinions and information are available to decision makers
- Generally, acceptance increases as one moves from L1 to M (see Table 1).
- Time to decide increases as one moves from L1 to M.
A model for decision making styles is presented in Table 1. Guidelines for choosing among five styles are presented in Table 2. A flowchart for decision making is presented in fig. 1.
Table 1: Decision Styles
We can recognize five styles which the leader might use to decide. They differ only in the amount of participation which the leader allows subordinates, and thus the degree to which they can influence the final decision. Regardless of the style a leader chooses to follow, the leader (you in what follows) never gives up either the authority or the responsibility for the final decision.
| Style | Description |
|---|---|
| L1 | You decide alone. You make the decision without discussing the situation with anyone. You rely entirely on personal knowledge or information available in written documents. |
| L2 | You seek information and then decide alone. You seek additional information from one or more of your subordinates to arrive at a decision. You may or may not describe the problem to them, but you solicit information only, not solutions or suggestions. |
| LF1 | You consult with individuals and then decide alone. Here you share the problem with selected subordinates, individually. You gather additional information from them and seek their advice about possible solutions to the problem. Still, you make the decision. |
| LF2 | You consult with your entire group and then decide alone. Using this style, you meet with your subordinates in a group and discuss the possible alternatives, essentially using them as consultants. You may use their feelings and opinions as additional input, but you retain the final decision power. |
| M | You share the problem with your group, and you all mutually decide what to do. Here you give your subordinates full participation in the decision-making process. You may define the problem for them, provide relevant information, and participate in the discussion as any other member, but you do not use your position as leader to influence them. The group is the decision maker, and you accept not only their decision, but also the responsibility for it. Your description to others will be "We decided to...," not "The group decided to...," or "I decided to...." |
Table 2: Rationale of the Decision-Making Model
The five styles are not equal, and choice of which to use depends on circumstances. Here are rules to guide choice of style:
| Rule | Definition | Styles to Consider | Styles to Avoid |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expertise of the Leader | The leader lacks the knowledge necessary to insure a quality decision. | L2, LF1, LF2, M | L1 |
| Congruence of Organizational Goals | The followers do not share the goals of the organization. | L1, L2, LF1, LF2 | M |
| Problem Definition | The issue to be decided is ill-defined, unstructured, or involves unknown factors | LF2, M | L1, L2, LF1 |
| Acceptance and Commitment | The followers are likely to reject the decision and their commitment is necessary to implement it effectively. | LF1, LF2, M | L1, L2 |
| Conflict Over Solutions / Acceptance and Commitment | Followers are likely to disagree on the appropriate solution, and they are likely to reject the decision, and their commitment is necessary to implement it effectively. | LF2, M | L1, L2, LF1 |
| Many Appropriate Solutions / Acceptance and Commitment | All solutions are equally good so that quality is not an issue, and the followers are likely to reject the decision and their commitment is necewsary to implement it effectively. | M | L1, L2, LF1, LF2 |
| Goal Compatability / Acceptance and Commitment | The leader and followers share the same organizational goals, and the followers are likely to reject the discision, and their commitment is necessary to implement it effectively. | M | L1, L2, LF1, LF2 |
Figure 1: Decision Styles Flow Chart
STATE THE PROBLEM
Exercises
Learn to recognize differences in leadership style. Study leadership wherever you see it. What is the leadership style of Dr. Logan in this classroom? How does it compare and contrast with other professors? Do you recognize a consistent leadership style practiced by your parents? What can you determine about the leadership styles of your housemates or significant other?
As you watch television, try to assign a leadership style to your favorite characters. What is Gibb's (NCIS) style, and how does it compare to styles practiced by Horacio Caine (CSI Miami) or Gideon, Hotchner, or Rossi (Criminal Minds), etc. What is it about Kirk or Picard that makes them effective captains of the starship Enterprise (Star Trek)? What is it about these characters that makes them effective leaders in their television world? Do you think the same attributes would work in the real world? Why (what would make it work) or why not?
If you have followed politics for the past year (you have been following politics, haven't you?), how would you characterize the leadership styles of Presidents Bush and Obama? How do Sarah Palin or the Republican leaders compare in their leadership styles to major congressional leaders (Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi)? What is Governor Carcieri's leadership style?
What leadership style would be most appropriate in an academic setting? In the classroom? In a department? In a college? For the University? For the Board of Governors? What have you seen about governance at URI to tell you about leadership styles and how effective they may or may not be?
References
- Mike Markel. 2004. Technical Communication, 7th edition. Bedford / St. Martin's. 699p.
- Center for Creative Leadership. ©1988. Leadership Decision Styles Survey. Triangle Associates. ~20p.