Over the last five weeks, I have had the opportunity to learn about several theories of leadership. One thing the multiple studies of leadership have proven is that it is not a once size fits all, and a great leader must choose the correct style that gives their team the best opportunity for success. Some of the theories we have studied focus around traits, skills, situations, leadership behaviors, and follower/leader relations. Each of these styles has their pros and cons, but if utilized correctly can be an effective style of leadership. The most efficient method of leadership is determined by the combination of leader characteristics, the situation, and most importantly the follower.
In a 2009 TED talk entitled “Lead like the great conductors” Itay Talgam discussed several prominent orchestra conductors and how their style affected the musicians. I enjoyed how Talgam was able to connect the conductor’s leadership styles to theories studies in our course. In his speech, Talgam (2009) lightheartedly stated that he was tempted to think the performance was all about the conductor. An excellent orchestral performance is not all about the conductor just like a great accomplishment in business is not directly linked to the leader. The musicians/followers play a significant role in the success. Talgam (2013) stated that the conductor and musicians must work together to form a partnership.
The first conductor discussed was Carlos Kleiber. Talgam (2009) showed many different clips of Kleiber. The first clip showed Kleiber happily conducted an upbeat musical piece. The manner in which he was conducting reminded me of a leader who gets joy out of enabling their followers. I would liken this conducting style to the supportive approach of situational leadership. Nothouse (2016) described the supportive approach as a high supportive-low directive style where the leader is not focused directly on goals but utilizes supportive behaviors to draw out the follower’s skill and accomplish the task. Though Kleiber was energetically directing the musicians, it was not in an authoritative manner.
Another clip showed Kleiber making eye contact and hand gestures with an orchestra member who did not play the exact note on three different occasions. Each time the musician altered from the music, Kleiber’s gestures and facial expressions became a bit more telling. Kleiber’s manner of dealing with a mistake was similar to the directive leadership theory of path-goal leadership. Northouse (2016) described directive leadership as giving followers “instructions about their task, including what is expected from them, how it is to be done, and the timeline for when it should be completed” (Northouse, 2016, p. 117). In this clip, Kleiber was a bit more authoritative about how he wanted the music to sound.
The second conductor that Talgam (2009) used as an example was Riccardo Muti. The brief piece conducted by Muti was exquisite, but his style was not nearly as happy and supportive as Kleiber’s. Muti’s facial expression and hand gestures were much more severe and direct. Muti’s conducting was similar to the authority-compliance theory of the behavioral approach to leadership. Northouse (2016) stated that the authority-compliance theory places more emphasis on the task at hand, and the people are simply tools to get the job done. Though Muti conducted beautiful music, the musicians were not particularly fond of his style. He was asked to resign in a letter signed by all 700 musicians in the orchestra. They believed he was using them as an instrument and not trying to form a partnership.
Another conductor shown in the video is Karajan. Karajan has an entirely different demeanor than the two previous conductors. His chosen style is to close his eyes and not have dramatic gestures. Karajan’s conducting style is similar to the delegating approach. Nothouse (2016) described the delegating approach as a low supportive- low directive style where the leader offers less input and support allowing the followers to draw upon their motivation and confidence to reach the goal. Karajan once said that the worst thing he could do to his musicians is demand them when to play. Karajan’s style of leadership develops teamwork. The orchestra must rely on each other as followers to work as a team to play the piece of music.
My favorite conductor was the final example. Talgam (2009) did not mention this conductor’s name, but his style was fantastic. He was standing in front of the orchestra making no movements. He did not make a gesture or order the musicians when and how to play. He was just simply smiling and enjoying the music. He had total confidence that the members of the orchestra would play the music correctly. At that moment he was just a fan of the beautiful piece of music. Northouse (2016) stated that a leader should build trust and respect with each follower when describing the leader-member exchange theory. The final conductor was a perfect example of an individual who trusted his followers.
Talgam (2013) was able to link conductor’s styles to many of the leadership theories we have studied in the first half of this class. I learned that, just like leaders, there is not just one way to conduct an orchestra. Many styles of leadership will work, and a couple could get you relieved of your duties like Muti.
References
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Talgam, I. (2009). Lead like the great conductors. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/itay_talgam_lead_like_the_great_conductors
No comments:
Post a Comment