In any case, the leadership styles of these two manager-types can clearly be differentiated from each other. Executives who don’t have their employees behind them, lead with a clear focus on the hard side of management. Executives who understand leadership and who are able to inspire others, generally have a soft leadership style.
Soft vs. Hard Management
Focus of Management
In management there is a continuum between hard and soft.
The hard part is management that creates plans, sets up structures and monitors the performance. Focus is on the task and on the results. Management is more aggressive and it’s all about the bottom line.
With soft management on the other hand, focus is on employees. It is a humane management style that is largely based on emotions and in which the focus is on dealing with each other and on communication.
Let me add right here that soft management is by no means about soft personalities. On the contrary, it takes a strong leadership personality to apply soft management. Executives cannot afford to be insecure and have a too much self-doubt. They need the focus for the personalities in the team and the related needs and emotions. Herewith it is also said that hard management doesn’t need a tough cookie to implement it. Hard management can be carried out by both strong and weak managers. For soft management and bold leadership, it definitely requires a strong leader.
“The challenge of leadership is to be strong but not rude; to be kind but not weak; to be brave but not intimidating; to be thoughtful but not lazy; to be humble but not shy; to be proud but not arrogant; To have a sense of humor, but without being a fool. “ Jim Rohn
Soft management – motivating employees and giving meaning to work – has nothing to do with pampering the staff; it is all about respect for individuals. And it’s about the realization, that encouragement, freedom, support and good communication enable employees to develop themselves and to make a valuable contribution to the team and the company.
It is important not to confuse soft and hard management with soft and hard skills, even though there are overlaps. Hard skills relate to characteristics such as competencies and knowledge. Soft skills are about personality traits and skills like leadership style, communication skills, etc. Managers need both distinctive hard skills and soft skills to be successful. However, expertise does not come overnight, it has to be built up. Soft skills form the basis on which the hard skills can develop.
It permeates mercilessly through all organizations: Soft leadership, i.e., positive focus on people, moves an organization forward. Hard leadership, i.e., focusing exclusively on results, leads to decay in the medium and long term.
Too much focus on the hard side of management can lead to linear performance improvement at best. However, a focus on the soft, non-linear side will lead to exponential performance improvement.
Soft management is indisputably the more effective management style; it is the true spirit of leadership and achieves better results than hard management.
Theory X and Y and their self-fulfilling prophecy
Theories X and Y are leadership philosophies, recognized in theory and science, developed by American management professor Douglas McGregor. The leadership styles used here are based on assumptions about human nature in relation to behaviour at work.
Theory X represents leadership by authority, since it assumes that humans are inherently lazy and perceive work as negative. In this theory employees do not develop their own motivation but must receive their impetus from outside. Work functions solely through guidance and complete external control is therefore required. Managers who see their employees in this way and who advocate this management philosophy must necessarily apply an authoritarian management style. Otherwise, at least in their eyes, the organization cannot function correctly. Basically, with Theory X, there is distrust on both sides.
The central principle of Theory Y is that employees are perceived positively. This management philosophy assumes that employees are quite ambitious, identify themselves with the objectives of the organization, and thus develop an inner motivation that makes external control superfluous. The transfer of responsibility and trust are natural, and employees act proactively.
Theory Y embodies soft leadership, Theory X hard. These theories are quite black and white and mutually exclusive (Theory Z was later developed as a compromise solution to this; however, it has not really established itself). We can use this to represent management philosophies or leadership styles and, above all, their potentials and dangers.
“Leaders are responsible for creating an environment in which people feel at their best.” Simon Sinek
Both theories cause a self-fulfilling prophecy of which managers are unfortunately far too little aware. Managers who apply Theory X, i.e. who give employees little or no freedom and no trust, provoke passive work behaviour and a lack of commitment. This then leads to employees only doing their job by the book and not taking any initiatives or responsibility. This in turn leads to the manager seeing his assumptions about the employees’ work behaviour confirmed. This manager, of course, does not see that his own lack of leadership is the trigger for this situation, and thus there is no other way out than to continue to lead in an authoritarian manner in order to keep things from falling apart.
This self-fulfilling prophecy also applies to Theory Y, only then in reverse and in a positive sense. Trusting and supportive leadership promotes independence, responsibility and performance.
Surely, we do not need to discuss at length which of the leadership philosophies X or Y fits better in our time of modern leadership.
Effectiveness vs. Efficiency
Effective leaders have the ability to constantly move themselves and others into action because they understand the invisible forces that shape us. It is about motivation, development, persuasion, and setting achievable goals. This is sustainable and it has to do with courageous leadership. Effective leaders have the ability to get the job done cost-effectively.
Commonly used terms in management and leadership are efficiency and effectiveness. Very often I have noticed that these terms are unquestioningly mixed together and used indiscriminately, even though they are substantially different.
Efficiency is about getting more done with less effort and is often about cost. Efficiency focuses on short-term results and is not concerned with quality, sustainability, or motivation.
Effectiveness, on the other hand, not only focuses on achieving goals but also on the right way to achieve that goal. Effectiveness is a longer-term approach and thus focuses on sustainable results. If one wants to move an organization forward, it will not be enough to proceed efficiently. One must then make effective decisions and take effective actions.
“Efficiency means doing things right; effectiveness means doing the right things.” Peter Drucker
The quote above was also used by Stephen Covey, only he replaced efficiency with management and effectiveness with leadership. When two of the greatest management and leadership experts of our time combine these terms, then most probably there is something to it.
Both effectiveness and efficiency are necessary in work processes and there are many implementation strategies in which efficiency is required. In leadership, however, effectiveness is more in demand than efficiency.
For example, imagine a full restaurant with 100 seats, with only one person in the kitchen and one person serving. This staff scheduling is definitely very efficient but also clearly not effective. Not only will you have all your guests running away due to lack of quality and long waiting times,