Marco Bensen - Soft Management for Decisive Results

The central principle of Theory Y is that employees are perceived positively. This management philosophy assumes that employees are quite ambitious, identify themselves with the objectives of the organization, and thus develop an inner motivation that makes external control superfluous. The transfer of responsibility and trust are natural, and employees act proactively.

Theory Y embodies soft leadership, Theory X hard. These theories are quite black and white and mutually exclusive (Theory Z was later developed as a compromise solution to this; however, it has not really established itself). We can use this to represent management philosophies or leadership styles and, above all, their potentials and dangers.

“Leaders are responsible for creating an environment in which people feel at their best.” Simon Sinek

Both theories cause a self-fulfilling prophecy of which managers are unfortunately far too little aware. Managers who apply Theory X, i.e. who give employees little or no freedom and no trust, provoke passive work behaviour and a lack of commitment. This then leads to employees only doing their job by the book and not taking any initiatives or responsibility. This in turn leads to the manager seeing his assumptions about the employees’ work behaviour confirmed. This manager, of course, does not see that his own lack of leadership is the trigger for this situation, and thus there is no other way out than to continue to lead in an authoritarian manner in order to keep things from falling apart.

This self-fulfilling prophecy also applies to Theory Y, only then in reverse and in a positive sense. Trusting and supportive leadership promotes independence, responsibility and performance.

Surely, we do not need to discuss at length which of the leadership philosophies X or Y fits better in our time of modern leadership.

Effective leaders have the ability to constantly move themselves and others into action because they understand the invisible forces that shape us. It is about motivation, development, persuasion, and setting achievable goals. This is sustainable and it has to do with courageous leadership. Effective leaders have the ability to get the job done cost-effectively.

Commonly used terms in management and leadership are efficiency and effectiveness. Very often I have noticed that these terms are unquestioningly mixed together and used indiscriminately, even though they are substantially different.

Efficiency is about getting more done with less effort and is often about cost. Efficiency focuses on short-term results and is not concerned with quality, sustainability, or motivation.

Effectiveness, on the other hand, not only focuses on achieving goals but also on the right way to achieve that goal. Effectiveness is a longer-term approach and thus focuses on sustainable results. If one wants to move an organization forward, it will not be enough to proceed efficiently. One must then make effective decisions and take effective actions.

“Efficiency means doing things right; effectiveness means doing the right things.” Peter Drucker

The quote above was also used by Stephen Covey, only he replaced efficiency with management and effectiveness with leadership. When two of the greatest management and leadership experts of our time combine these terms, then most probably there is something to it.

Both effectiveness and efficiency are necessary in work processes and there are many implementation strategies in which efficiency is required. In leadership, however, effectiveness is more in demand than efficiency.

For example, imagine a full restaurant with 100 seats, with only one person in the kitchen and one person serving. This staff scheduling is definitely very efficient but also clearly not effective. Not only will you have all your guests running away due to lack of quality and long waiting times, but you will also lose your staff because they simply won’t go along with it. Efficiency is a tool for managers; effectiveness is a tool for leaders.

It’s about the effectiveness of leadership styles based on commitment and trust in middle management. Of course, this requires anything but an authoritarian leadership style.

Key takeaways

Hard management focuses on plans, structures and the task. Soft’ management focuses on the people

It takes a strong leader to implement soft management.

Theory X is based on authoritarian leadership, Theory Y is based on soft leadership.

Management concerns efficiency, leadership concerns effectiveness.

Believe it or not, they still exist: authoritarian leaders who see themselves as being the top of an organization or team and act accordingly. They are autocrats who only occasionally, for token reasons, tolerate another person’s opinion, and they are often supporters of theory X. The only reason that this type of leader is no longer as clearly perceived as the choleric patriarch was in the past is that today’s authoritarian leader has become cleverer and can package his/her appearance better. Nevertheless, they still exist. Being authoritarian is too often still seen as a virtue in leadership circles. You’ve earned it, you’re ‘important’, and therefore you have the ‘right’ to be more ruthless. Whether these authoritarian leaders are actually smarter, have better ideas, make better suggestions, know more or are ultimately more valuable is irrelevant; they are simply the ‘boss’.

However, we also have to make this claim a little more precise and put it into perspective. An organization needs decisive and dynamic leaders who, because of their role, can sometimes appear dominant. If the leader is too considerate in situations where quick action is required, then damage can be done, and that doesn’t help either. An organization needs leaders who can apply an authoritarian leadership style when the situation demands it, but only then. This applies, for example, to crisis situations and conflicts, when decisive action is primarily required. In such cases, we are clearly talking about a situational authoritative leadership style and not an authoritarian personality.

However, we are not talking about snapshots and situational behaviour here, but about fundamental behaviour. Decision-making and being an active superior also requires a high degree of prudence and responsiveness to employees. If this is not the case, there is a danger of being too authoritarian, with all the corresponding negative side effects.

Authoritarian personalities are often not in control of and are in fact led by their ego. Studies have found that authoritarian behaviour has its origins in the past, usually the childhood of the authoritarian person. Narcissistic feelings of inferiority, powerlessness and individual insignificance have been developed at some point and are then rationalized by the affected person (the authoritarian) as love or loyalty. In the ‘flight into authoritarianism’, the independence and integrity of the self is abandoned.

To some extent, authoritarian personalities are thus also victims of their situation. They need compensation for an emotional or mental deficit and find it by acquiring a position of power. And the best way to do that is through an authoritarian demeanour. An additional problem is that such personalities need this compensation in order to survive. The fear of losing the power position leads to a reinforcement of the authoritarian behaviour. So, it does not get better and such vicious circles can be demotivating for any organization or for a team and thus it is destructive.

However, even if the authoritarian behaviour of a leader is not self-inflicted, this is no justification in a business enterprise to tolerate this destructive behaviour. Authoritarian behaviour only serves the authoritarian leader and not the good of the team.