Dynamic Leadership Vs Reactive Leadership

While the most powerful leaders are almost always dynamic, the large majority of organizational leaders I have met in the past three years of toiling with organizations, have behaved predominantly in a reactive manner.

This word ‘Dynamic Leader’ is defined as someone with positivity in character and full of energy and new ideas. A Dynamic Leader is someone who doesn’t need the word leader in their title to take ownership of their area of influence. A Dynamic Leader is someone who measures his and other’s leadership abilities by their ability to empower others.

On the other hand, when we refer to reactive brains, we normally are relating to leaders who have their actions restricted by situations, therefore usually acting after the fact.

One of the major problems of organizational leaders reacting reactively instead of dynamically is that a large percentage of leaders are nervous.

Sadly, many leaders are ill-prepared for leadership. They are very anxious about making the wrong decision, so they hesitate when action would be the prescribed course. This can either result in taking inaccurate and doubtful actions or procrastinate and not taking needed action. Many of the most effective organizational leaders become remarkably frustrated in dealing with reactive co-leaders.

Organizations must do imperative planning, on a continuous basis. There is also, in most cases, the constraint for taking greater financial control of their organization. Another area that dynamic leaders realize they need to stress includes organizational budgeting and the significance of effectively using zero-based budgeting.

Another danger to many organizations is that too many leaders do not understand the importance of taking true financial checks and controls. Most companies should severely limit the number of controls that staffs have over organizational funds, including limiting the size of checks a staff member can sign. It is also suggested that organizations create the highest sum where only one signatory is needed for a check and that over that amount, more than one signer be required.

Leaders must remember that financial responsibilities and methods for organizations, and what is relevant courses of action, are distinctive for organizations than for individuals. Much has been penned about the “prudent man rule,” requiring leaders to act in a fiduciary manner as the most prudent (or careful) somebody would. While some financial risks might be tolerable for individual portfolios and investments, much more conservative restrictions must be placed on organizational funds.

One of the most chronic issues that institutions face is staff-related issues. Dynamic leaders attempt to anticipate what might happen, while reactive leaders often adopt a wait-and-see, don’t rock-the-boat attitude. Organizations that have constant periods of reactive leaders almost always end up with issues, and sometimes, even crises, that are avoidable and unfortunate.

Was it worth reading? Let us know.