BMA eBook - Manual / Resource - Page 99
Feser / When Execution Isn’t Enough / 11
Figure 3.4 Inspirational Leaders Have More Committed, Satisfied, and Productive Followers
Source: J. H. Zenger, J. R. Folkman, and S. K. Edinger, The Inspiring Leader (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 2009).
These studies suggests that hard leadership approaches—requesting (command and
control), coalition, or legitimating—tend to create no commitment to action and change,
or only very little. However, they create a high level of compliance. They lead to others
carrying out the requested actions with little enthusiasm, but still carrying them out.
Unlike soft influence approaches that require facts and figures (rational persuasion) or
necessitate gaining others’ understanding, hard approaches are simple and
straightforward. For requests that are easy and routine, like performing a straightforward,
short task, and for times when compliance may be the only thing needed to accomplish a
leader’s objective, hard influencing approaches are effective and efficient in terms of cost
and time.
Thus it appears that the correct leadership approach, that is, the right choice of
influence tactic, depends on the situation.22 In a number of situations, hard influence
approaches may be more effective and efficient than soft tactics, for example:
Static situations—These are situations of limited change, when the required tasks
are routine or standard procedures; hard influence approaches and, in particular,
legitimating may be the most efficient tactic.
