It will be apparent to you by now that your column A score reflects the extent to which you use the rewards and punishments style. Columns B, C and D, respectively, represent the participation and trust, common vision and assertive persuasion styles. Some people use all four styles to a greater or lesser degree whilst others are more inclined to stick primarily to one or two styles. A case can be made for leaders of professional service teams to become competent at using all four styles. We saw in What Leaders of Professionals Do that good leaders are able to communicate a sense of direction, goals and values. Clearly the common vision style of influencing is helpful for this purpose. We also saw that effective leaders empower their team members in the achievement of day-to-day tasks and in the implementation of the team’s strategy. The participation and trust influencing style is tailor-made for this purpose. We saw in Creating the Conditions for Outstanding Performance on motivation that recognition for good performance is important. In other words this is the ‘rewards’ side of the rewards and punishment style. We have seen that negative incentives occasionally have to be used but preferably as a last resort. They may be used as part of a disciplinary procedure when all other positive efforts to change behaviour or improve performance have failed. Finally, assertive persuasion can be a very useful influencing style to use with others who enjoy and expect the cut and thrust of debate and who like logical and rational arguments. Many lawyers, especially those engaged in litigation and advocacy, use this style to great effect. It is often expected by those with whom they have to deal. It is a mode of behaviour that is commonplace within some institutions and for particular business and professional purposes. However, if used as a way of influencing people who may be intimidated by powerful logical arguments it can produce disastrous results. Assertive persuaders can win the argument but completely fail to influence those who need, and expect, an appeal to the heart as well as to the mind. They may be admired for the logic with which they present their views yet at the same time fail to influence those who expect and prefer to be involved in the decision-making process. I have seen very capable professionals use assertive persuasion to great effect with some of their senior colleagues or with representatives of other firms. I have seen the same people completely fail to carry other colleagues by using the same style in circumstances when using participation and trust would have quite probably produced much better results.
Successful leaders are likely to be versatile enough to be able to use each of the four styles depending on the circumstances in which they find themselves. The effective use of rewards and punishments and participation and trust styles depends, largely, on a willingness to behave in the ways required. It is primarily a matter of attitude. To be good at the common vision style requires, among other things, an ability to speak in an exciting and colourful way to groups of people. This comes naturally to some but others may need some guidance and practice with feedback. The assertive persuasion style involves the use of good debating skills and the ability to think quickly on one’s feet. Again these come naturally to some but others may need to seek advice and school themselves in the arts involved.