As we’ve described in different places throughout the text, managers are increasingly leading by not leading—that is, by empowering their employees. Empowerment involves increasing the decision-making discretion of workers. Millions of individual employees and employee teams are making the key operating decisions that directly affect their work. They’re developing budgets, scheduling workloads, controlling inventories, solving quality problems, and engaging in similar activities that until very recently were viewed exclusively as part of the manager’s job.57 For instance, at The Container Store, any employee who gets a customer request has permission to take care of it. The company’s chairman emeritus Garret Boone says, “Everybody we hire, we hire as a leader. Anybody in our store can take an action that you might think of typically being a manager’s action.”58

One reason more companies are empowering employees is the need for quick decisions by those people who are most knowledgeable about the issues—often those at lower organizational levels. If organizations want to successfully compete in a dynamic global economy, employees have to be able to make decisions and implement changes quickly. Another reason is that organizational downsizings left many managers with larger spans of control. In order to cope with the increased work demands, managers had to empower their people. Although empowerment is not a universal answer, it can be beneficial when employees have the knowledge, skills, and experience to do their jobs competently.

Technology also has contributed to the increases in employee empowerment. Managers face unique challenges, especially in leading empowered employees who aren’t physically present in the workplace as the Managing Technology in Today’s Workplace discusses.

One general conclusion that surfaces from leadership research is that effective leaders do not use a single style. They adjust their style to the situation. Although not mentioned explicitly, national culture is certainly an important situational variable in determining which leadership style will be most effective. What works in China isn’t likely to be effective in France or Canada. For instance, one study of Asian leadership styles revealed that Asian managers preferred leaders who were competent decision makers, effective communicators, and supportive of employees.60 Another study of leadership in sub-Saharan Africa found that charismatic leaders can help overcome cultural problems of corruption, poverty, tribalism, and violence.61

National culture affects leadership style because it influences how followers will respond. Leaders can’t (and shouldn’t) just choose their styles randomly. They’re constrained by the cultural conditions their followers have come to expect. Exhibit 13–6 provides some findings from selected examples of cross-cultural leadership studies. Because most leadership theories were developed in the United States, they have an American bias. They emphasize follower responsibilities rather than rights; assume self-gratification rather than commitment to duty or altruistic motivation; assume centrality of work and democratic value orientation; and stress rationality rather than spirituality, religion, or superstition.62 However, the GLOBE research program, which we first introduced in Chapter 2, is the most extensive and comprehensive cross-cultural study of leadership ever undertaken. The GLOBE study has found that there are some universal aspects to leadership. Specifically, a number of elements of transformational leadership appear to be associated with effective leadership regardless of what country the leader is in.63 These elements include vision, foresight, providing encouragement, trustworthiness, dynamism, positiveness, and proactiveness. The results led two members of the GLOBE team to conclude that “effective business leaders in any country are expected by their subordinates to provide a powerful and proactive vision to guide the company into the future, strong motivational skills to stimulate all employees to fulfill the vision, and excellent planning skills to assist in implementing the vision.”64 Some people suggest that the universal appeal of these transformational leader characteristics is due to the pressures toward common technologies and management practices, as a result of global competitiveness and multinational influences.

We introduced emotional intelligence (EI) in our discussion of emotions in Chapter 11. We revisit the topic here because of recent studies indicating that EI—more than IQ, expertise, or any other single factor—is the best predictor of who will emerge as a leader.65

As we said in our earlier discussion of trait research, leaders need basic intelligence and job-relevant knowledge. But IQ and technical skills are “threshold capabilities.” They’re necessary but not sufficient requirements for leadership. It’s the possession of the five components of emotional intelligence—self-awareness, self-management, self-motivation, empathy, and social skills—that allows an individual to become a star performer. Without EI, a person can have outstanding training, a highly analytical mind, a long-term vision, and an endless supply of terrific ideas but still not make a great leader, especially as individuals move up in an organization. The evidence indicates that the higher the rank of a person considered to be a star performer, the more that EI capabilities surface as the reason for his or her effectiveness. Specifically, when star performers were compared with average ones in senior management positions, nearly 90 percent of the difference in their effectiveness was attributable to EI factors rather than basic intelligence.

EI has been shown to be positively related to job performance at all levels. But it appears to be especially relevant in jobs that demand a high degree of social interaction. And of course, that’s what leadership is all about. Great leaders demonstrate their EI by exhibiting all five of its key components: self-awareness, self-management, self-motivation, empathy, and social skills (see pp. 350–351).

Although there has been some controversy about the role of EI in leadership,66 most research makes a case for concluding that EI is an essential element in leadership effectiveness.67 As such, it could be added to the list of traits associated with leadership that we described earlier in the chapter.

Building, maintaining, and even repairing healthy working relationships on a team or in an organization are important skills for leaders. When it’s done right, leaders are more effective. Feedback is better received, delegating is more straightforward, and coaching is more useful. But when it goes wrong, watch out! Destructive, toxic boss-employee relationships can lead to serious repercussions.68 Increased absenteeism, higher turnover, an increase in ethical lapses, and drops in productivity can all be signs that a leader is abusive, ineffective, and toxic. And that’s only the work-related problems. Rude, unpleasant, manipulative, demeaning, disrespectful, and unrelentingly demanding bosses also can lead to employee personal problems—stress, anxiety, and physical ailments. So, how can leaders not be toxic and instead build a culture of good working relationships with their team? It all boils down to being emotionally intelligent, setting appropriate boundaries, and making expectations clear from the start. Like any relationship, there are likely to be misunderstandings, but in the end, having strong, effective working relationships benefits individuals, teams, and the organization.