In brief: if the chemistry is not right and emotional intelligence is lacking, all of
the tools and principles described above will not yield positive results. Although
one may perform well professionally in the short term, there will not be long-term
success. Such leaders will most likely be able to keep their businesses afloat, but
they will likely to be swept along by the vortex of innovation and change without
ever arriving at a new destination. To successfully manage change, leaders must be
able to feel and take away their employees’ fears, to inspire them with energy and
confidence – abilities that Malik considers unnecessary or unimportant.
Indeed, in his eyes inspiration and enthusiasm are only for charlatans: “I see two
ways of thinking that illustrate misdirected and harmful views of management
particularly well. In its most general form, the first can be called the ‘pursuit of
happiness,’ and the second is the concept of the ‘great leader’” (Malik 2001, p. 27).
In this context he also criticizes the “‘psychologizing’ of management” and
states that the practical effectiveness of the instruments taken from the field of
therapy is doubtful. For him, it boils down to the dominance of focus on the
pathological, to the deleterious concentration on conflicts, relationship problems
and neuroses. However, the work of Manfred Kets de Vries clearly shows that
Malik’s criticism is not warranted, and that the psychological aspect of leadership is
of central importance in practice, something that has also been impressively
confirmed by the successes of the systemic leadership training offered by the
Academy.
My second fundamental point of criticism is that Malik primarily refers to the
American military as examples of good management. I consider the analogy
dubious at best. Employees are not soldiers drilled for obedience. Armies are,
unlike modern organizations, strictly hierarchical. In times of war soldiers can be
drafted into service if they do not join the army voluntarily. In the business world,
the best talents join organizations of their own free will. These are two main reasons
why Malik’s military model hardly suits today’s younger management.
2.1.3 A Question of Style
Now let us look into the style of leadership, because style is frequently provided as
the answer to the question of what constitutes good leadership. What is the correct
style of leadership? This question is as old as the profession itself, and there have
been innumerable attempts at categorization attempts, the majority of which will
not be dealt with here. There is no single correct style of leadership; instead, just as
a golfer bases their choice of club on the particular situation, good leaders select
individual aspects from various leadership styles to best suit their needs.
In the past, the choice of leadership style chiefly depended on the personal values
and authority of the management and on the level of leadership. Today, additional
factors are relevant for choice of leadership style: economic factors, time limits, the
complexity of tasks, corporate culture and the value orientation of the parties
involved.
48 2 Occupation or Calling: What Makes for Good Leadership?