Leadership is an integral component of the manager/superintendent/supervisor key competencies in any business structure. Yet I hear this overused term frequently cited, especially by those with no leadership knowledge or achievement and I ask myself, what is the answer you are actually looking for?

Mostly, they are seeking a simplistic answer as they have no clue themselves. I am a big believer in leadership. However, despite the confusion and misrepresentation, the term leadership is so overused and misconstrued as so many people subscribe to the trait theories of leadership, that is a totally outdated and disproved concept.

A requirement of leadership is to motivate team members. Ok, so how is this motivation achieved? I believe the process of team building creates a motivating factor through goal-setting and challenging team members to improve performance. The difference between a supervisor, superintendent, and manager is the size of the team they lead. Each level can provide layers of team leadership with a slightly different focus.

Firstly, the team leader has to be visible, the team members have to know who you are. This is no joke, the Executive Director I have dealt with once tried to question me on leadership, my response was “at least they know who I am!” Naturally, this did not go down well, but was the correct answer at the time.

There has to be an element of trust, they might not like you personally, but they need to know you will not screw them over. Whilst reference material tells us leaders need to be less technically oriented, I tend to disagree. Leadership is based on trust and mutual respect, if the leader does not understand the constraints the team faces, they tend to be dismissive of the issues the team faces.

Then comes goal-setting, the leader needs to set achievable goals in conjunction with team members, they need input so there is consultation and buy-in, there is no point setting goals where team members have no control. Yes, the manager needs to provide role model behaviour, in government organisations, this is typically lacking.

I am a proponent of the path-goal leadership theory, technically, this is a difficult model when used in its entirety. So, I tend to mix leadership models a bit. What I like about path-goal theory is the objective to remove obstacles for team members. This allows them to reach their potential, this motivates team members, they feel their work has purpose.

The path-goal theory is a motivational model of leadership, as I am employed in training and development, the Hersey-Blanchard situational model is a development model. This has all the aspects of matching leadership to team member development, however I disagree with the train tracks in the matrix moving through levels. Some team members just require briefing, they are competent and motivated whilst others have low motivation and low competence, they don’t always progress.