Collins’ Level 5 Leadership: Personal Leadership Evaluation

Introduction

            Jim Collins and a team of researchers were able to discover a model of leadership based on a study they have conducted in search of the essential quality of what make good companies great. The level 5 leadership model was the product of this search. In line with this model, this paper would gauge and discuss my personal leadership style and abilities. Other leadership theories would also be utilized in comparison and contrast to this model. Furthermore, the level 5 leadership model would be described and evaluated according to its benefits and limitations.

Collin’s Level 5-Leadership: An Evaluation

Collin’s Level 5 Leadership Model: Description and Usefulness

            Jim Collins was considered as one of the most challenging management gurus (Williams 2005). Together with a team of researchers, they conducted a study that resulted in conclusions about what made “good” companies achieve and maintain greatness. They had analyzed 1400 companies. He devised a model that he called the Level 5 leadership.

            He based their team on logical and incremental steps that was disciplined and focused. Collins and his associates did not plan to form a study that revolved around executives as the key to the companies’ success, however, they could not deny the fact that the transition between “good” to great had the common component, a “level 5” leader (Collins 2005). Such leaders looked for the right people to be one board and for the right roles (Williams 2005).

Such leaders were characterized to value the welfare of the organization, more than their own personal needs. This was because they valued the vision of the organization over what would become of them. They would be glad just to have been a part of the team that was successful.

The first priority was seen to be in how they prioritize finding the right person for the job and the right direction. They would not mind if another person made the organization be better or succeed, as long as the goals and the vision for the team would be realized (Collins 2005).

            Level-5 leaders were also seen to be consistent in terms of their sense of accountability and credibility. They actually follow through on what they say. The research team Collins headed observed how such leaders worked diligently over periods of time and develop a flywheel effect and increase the momentum of the company until they achieve greatness for the organization.

            A surprising characteristic for such leaders was their fierce ability to make critical decisions. They were the ones who would do the dirty job. If it meant firing incompetent people or changing suppliers, they would do so for the sake of moving forward. They provide an equal balance for what businesses needed to stop doing at the same time what new practices needed to be employed.

            In the level 5 leadership, a process was observed. The leader hires the right people. They would assign them jobs that were intended for them to do and set a really high long-term goal for the team to follow (Pelletier, 2001). The benefits of this form of leadership provided the achievement of long-term and lasting results for the organization. This form of leadership was seen to require strong character more than competence. While competence could be developed, character was a steady requirement in leadership.

            There was a duality in the personalities of level 5 leaders; they were both modest, yet wilful and shy but fearless (Collins 2005). These leaders would be the last people to think of themselves as great and talented. Most of the level 5 leaders were characterized by their modesty and humility, despite the greatness they have achieved or the position they occupied. These leaders understate their participation in an organizations success and would often point towards the team for the credit of the success. They would often say, “I don’t think I could take much credit for what happened” or that they were simply blessed with good people to work with (Collins 2005, p. 140).

It was also important to know the heart of the leader. If the heart of the leader was about the realization of the organization’s vision, more than personal fame and gain, it was easier to set their sights upon what needed to be done to maintain and sustain the success of an organization. The process needed to be repeated again. They needed to hire the right people and train the next person to be better than they were as leaders. Often times, people would be hesitant about making other people better than them because it would mean the time in the spotlight would be over. Unsustained success was described to be because of egocentric level 4 leaders that often resulted in the downfall of the companies after achieving greatness (Collins 2005).

Level 5 Leadership: Supporting Leadership Theories

            Spiritual leadership was distinguished by humility (Thompson 2005). This was something that established the kind of leadership Collins (2005) described in his level 5 leadership model. Humility was considered to be powerful. It was also considered to be universal and indispensable to any leader, especially those in the spiritual tradition (Thompson 2005).

            Collins observed a given fact that a self-absorbed and inflated human ego was incapable of gaining power greater than themselves. This was due to the fact that inflated egos had the tendency to be filled with illusions (Thompson 2005). Delusions were not something great leaders could use as it would blind their vision for reality and would disable them from leading successfully. Humility enabled an individual to be opened up into a deeper sense of reality.

            The Democratic Theory of leadership also offered important support to Collins’ model. There was such a need for the balance of efficiency and democracy. Leaders needed to be accountable for the authority given to them. Authority was essential for leaders. Without this, they could not carry out their functions as a leader (Kutner 1950).  This was key to providing for them the authority to make hard decisions and to be accountable for the consequences of it.

            Like what Collins said, leaders alone could not make the organization great. There were also other factors such as the commitment of the team to the organization goal and the selection of the right people to be leaders. If discrepancies occur between the goals of the organization and the leader’s behaviour or intentions, the leader needed to be replaced (Kutner 1950).

            Collins’ model could also be strengthened from the perspective called low-key thinking leadership. This perspective highlights the emergence of leaders in the business world in the manner by which they operate in a low-key manner to achieve sustainable success and greatness (Williams 2005). They generally would not fit the traditionally accept leadership model that had outgoing personalities and extravert stereotypes, instead they were less noticed. They were leaders that created something new. Leadership ability and style were already determined by cultural, economic and social imperatives wherein the leader’s message would be “we could build a better world together” instead of “I will lead you into a better world if you follow me” (Williams 2005).

            Similar to Collins’ level 5 leader skills, low-key leaders had reduced complexity and simple management skills. They have a strong and clear sense of direction. They have the abilities to focus on real priorities and have a single-mindedness pursuit for concerted action, as seen in Collin’s hedgehog concept (Williams 2005). They also have the acuity to ask the questions that would ignite the changes needed, even if it meant asking the hard question described Collins’ fierce resolve requirement for level 5 leaders. They were identified to be action-oriented and focused strongly on achieving the requisite goals. They would do so not for their own image or personal standing but for the benefit of the organization.

Comparisons and Critics of Level 5 Leadership

            There were different theories that existed in the search to develop leadership. The model Collins presented was one of them. However, the sense of humility and strong will in the leaders for the level 5 leadership model received criticism regarding the possibility of duplicating such kind of leadership styles. Collins, himself, noted that there needed to be the level 5 leadership seed that was needed in order for one individual to grow into their level 5 leadership potentials. The main question against this model was, “what about those who did not possess this level 5 leadership seed” (Calkin 2007)? Would it be impossible for them to be good-to-great leaders? There seemed to be a void in the model of how leaders could be level 5 leaders (Calkin 2007). While the model seemed to be specific in the kind of leaders that would most probably bring greatness to good companies, other theories existed to present otherwise.

            While the low-key thinking leaders provided a perspective that supported Collins’ model, it could also provide criticisms for it. There were dangers for the “quiet” leaders. They would often be seen to deflect interest away from themselves. This could make the leader appear colorless and devoid of charisma and personality (Williams 2005). It was important for followers to relate to the leaders and for leaders to inspire them. While the quiet leader gets the job done, he still needed to have the position to get it done. If followers fail to get inspired and to follow the leader, the danger of this could take these leaders out of the job. It was not always easy to do the unpopular things and sometimes they have evident setbacks. The model Collins presented has the tendency for leaders to be disliked by their subordinates or superiors. This was risky because in business, leaders have only certain chances to prove themselves to be competent

            “Learning leadership” was something leadership theorists presented to be a possibility. According to leadership development theories, individuals could learn to become great leaders. This dispelled the cliché that leaders were born. The behavioural theory of leadership presented the development efforts that could be done to identify and develop behaviours that were appropriate to become a great leader (Antonacoupou & Bento 2004).

            In Collins’ model, there was an area that was not sufficiently observed and presented. Relationships were not discussed much in the model. While it was important for leaders to have a sense of humility, they also needed to make a connection with their subordinates in such a way that they inspire and motivate them to move. The Leader-Membership Exchange (LMX) theory required a special connection between the leaders and their subordinates. It was important for them to delegate roles and responsibilities that would not only make them productive but would hone their skills and expertise (Northouse 2007).

There needed to be the establishment of high quality relationships in order to ensure the success of the team’s progress. Relationships also provided for the team trust and respect between the leaders and the members. Trust was an important factor because it maintains integrity and security within the group. The LMX was a unique theory that compensates what Collins’ model lacked as it focused on the dyadic relationship as a priority in the attainment of the vision (Northouse 2007). Quality leadership, under this theory, was gauged through the level of influence leaders had on their members.

            Paradigm shifts had even occurred that show a change in the thinking when it came to leadership research. Supervisory leadership was replaced by strategic leadership, together with the acceptance of a wider socio-cognitive analysis of complex leaders and leadership (Antonacoupou & Bento 2004). Included in the latter trend was the emergence of Collins’ model. However, there was still a heavier emphasis on the learning capability of individuals to grow as great leaders.

Level 3: Competent Manager

Background

            I work for a company called ABC Inc. as a technical manager. The nature of the company included the provision of service for the construction and for rental markets. We provide them state of the art vehicle tracking system technology. Our company helps them monitor and track their vehicle assets. Our services include providing for them features like mileage readings, current location, maintenance reports, alarm systems and engine disability. Our clients could access these information and features through a website or their mobile phones.

            I report directly to the Director of Operations. It is our department’s task to provide support to the software and to provide solutions if problems would arise. I belong to a group of nine people, including myself. I serve as their leader in how we resolve support issues and at the same time, work on new initiatives to make our services better. Our department is responsible for creating initiatives that would aid the current business processes such as billing, customer support and main host systems. Our team needed to be innovative, creative and efficient in order to achieve the objectives that were entrusted to us.

            The department had to attend to two streams of incoming projects. The first one dealt with our company’s customer services group. They would come with system issues that were faced by the end users or by the company’s internal teams. Internal team problems included support systems like billing, customer service relations and the provisioning systems. They would either provide issues for us to resolve or suggestions to improve the system.

            The other project stream would come from the Director of Operations. The director would provide requirements and high standards for our department to meet at a certain time period. Most of the time, I receive vague requirements and it would be up to me to translate them into functional and technical specifications for the team.

            The team members I had are considered experts in their areas. They represent each area of the system and I would talk to them as a group to find a wholistic solution to be implemented. The group makes the best solution when made together. It would be up to me to make sure deadlines for the projects would be met and communicated with the team.

Character Traits

            Given the fact that my team members are experts in their own fields and that I respect their unique knowledge and critical contribution to the team, my leadership style could be characterized to be democratic. I would make sure the decisions I make resulted from the teams’ participation. Each stage of the process that needed to be completed required the input of the team members. I believe this gives the team member a sense of ownership for the department. It also hones their skills and develops them into leaders in their own areas as well.  There were certain times, like any other groups, wherein we encounter tensions. The operation process could get tensed up because of the pressure and the conflicting issues from different areas of the operation that needed to be resolved. The team members have different tasks assigned to them and issues that flow into our company usually required more than one area’s resolution.  The director would constantly pressure me into solving these issues quickly. This would push me to, in a way, pressure my team members to resolve the issues in a fast manner as well.

            Even when tensions rise up, the team members are reminded that customers were given the highest priority. In such case, they would regroup and focus on resolving the issues.  However, it needed to be pointed out how conflicts like this causes setbacks and delays for the projects in queue. Recently, we have been missing a lot of deadlines for new projects because of the pressures and conflicts that occur.

            The greater impact of this problem was in the negative impression that was growing against our team and the operations department in general. It made us appear to be unreliable because of the way we miss our deadlines. This needs to be resolved, however this would not be an easy task.

            The team could not be divided into groups to address more problems by simultaneously addressing them. This was due to the fact that each member of the eight-man team had specific areas of expertise that both support systems and new development projects required to be completed. Planning in terms of time management is the best solution to turn things around. Strategic task assignment was needed in order to enable us to simultaneously solve problems while not everyone on the teamwork on one project at time.

            Part of organizing the team would be in the form of feedback; I believe in consistent feedback for the team members. They needed to be involved in most decisions because they were part of the team. I also believe in imparting confidence to them in every chance I could get. It was important for them to feel integral to the organization. This was in line with the fact that when they felt they belonged to the team, they would work better for the company.

            I also try to have less pressure when it came to my team members’ productivity. I believe this allows them to grow. I also try to have a fun and light atmosphere. I also do not believe in micro-managing the members of the team since they were more productive when they did not have people looking over their shoulders constantly. When they see that solutions come from the entire team, the implementation of initiative was fully supported by the team.

Level 3: Competent Manager

Basing on Jim Collin’s Level 5 leadership model, I gauge my leadership style and skills to be a level 3 or a competent manager. A competent manager was described to be someone who “organizes people and resources toward the effective and efficient pursuit of predetermined objectives” (Collins 2001, p. 140).

I have noticed that in terms of achieving the requirements, the progress only go as far as completing the tasks at hand. I understand that there is still no check on the quality of output. The team only flies form one issue to another without any visible growth. I observe how the team has not placed more value on the task. The tight schedule prevented the team from creating a solid vision that would be in sync with the organization’s vision.

            The democratic style I observed in my leadership also had a setback. Despite the fact that I organize the group members’ tasks and schedule, they often take advantage of me, and even charge double for the amount of time they were required to complete tasks.

            Despite the fact that I am responsible for the organization of the team, the current situation resulted in a situation where new projects were pending. Support tasks were already piling up. Other projects were also placed on hold because the team members had placed so much time and the director was reluctant to start new projects. Each member wanted to be the champion of the team and always wanted their ideas to be the one that would be implemented.  This was why I could not consider myself to be even a level 4 leader because I was not able to catalyze on the commitment of the group and I could not stimulate them to have high performance standards beyond organization of tasks. If I was a level 4 leader, I would be able to inspire the team to look beyond their pride and issues and work on the project.

            There was something missing in the level 5 leadership formula in my leadership style. According to Pelletier (2001), “The right people (culture, character rather than competence) plus humility plus strong professional will (regarding the goal) equals success.”

Other Leadership Theories: Personal Leadership Evaluation

            There were other theories that by which my leadership style could be qualified but could not be covered by the model of leadership that Collins had presented. There were theories that address the importance of the system of democracy within a group and another that focused on the process of learning leadership skills.

Democratic Theory. Under a democratic theory of leadership, authority is only assumed when it was assigned or delegated, at the same time, final authority rested on the group’s membership (Kutner 1950). This was a theory that characterized my leadership because of how the power in the group was dependent on the majority or the entire membership and not only on me as a leader. When leaders pursued democratic action, the leaders needed to be aware of their obligations to the group under a democratic theory (Kutner 1950). This theory required the leaders to examine their personal leadership.

            Behavioural Theory. According to the level 5 leadership model, I could be considered as a competent manager that was at level 3. According to a behavioural theory, leadership skills could be developed or honed for one to become a better leader. Hand-in-hand, this theory and the model could mean I can become a better leader.

            From a behavioural perspective, the leaders were seen to be responsible for shaping the environment for the members for them to achieve their tasks (Mosley 1998). There were key behaviours that leaders should possess and practice in order to be good leaders. Leaders could develop to be good leaders.

            In order for leaders to achieve the goals of an organization, the behavioural theory followed that leaders could manage their behaviours through an organization of antecedents and behavioural improvement (Mosley 1998). An analysis of the existing behaviour needed to be done to know the leadership style and effectivity. Antecedents and consequences needed to be examined. This theory was considered to be action-oriented in terms of how it guides leader to be better.

            I could relate to this theory because I know that my leadership is not perfect. Nevertheless, I know there was still room for improvement. Behaviours could be re-evaluated for it to be established for leadership skills. If leadership behaviours would not be enhanced, my team members would not reach their potential because of a lack of leadership.

Leader-Member Exchange Theory. The LMX theory was described to operate on the relationships between the leader and the members. More than the presence and priority for democracy in the group, it was also the connection between the leaders and the members that mattered. LMX could be described to rely “on the equity notion that relationships between people, including leaders and subordinates, are transactions in which social and material resources are exchanged to maintain equity” (Hogg et al. 2005, p. 992).

I knew the members of my team to be experts in their areas. This theory provided the respect that leaders needed to have for their members because of their capabilities. It was important for me to delegate tasks to them without micromanagement because it showed that I trusted them with these responsibilities. It was also important under this theory to have a high quality of interdependence to unify the team and to make it more effective. It was also important for the leaders to recognize and know the members’ individual strength and skills in order to strategically place them in positions that would bring the group into the realization of the team’s vision (Hogg et al. 2005).

Personal Relevance

            I believe that leaders could be made and they were not born (Changing Minds, 2007). While the model Collins presented offer revelations about what it took for good companies to achieve greatness, I do believe each person could possess the seed to become a level 5 leader. It did not just take certain people who have this seed to be able to develop as one. This model presented the goal for the individuals who are aspiring to become better as leaders of their organizations. Other theories are also available for this model to be achieved. The democratic theory, the leader-member exchange theory and the behavioural theory were only example of those that were relevant to my personal leadership style. More than all of this, the behavioural theory presented that “leadership do not seek inborn traits or capabilities. Rather, they look at what leaders actually do” (Changing Minds 2007). Actions characterized a leadership style and if it was analyzed and quantified it would be more efficiently taught and passed on to others to sustain the greatness and the success of the organization.

Bibliography

Antonacopoulou, Elena P., and Regina F. Bento (2004) “5 Methods of ‘Learning Leadership’: Taught and Experiential,” In Leadership in Organizations:  Current Issues and Key Trends. Edited by Storey, John . Routledge, New York, pp. 81-102.

Calkin, Bob (2007) “Leadership Formation and Level 5 Leadership!” Articles Base Website. http://www.articlesbase.com/leadership-articles/leadership-formation-and-level-5-leadership-249976.html [accessed on February 14, 2009]

Clark, Carolyn Chambers. (2003) Group Leadership Skills. 4th ed. Springer, New York.

Collins, Jim (2005). “Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve.” Harvard Business Review, pp. 136- 146.

Hogg, M., et al. (2005). “Effective leadership in salient groups: Revisiting leader-member exchange theory from the perspective of the social identity theory of leadership.” Personality and Social Bulletin Vol. 31, pp. 991-1003.

Kutner, Bernard (1950) Elements and Problems of Democratic Leadership in Studies in Leadership and Democratic Action, Gouldner, Alvin W., ed. Harper & Brothers, New York.

“Leadership Theories,” (2007). ChangingMinds.Org http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/styles/transformational_leadership.htm [accessed on February 14, 2009]

Mosley, Alisa L. (1998) “A Behavioral Approach to Leadership: Implications for Diversity in Today’s Organizations.” Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol 5, No.1, p. 38.

Northouse, Peter (2007). Leadership theory and practice. Sage Publications, California.

Petterlier, Jeffrey (2001). Applying humility and strong professional willpower to leadership. 12 Manage Website. http://www.12manage.com/methods_collins_level_5_leadership.html [Accessed on February 15, 2009].

Thompson, Scott (2005, November) “Habits of Spiritually Grounded Leaders: It Takes Discipline and Persistence to Exercise These Practices of Mind.” School Administrator, p. 26+.

Williams, Michael (2005) Leadership for Leaders. Thorogood, London.