Chief executive officer competencies, communication, and leadership styles

Leadership

Four major questions have been posed when it comes to business, leadership and the skill sets required to excel in both. The first question centres on the role of Chief Executive Office. The role itself will be defined. There will also be a listing of the competencies and skills that a typical or desirable CEO should demonstrate and have. The second question will centre on what the effective communication skills are. Indeed, it will be defined what skills will be mastered and displayed if a business and its leadership wishes to engage its employees and excel in business overall. Third, there will be an identification and definition of three different leadership styles and how each of those styles is best applied based on the circumstances and what is needed at the time. Finally, there will be a discussion of the role of ethics in business and how ethics could and should affect everyday business decisions. Further, it will be discussed how employees can be directed when it comes to the importance of ethics in their day-to-day tasks.

What is the role of the CEO in an organisation? What competencies and skills should a CEO demonstrate?

Of course, most people are aware that the Chief Executive Officer, often shortened to CEO, is the lead employee and executive in the firm. While Chief Executive Officers are quite often accountable to a board of directors or some other regulatory body, the proverbial "buck" stops with the Chief Executive Officer more often than for any other position. Even the other main executives of the firm such as the Chief Financial Officer, the Chief Operating Officer and the Chief Technology Officer typically report directly to the CEO. If a business fails at a high level, the Chief Executive Officer is typically the person that gets the blame (Goleman, 2000).

With that in mind, there are some core competencies and skills that a good Chief Executive Officer should have. To finish the thought started in the prior paragraph, there is one common answer that will be found when someone asks what the objective of a Chief Executive Officer happens to be - get results. However, saying that and defining how precisely the Chief Executive Officer should go about achieving that are two entirely different things. There is no shortage of people and leaders that are ready, willing and able to voice their opinion about what it takes and what is required for Chief Executive Officers to succeed. However, the pool of them together really fall into one of three compartments, those being strategic, financial and organisational endeavours. The key part to being a good leader for all three of those is to resemble and become the right leadership style based on the situation and circumstances at hand. With that in mind, there are six different leadership styles that many people would point to. A good leader will use all of them at one point or another and they will know why to use what approach and when. Those six styles are coercive, authoritative, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting and coaching. Some of those might not sound like a good idea to use (e.g. coercive, etc.) but there are scenarios where all of these are usable (Goleman, 2000).

A coercive style is one that demands immediate compliance. Basically, the Chief Executive Officer gives an order and immediate compliance with that order is expected immediately. The overall impact of this style is negative and should only be used in situations where it is needed. Guards controlling prisoners would be a good example. An authoritative style is not all that dissimilar to coercive but it takes a different tone. Rather than meaning "do what I say and do it now," it is more like "come with me" and portrays an aura of self-confidence, empathy and a catalyst for change. This sort of approach is called for when changes require a new vision and direction. As such, the overall impact on the climate of a business is mostly and usually positive with an authoritative style. An affiliative style is one based on the creation of harmony and the building of emotional bond. Even if there is work to do and it needs to be done at the end of the day, this is a positive approach across the board because the root message is that "people come first." Words that can be associated with this approach are empathy, building of relationships and communication. There is also the democratic style where opinions are garnered and listed to in a direct and meaningful way. This approach is also positive. The fifth style is also a bit negative in the grand scheme of things but is sometimes necessary. It is not unlike the coercive style in that the basic directive in question is "do as I do ... and do it now." There is a leading by example but the pressure brought to bear from this approach can be abrasive to come. Finally, there is the coaching style. This is the approach that develops people for the future. The phrase that is emblematic of this approach is "try this" and it centres on things like the development of others, empathy and self-awareness (Goleman, 2000).

There is actually a good source of leadership advice out there which is actually a fictional character. Alex Knapp of Forbes noted that there are five leadership lessons that one could learn from none other than James T. Kirk of Star Trek. Of course, those five lessons could absolutely be applied to the calculus and development of Chief Executive Officers. The first lesson would be to never stop learning. There should never be a point where someone thinks or feels that they have learned everything that they need to know because there is no chance of that ever being true. Second, it is important to have advisors and confidants that have different world views. Having a bunch of "yes men" (or women) that are completely simpatico with what a leader feel might be easier in terms of interacting with them and debating them. However, this does not make for the best decisions because it is basically a setup for group think and that is not good. The third skill that Kirk had which CEO's should use is to be part of the "away team." In short, this means not protecting and shielding one's self in an ivory tower and actually getting out there with the workers and in the field to see what is really going on. The Forbes article uses the example of a general manager of a defunct pizza chain actually spending time making pizzas everyday rather than just having someone else do it, which was certainly within his rights to do. This sort of behaviour builds and keeps a connection with the workers as they typically realise that the leader in question does not feel it is "beneath" him or her to work in the proverbial trenches and go through the same toils and travails as the workers. The third lesson that CEO's should take from Kirk is to play poker and not chess. Life is all about probabilities and that is really what poker is as compared to chess. With chess, one player may not know what the other is going to do next (at least for certain) but the proverbial playing field and the pieces are all seen. This is not remotely the case in poker and wins can be established even without the winning cards. Finally, there is the metaphor of blowing up the Enterprise. This basically means that reinventing the wheel and taking a new path is not always the easiest thing to do but it is sometimes required if the existing business model is not working. For example, the author of this report would point to the CEO of Blockbuster Video should have realised that the days of renting DVD's and Blu-Ray's was numbered but they did not act fast enough and now Blockbuster, at least in terms of brick and mortar stores, is no more (Knapp, 2012). Such happenstances have occurred with CEO's like Steve Jobs of Apple Corporation acclaim and most people would never dare question his acumen (Isaacson, 2012).

Even with all of the above being said, the aforementioned "get results" competency is a bit broad and vague. As such, there should be a drilling down of what that really means and how it commonly manifests. The skills of a good Chief Executive Officer include a strong ability to delegate authority, a high amount of attention to detail, presenting a presence that is assertive and profession, the ability to get buy-in and allegiance from subordinates at all levels and a modicum of loyalty to employees and managers alike. Employees and managers have to know, per the pizza chain example above, that the CEO is not some disengaged party that views their employee as cattle or some other sort of commodity that can be moved around or replaced. The good CEO has to be detached and able to lead dispassionately when needed but they also have to know when to be visible and how to properly engage the people. Using the leadership styles mentioned above, one can associate those styles with tangible and real-world examples. If a company is proceeding towards its goal but the company is falling behind, the CEO has to step in and get the pace back up to where it should be through motivation and making sure that the subordinate managers motivate and engage their employees in an effective but not intimidating way. When it comes to things like compliance, a more authoritative style will often be called for because not meeting compliance standards is obviously a non-option. With that in mind, the CEO needs to make sure that the employees and the managers know what they are supposed to do, how they are supposed to do it and the employees need to know that they will have the support from management if there is any pushback from within the company or outside of it from consumers and so forth. In other situations, a fairly novice manager or executive may be flustered by something and they might be struggling. This is where a coaching style could come in very handy. Rather than give the "you're in trouble" spiel or ruling by fear, the CEO can step in and offer some sage advice of how to better proceed and learn from the event rather than allowing it to snowball into something worse. While the CEO himself or herself would not be doing this with front-line employees most of the time, the style can be extended and manifested in the form of lower managers given the example and standard set by the executive. Indeed, this is something that can be taken and learned from all of the leadership styles. To be sure, leading by example via things like best practices, poise and presence is a great thing if done properly (Gauss & Fairley, 2009).

What are effective communication skills? If an organisation wishes to win the commitment of all its employees to its activities how should it go about this?

Before getting into the commitment aspect of this question, one should really boil down the different types of communication. Indeed, those forms of communication are verbal, non-verbal and written. Written is pretty self-explanatory but there are some nuances. The basics, of course, is being able to completely yet concisely offer and explain an idea based on the attention span that is allowed for and what needs to be communicated. However, the "nuance" just mentioned is important as well. Indeed, a report for a class can be extremely well-written in terms of the words and ideas but it can still look extremely sloppy and unkempt when it comes to the presentation. For example, if APA or MLA style is required and neither is followed, that would be one thing. If there is just one long paragraph, that would be another thing. If there is no distinct introduction, body and conclusion, that would be another. In other words, the overall content matters but presentation and appearance matters as well.

When it comes to the other forms of communication, the same general principle applies and this is indeed by verbal and non-verbal communication deserve separate mentioned. While the words and substance of a message (verbal) are important, the way in which those words are presented and formulated matters greatly as well. For example, if a CEO delivers a speech in front of a crowd, the entire message can be wasted if the CEO is dressed in a sloppy way, is not looking at the audience he/she is speaking to and/or the posture of the CEO does not properly match the importance of the message and the authority that the person or message is meant to convey. Even when the obvious things are in place, things like tone, volume, the complexity of the words and how the information is positioned from a positivity or negativity standpoint matters a lot.

As for commitment, the message has to be able to show commitment, gain commitment and otherwise come off as genuine and realistic. If people feel that they are being lied to, that they are being thrown under the bus from a proverbial standpoint or otherwise being marginalized, their reaction will not be a good one. Instead, a CEO or whomever is doing the communicating needs to come off as honest, complete in terms of the message's details and what is expected or required of everyone involved, including the speaker. Gaining and keeping commitment is all about the showing and rewarding of loyalty. If a firm's employees are not loyal to the firm or the people that lead it, the results garnered from those employees will tend to be uneven. Thus, it is important to be as honest and forthright as possible so that the employees have a reason to buy in to the message, as covered before, and commit themselves to the company and its efforts (Lencioni, 2015).

Identify & define 3 leadership styles and give examples of when they are best applied? e.g. What sort of style is appropriate for the armed forces? Consider different types of organisations and the leadership style that is most appropriate for them.

The direct and answer specific to this question would be autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire. The definitions of each one are pretty basic. An autocratic leadership style can be related to an autocracy. This refers to someone that has absolutely power and a workplace (or other) situation where orders are not question ... just followed. The leader in such a situation may, at their whim, listen to the advice, counsel and feedback of others. However, they will tend not to and they will also tend to not offer any sort of apology for not listening to others. Basically, the leader of an autocracy is basically a dictator. Believe it or not, there are situations in regular real-world situations that require this sort of immediate compliance and loyalty. Prisons and the military come to mind. There are exceptions to the absolute power rendered in these situations but they are not many in number. For example, inmates in a prison are expected to do what they are told, when they are told to do it and the first time it is uttered to them. The response to not following those order is often swift and unforgiving. To a slightly lesser degree, the military is much the same way (Mind Tools, 2016).

A democratic leadership style still has its own structure and rules. However, they are much more relaxed and gentle in nature. There are still leaders and rules are expected to be followed. However, the leaders of a democratic group are much more willing to listen to the advice and opinions of others and then implement solutions and outcomes based on that feedback. There is still a chain of command but the subordinates in a democratic system are much more in control of and much more involved with their fates when it comes to a democratic system. For example, if a process is broken in a democratic system, the people will tend to pool together, figure out is wrong and jointly come up with a revised procedure that addresses the concerns that were raised. If that same situation happened in an autocratic system, the leader would just give orders as to what to do differently (assuming that happens at all) and the leader would expect to be listened to with no exception (Mind Tools, 2016).

Last up is the laissez-faire leadership style. It should be noticed that the democratic style is much less restrictive and "top-down" than the autocratic style. The laissez-faire is even more so. Indeed, a "leader" in a laissez-faire style of organization does not do a lot of leading. There very well may be things that are sought after and completed but the way in which these come about is really up to the people actually doing the tasks because the leadership generally is "hands off" and disengaged when it comes to how those things get done. Such a system can be self-contained within an organization or it can actually also be endemic to entire industry or market. Indeed, if a state or local government is content to not regulate a certain market activity, that is essentially a laissez-faire system. This would be the opposite of industries like banking or lending where the rules are complex and enforced very strongly. To use yet another example, a very strict parent could be likened to an autocratic leadership style. A very lax and forgiving parent that sort of lets the child do what they would be laissez-faire. Other parents still would fall somewhere in the middle where the child can very much determine his own fate through negotiation with the parent but with certain restrictions and guidelines. For example, the child has to go to and graduate from school but they can choose whether to play the flute or take up soccer (Mind Tools, 2016).

There are plenty of other perspectives to hear about and lessons to learn when it comes to leadership styles. Indeed, there was the work of another author beyond who was mentioned above by the name of Belbin. Belbin had his own list of leadership styles. However, they are presented a little different and thus deserve their own mention. Belbin came up with a total of nine roles in a team. Not all of them pertain to leaders but some of them absolutely do. The roles that lend themselves to leadership styles include shapers, coordinators and plants. Shapers are those that are challenging, dynamic and that thrive on pressure. They have the drive and courage to overcome obstacles that are placed before them. The weaknesses of shapers tend to include that they are prone to provocation and the sometimes stomp on other people's feelings. A coordinator, otherwise referred to as a chairman, is someone who is mature, confident and that is a good chairperson. They help clarify goals, promote decision-making and they delegate tasks quite well. Downsides to this type include that they can be seen as manipulative and they may be seen as offloading their own work on others. A plant is someone that is creative, imaginative and unorthodox. This is the type of person that can solve difficult problems. Downsides to leaders of this arc include that they sometimes ignore incidental issues and there are often too pre-occupied to communicate effectively. Beyond the above and what was mentioned in the first question, it really has to be said that leaders do not always take on the conventional and normal forms. For example, someone who is a specialist or subject matter expert (SME) is someone else who is mentioned on the Belbin handout and someone who is an expert can absolutely be a leader and an asset to getting things done all at the same time even if there is no official title or authority behind that person. Indeed, specialists are single-minded and self-starting. They also tend to be very dedicated. They provide knowledge and skills that are in short supply so they are absolutely rather rate to come across. However, these people are not good leaders in that they contribute only in narrow ways and situations and they dwell on technicalities. For these reasons, their style is not best for leadership in more than one way but they can still be useful when the situation calls for it (Belbin, 2016). A good leader will make up a team that has the right mix of people and styles and people in that group will tend to lead in both official and unofficial ways depending on their role and function (Pentland, 2012). Gathering the right team means finding the right mix of talent and innovation that will make the group jell and work well together overall (Baumgartner, 2016; Beck, 2002).

The assignment asks the author to consider what leadership styles would lend themselves to certain situations. One situation in particular is that of a military leader or situation. Indeed, the author of this report mentioned a prison guard/inmate situation and how coercion would be the best way to handle that. Similarly, pacesetting or coercion would certainly be the best styles for military situations because compliance is not really optional in those situations. Police and fire fighters would face much the same thing. There should be no mission to be punitive or hurt feelings. However, those jobs have to be done a certain way, the right way and every single time. Doing otherwise can quite easily lead to someone getting hurt or killed unnecessarily. Those that are unable or unwilling to take orders that are not optional should probably avoid those jobs and those leaders that are worried about hurting feelings or being "mean" when the situation requires it should probably pick a different career. On the other hand, teachers and people that take care of children would be more prone to be affiliative or coaching as that is the entire point of having those situations. Demanding compliance through harsh orders is not going to go well with a three-year-old to put it lightly, for example. As for the democratic style, there are many leadership situations where getting people's feedback is important to get a full, correct and comprehensive solution. Further, the people that are asked for their opinions will feel more empowered and involved in the process. When decisions are made in absence of that feedback and/or seemingly in absence of a first-hand knowledge of the situation, this can cause discontent and other issues with the workers. As such, involving them in the dialogue is the better way to go. Something not mentioned earlier is that while mastering all six of the leadership styles mentioned by Goleman is not always possible, the four styles that should be a priority are the authoritative, democratic, affiliative and coaching styles. It has been noticed more than once that people that are able to shift back and forth as needed between those four styles and that do this well tend to do the best overall (Goleman, 2000). Indeed, there will be situations where an autocratic-style leadership method will be required and feedback really will not change what needs to be done or why. However, there are other situations where a more collaborative process is a good to great idea and thus should be the norm (Mind Tools, 2016).

Discuss the role of ethics play in business. How can employees be directed in the importance of ethics in their day-to-day work.

Before going any further, one has to define ethics. The author of this report kept this basic and went straight to Merriam-Webster and found a few explanations that are all quite illuminating. The first definition offered is "the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation" (Merriam-Webster, 2016). This obviously refers to ethics as a practice and field of study, whether it be business ethics or medical ethics. The second definition section on Merriam-Webster is a set of several sound bites that basically make the point. They include a set or moral principles, a theory or system of moral values, the principles of conduct governing an individual or group, a guiding philosophy and a consciousness of moral importance (Merriam-Webster, 2016). When it comes to ethics and its role in business, the linkage between the two cannot be broken and no one should try to do so. The problem for many is defining what is ethical and what is not. In a new era that has become defined by corporate social responsibility and other buzzword times, it can sometimes be difficult to define what is ethical. Of course, the root mission of any business is to make a profit. However, the word "profit" has become a dirty word to many people and some assert that there is a point where "enough is enough" when it comes to how much money one can make. However, there is not really a need to delve into that when it comes to front-line employees as the overall debate and definition of ethics for a given firm should be done by the upper-level managers and then portrayed and explained to the workers of that firm. Those workers that take issue with the ethical lens that a company uses can find employment elsewhere, as is their right (Karnani, 2016).

However, there are some guiding directives and best practices that many to most sources point to and it would be wise for businesses to stay in those proverbial lanes. Indeed, there are many that say that staying in those proverbial lanes are necessary to preserve or even boost one's bottom line on financial statements. While there are efforts and initiatives that have happened before, there has been a wide consensus that the way this is currently being done needs to change. This is based on the assertion that effective management of business ethics requires an organisation-wide strategy that is "in tune with wider societal values and the public's new expectations of business" (Chartered Accountants, 2016).

The reasons for this change being necessary are numerous. There are also several factors involved when it comes to what is necessary and why. For example, the size of a business has a lot to do with what is necessary from an ethical standpoint. Globalization of all of these businesses has made it a fact that societies are now interdependent and equally accountable for what is and is not allowed to occur in the current business climate. There are 80,000 transnational enterprises and ten times that when it comes to subsidiaries and smaller to medium size businesses. All of those businesses bouncing off of and working with each other requires some sort of unified standard about how business should be done and why. There has been a major paradigm shift in the form of the internet becoming the new "public square" when it comes to how businesses are held accountable for their actions or inactions. As stated by Chartered Accountants, "there is a new global antenna tuned to the perceived negative impacts of business on nation states." What this basically means is that the massive spread of internet technology has led to a grass roots movement of consumers, employees and activists. For example, Qantas Airlines had a little blip when its planes had to be temporarily grounded due to safety concerns. About that same time, they issued a Twitter blast that asked people what their dream luxury in-flight experience would happen to be. They received a barrage of sixteen thousand tweets in response that range from sarcastic to critical and it ended up being a public relations disaster for the airline as there was some clear derision and dissatisfaction with the airline at that time. Clearly, Qantas needed to make sure that their employees were doing the right and ethical thing when it comes to serving clients and the planes themselves as the planes being in disrepair could absolutely lead to a plane crash or at least a scare (Chartered Accountants, 2016).

Another factor and circumstance that plays a role was the recent global financial crisis. Indeed, it was the worst financial state of the world for the better part of a century. This happenstance led to a very critical eye being extended towards how much executives are paid in general, how much they are paid in relation to the lower-level staff and overall business practices that some would term as "amoral" and otherwise ethically dubious. What emerged from the global financial crisis in a digital world was a clarion call for a better commitment from all businesses towards institutional integrity and better ethical practices overall. Indeed, such standards and practices start at the top and work their way down. If the executives at the top are doing wrong and/or they are saying one thing to the employees and doing something else, the overall ethical climate of the business will surely be poor (Chartered Accountants, 2016).

While that may seem easy enough, throwing the factor of culture into the mix makes things even more complicated. As noted before, businesses are increasingly global and this means that cultures and societies are interacting and reacting to each other much more than was possible just ten to twenty years ago. However, culture also refers to the culture within a firm. One had better believe that executives are fully aware of the implications of their actions. A survey was done by Ernst and Young in 2010 and it was found that three fourths of all executives were quite worried about personal liability for ethical lapses in their companies. This is not a fear that is beyond the pale given the passage and enforcement of laws like the United Kingdom Bribery Act of 2010. In a rather sharp extension of agent law, that law from the UK made it a crime for the executives if it was found that agents of the executive and the company were engaging in bribery on their behalf. Even with the increased focus on catching people engaging in improper business behaviours, there are many nations that are doing quite well. Australia, for example, is doing quite well. Conversely, many countries in Asia including India, Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam are quite bad when it comes to business ethics. Australia is obviously doing a good job in terms of their people on the right ethical plane whereas the people in India, Thailand et al. are not doing that nearly as well. The government and managers of those countries need to start and enforce a new standard or those scores will not change (Chartered Accountants, 2016).