An MBTI practitioner would never presume to guess the ‘type’ of one of our most senior defence personnel (ESTJ), and his particular type is not important here. What is important is that the Vice-Admiral clearly understands his inherent type. He also understands three of the very important aspects of type theory:
1. While we all have preferences, we can act ‘out of type’ when required (if we have developed the skills)
2. Under stress, we revert to ‘type’
3. While we can all work outside our ‘type’ we do so with less skill and we fatigue quickly
HBDI is a system that helps people understand the way they think. Like personality preferences, we all have thinking preferences. HBDI describes four quadrants of thinking: analytical; sequential; interpersonal; and imaginative.
We can all think across the four quadrants, but not with the same level of sophistication and skill. Most of us have strengths in two quadrants. A smaller number of us have strengths in one or three. While very few people can claim strengths across all four.
This obviously has massive implications for the way we engage with others. Understanding our own preferences is only the beginning. The ability to read the signs in others and adapt our communication style to suit their preferences is where the real potential of type theory lies.
HBDI, like MBTI, has a special interest in how we operate under stress. The Vice-Admiral has indicated that when under stress he leads in a command and control style – which probably means that under stress he is strong in analytical and sequential quadrants. It also suggests that when under stress he loses some of his ability to think within the interpersonal quadrant.
4. Adopting a flexible style
The final lesson we can take from the Vice-Admiral’s speech has to do with leadership style.
It’s true that everything discussed in this piece so far – power, EI and type – contribute significantly to one’s ‘leadership style’, however Griggs spoke specifically about flexing between styles.
Again, he gives us a clear message about the difference in himself as a mature leader and the young man who first boarded a ship all those years ago.
“Thirty years ago I had no idea about different styles of leadership. I knew one style and thought that was the only way.”
He identified the ability to read a situation, understand the people involved, identify what was needed and then pick the most appropriate style. In short, the Vice-Admiral learned to ‘flex’.
Undoubtedly there are times when the Vice-Admiral’s assessment of a situation requires him to use a style that isn’t completely natural to him. He doesn’t see this as a conflict. Nor does he see it as inauthentic. He sees it as effective and has a mantra:
“Wear the mask and be yourself.”
Here the Vice Admiral is talking about situational leadership. It’s a theory that was developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard. Essentially these authors gave labels and structure to a concept that is intuitive for people who have mastered the three concepts that have been so far been discussed in this piece – power, EI and type.
At the heart of situational leadership is the understanding that one style is not appropriate for all situations. Smart and mature leaders change their style based on the maturity of the people they are leading and the complexity of the tasks involved.
The theory describes four maturity levels, four leadership styles and overlays a decision process for matching them.
The more capable the individual or group is in relation to a task, the less detail or instruction is required from their leader. And vice versa.
Instructions to an underdeveloped colleague that are too vague or lack detail will result in confusion and little or no quality output. It may affect working relationships and professional confidence.
Too many detailed instructions to a competent colleague may result in the work being done but damage the relationship because there is a perceived lack of trust or respect. Plus the opportunity will be missed for that competent colleague to bring her own knowledge or flair to the task.
Providing the right level of support for the skills and confidence of those being led will strengthen the relationship, give them confidence and help develop their skills.
Bridge the gap between theory and experience
So there we have some powerful lessons in leadership from one of Australia’s most powerful leaders.
The Chief of Navy is a leader who admits he didn’t always know it all and he doesn’t always get it right. He’s evolved as person and a leader throughout his career. He remembers the milestones and understands the awakenings.
He values concepts and theories while not losing sight of the fact that he operates in the real world, with real issues, concerning real people.
So Vice-Admiral, how do we bridge the gab between theory and intelligent application?
“Get out there and do it.”
What do you think about the balance between theory and practice? Can leaders reach their potential through experience alone – or does a little bit of theory go a long way?
David Frizzell is a management consultant whose primary interest lies in organisational health. He is on Twitter at @TeamsGuru.
