Why should affiliative leadership be a priority in environmental organizations?

In August, we participated in a discussion about ‘Being a Self Aware and Adaptive Leader’ organized under an Exchange Program at Georgetown University. In our group, we were more than half a dozen people from different countries discussing our experience and opinion about leading teams under different circumstances in culturally diverse spaces. Facilitated by famous Deidre Combs of Combs and Company, we were given Daniel Goleman’s six styles of leadership (Goleman, 2000) as a reference. Here’s a PDF file summarizing Goleman’s classification.

I asked the fellows about which leadership styles they have found as best suitable for environmental organizations. The responses were diverse, but there was a consensus about one thing that each of this styles has different purposes to serve in different circumstances. Which means, according to my fellow leaders, no single style is adequate for an organization. Having said that, one of our fellow Firuza Gulayozova prioritized about ‘affiliative’ leadership style in environmental conservation.

Based on her experience in Tajikistan she thinks for organizations engaged in environmental conservation, adopting ‘affiliative’ leadership style is very necessary. This observation intrigued me, and we talked about it later again, on another occasion. So, thought before I forget, I should write it down.

Personally, until very recently, I didn’t think of any particular leadership style. I have led a few collective endeavors in mass communication, civil and human rights, and conservation with certain successes and a number of terrible disasters. Looking back at those times now, I see I was always relying on others to lead together. I still am; leading like a diver; slow and steady, and always looking out for each other. Because for me, more than to achieve some goals the important thing is working with people we love; works which we are passionate about.

Leading like a diver; slow and steady, and always looking out for each other.

Also, I am still not convinced that, we can effectively identify exclusive features of leadership to attribute them to a certain style or category. But, of course, for the sake of communication, we can’t avoid classifications and terms like these categories of style. So, the necessity of discussion on prioritizing ‘affiliative’ leadership style in conservation organization resonated with me to some extents. I hope, it is just not a confirmation bias for me.

Firuza’s professional focus is Tolerance and Conflict Resolution, and she is ‘an expert in youth psychology and has developed skills in listening to the problems of young people and helping them find solutions.’

For any organization, Firuza said, it is important that everyone has the scope to bring many ideas into the process; and, affiliative leadership is a very powerful tool to create such an institutional environment. The affiliative style is best for ‘supporting the team morally and make them feel useful and effective’, she said. She thinks the job of conservation groups is not easy because the main task is ‘working with people’, not otherwise. The team members in such organizations need the highest degree of mutual patience and support. And the affiliative style of leadership serves this purpose ‘very well’ under any circumstances.

I get it in a sense that, ‘conservation is about people’ approach needs to be first mainstreamed through the institutional process of conservation organizations. And, the leadership traits which we identify as ‘affiliative’ is based on ‘people come first’ mantra and recognizes that empathy, building relationships, and communication are very important emotional intelligence competencies. I think, maybe these are the things we need to prioritize to revive our conservation organizations which are in very badly affected by failing bureaucracy (‘commanding’ style?).

Reference

Goleman, D. (2000, March-April). Emotional Intelligence: Leadership That Gets Results. Harvard Business Review, pp. 82-83.