Seminars Resources Member login

"What should I do to take leadership?" This is one of the questions that many potential leaders ask at some point.

For example, when many organizations are in their growth phase, leaders concentrate on aligning their employees with the policies of the organization. To keep everyone on the same page, the leaders encourage and motivate their direct reports. They also give advice and pass down knowledge on success cases based on past experiences. This is one of the characteristics of leadership when the organization is in its growth phase.

On the other hand, when many organizations are in a transitional phase, they may need to reevaluate the needs of their customers and redefine the value of their services to create a new market. Compared to the growth phase, leaders may need to take a different approach to leadership. They may need to become flexible and adopt new ideas.

We believe that in order to come up with some new ideas, asking questions of people in the organization may be a good way to perform as a leader. In our study, more than 200 leaders of organizations answered a survey regarding their interactions with others.

We then divided the leaders into two groups:
-Questioning-type leaders: leaders who put questions to members of the organization
-Advising-type leaders: leaders who give advice to members of the organization

As we can see in Figure 1, the percentage of "Questioning-type leader" and "Advising-type leader" is almost the same.

Figure 1. Percentage of "Questioning-type leaders" and "Advising-type leaders"
Figure 1. Percentage of  Questioning-type leaders and Advising-type leaders

7-point scale ("1-Strongly disagree" - "7-Strongly agree") 
Yes: Those who chose 6 or 7 in the survey
No: Those who chose 1-4 in the survey
n=227
Coaching Research Institute, 2016

In the same survey, we also asked the leaders to evaluate themselves regarding their leadership behaviors. We then looked at some of the differences in scores for the "Questioning-type leaders" and "Advising-type leaders".

Figure 2 showed that the "Questioning-type leaders" tend to adopt new perspectives and propose ideas to direct manager and colleagues. They proactively try to find what they need to work on, and act on it in creative ways.

Figure 2. Top 5 average scores on leaders' self-evaluation on leadership behaviors
Leadership behaviors Average Score Gap
Questioning-type leaders
(n=72)
Advising-type leaders
(n=76)
1 Information sharing I regularly communicate with others on issues that arise or when I have useful information 6.0 5.0 1.1
2 New perspectives I do not rely on conventional wisdom and adopt new perspectives. 6.0 5.0 1.0
3 Adaptability I quickly adapt to unforeseen changes and conditions at work. 6.1 5.0 1.0
4 Vision I have my own goals and vision. 6.1 5.1 1.0
5 Proposals I actively propose my ideas to my direct manager and colleagues. 6.1 5.1 1.0

(Rounded to the nearest tenth)

* Refer to Figure 1 on definition of "Question-type leaders" and "Advising-type leaders"
* 7-point scale ("1-Strongly disagree" - "7-Strongly agree") 
n=227
Coaching Research Institute, 2016

Finally, in the same survey, we asked the leaders' work peers and direct reports to evaluate themselves on their leadership behaviors. Again, we looked at some of the differences in scores by grouping them under the "Questioning-type leaders" and "Advising-type leaders".

In Figure 3, we observed that peers and direct reports of "Questioning-type leaders" are likely to be the ones that have goals and visions for the future, and build necessary relationships proactively. They seem to be moving proactively and are building the relationships by themselves. On the other hand, the peers and direct reports of "Advising-type leaders" are passive compared to the other group.

Figure 3. Top 5 average scores on leaders' work peers and direct reports self-evaluation on their own leadership behaviors
Leadership behaviors Average Gap
Peers and direct reports of Questioning-type leaders
(n=311)
Peers and direct reports of Advising-type leaders
(n=327)
1 Vision I have my own goals and vision. 5.6 5.2 0.4
2 Goal setting I actively set my own goals to take on challenges. 5.5 5.2 0.4
3 Relationship building I work on building relationships aggressively in order to achieve my goals. 5.5 5.2 0.3
4 Information sharing I regularly communicate with others on issues that arise or when I have useful information 5.4 5.1 0.3
5 Proposals I actively propose my ideas to my direct manager and colleagues. 5.4 5.0 0.3

(Rounded to the nearest tenth)
* Refer to Figure 1 on definition of "Question-type leaders" and "Advising-type leaders"
* 7-point scale ("1-Strongly disagree" - "7-Strongly agree") 
n=227
Coaching Research Institute, 2016

When "Questioning-type leader" and "Advising-type leader" are compared, why are there difference like the ones we've observed in Figures 2 and 3? Let us look at the effectiveness of "questioning".

One effect of "questioning", as shown in Figure 2, is that the leaders can draw ideas from their peers and direct reports and by doing so, the leaders themselves discover new perspectives and ideas. We believe that "questioning" lets both the leaders and their peers and direct reports come up with creative and original ideas.

The other effect of "questioning", as shown in Figure 3, is when leaders talk about potential issues with their peers and direct reports, the latter begin to think on their own thus becoming more proactive. If leaders are the "Advising-type", then their peers and direct reports will prioritize the leaders' comments and as a result, they could end up becoming passive.

The results of our study may tell us that giving advice creates a one-way communication from the leader to the direct reports. It may be more suitable to adopt a two-way communication through questioning, even more so for organizations that are in the transitional phase.

In conclusion, "questioning" can allow leaders to think more flexibly and get new ideas from the two-way communication with their direct reports.

Research Overview

No. of Samples:227 leaders of organizations, 638 peers and direct reports
Period:2015 May - 2016 March
Survey Method:Web Survey
Survey Tool:D-meter