The Three Levels of Leadership is a leadership model formulated in 2011 by James Scouller.Scouller, J. (2011). The Three Levels of Leadership: How to Develop Your Leadership Presence, Knowhow and Skill. Cirencester: Management Books 2000., Designed as a practical tool for developing a person's leadership presence, know-how and skill. It aims to summarize what leaders have to do, not only to bring leadership to their group or organization, but also to develop themselves technically and psychologically as leaders. It has been classified as an "integrated psychological" theory of leadership. It is sometimes known as the 3P model of leadership (the three Ps standing for Public, Private and Personal leadership).
The Three Levels of Leadership model attempts to combine the strengths of older leadership theories (i.e. traits, behavioral/styles, situational, functional) while addressing their limitations and, at the same time, offering a foundation for leaders wanting to apply the philosophies of servant leadership and "authentic leadership".
Limitations of older leadership theories
In reviewing the older leadership theories, Scouller highlighted certain limitations in relation to the development of a leader's skill and effectiveness:Scouller, J. (2011), pp. 34–35. Also see the Trait theory: As Stogdill (1948)Stogdill, R.M. (1948). Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: a Survey of the Literature. Journal of Psychology, Vol. 25. and Buchanan & Huczynski (1997) had previously pointed out, this approach has failed to develop a universally agreed list of leadership qualities and "successful leaders seem to defy classification from the traits perspective".Buchanan, D. & Huczynski, A. (1997). Organizational Behaviour (third edition), p.601. London: Prentice Hall. Moreover, because traits theory gave rise to the idea that leaders are born not made, Scouller (2011) argued that its approach is better suited to selecting leaders than developing them. Behavioral styles theory: Blake and Mouton, in their managerial grid model, proposed five leadership styles based on two axes – concern for the task versus concern for people. They suggested that the ideal is the "team style", which balances concern for the task with concern for people. Scouller (2011) argued that this ideal approach may not suit all circumstances; for example, emergencies or turnarounds. Situational/contingency theories: Most of these (e.g. Hersey & Blanchard's situational leadership theory, House's path–goal theory, Tannenbaum & Schmidt's leadership continuum) assume that leaders can change their behavior at will to meet differing circumstances, when in practice many find it hard to do so even after training because of unconscious fixed beliefs, fears or ingrained habits. For this reason, leaders need to work on their underlying psychology if they are to attain the flexibility to apply these theories (Scouller, 2011). Functional theories: Widely used approaches like Kouzes & Posner's Five Leadership Practices model and Adair's Action-Centered Leadership theory assume that once the leader understands – and has been trained in – the required leadership behaviors, he or she will apply them as needed, regardless of their personality. However, as with the situational theories, Scouller noted that many cannot do so because of hidden beliefs and old habits so again he argued that most leaders may need to master their inner psychology if they are to adopt unfamiliar behaviors at will. Leadership presence: The best leaders usually have something beyond their behavior – something distinctive that commands attention, wins people's trust and enables them to lead successfully, which is often called "leadership presence" (Scouller, 2011). This is possibly why the traits approach became researchers' original line of investigation into the sources of a leader's effectiveness. However, that "something" – that presence – varies from person to person and research has shown it is hard to define in terms of common personality characteristics, so the traits approach failed to capture the elusive phenomenon of presence. The other leading leadership theories do not address the nature and development of presence.
How the three levels model addresses older theories' limitations
The section at the start of this page discussed the older theories' potential limitations. The table below explains how the Three Levels of Leadership model tries to address them.
Theory Limitations How three levels model addresses them Traits Researchers do not agree on a common list of traits, which undermines the idea that a leader's effectiveness can be traced back to specific character qualities. Even if they could agree, this theory does not help to develop leaders (although it would help in selecting them).
The model accepts the premise that the best leaders have something about them ("leadership presence") that causes followers to see them as credible, inspirational and trustworthy. However, it presupposes that "presence" is unique to each person and cannot be pinned down to a shortlist of common character traits (which seems to fit the evidence from research). The Three Levels model's solution to a means of developing one's unique leadership presence is the practice of "personal leadership", especially self-mastery. Behavioral/styles Proposes one ideal style that may not be best in all circumstances. Ignores leadership presence.
The model does not disagree with Blake & Mouton's ideal of balancing concern for task with concern for people, but it also allows for changing the emphasis if the situation requires it. Leadership presence is an integral part of the Three Levels model. Situational/contingency Assumes everyone can change their behavior at will to suit different situations or followers, but many cannot. Ignores people's controlling psychology. Ignores leadership presence. The model supports the idea of behavioral flexibility as circumstances demand, but rests on the idea that the key to achieving it is to go beyond behavioral training and also work on one's inner psychology (that is, one's limiting beliefs and emotions) as this controls our tendency to cling to rigid, defensive behaviors. Leadership presence is a central feature of the Three Levels model. Functional * Assumes that all leaders can adopt the required behaviors after behavioral training, but many cannot. Ignores people's controlling psychology. Ignores leadership presence.
In some respects, the model is like the older functional models in that it concentrates on what leaders have to do in their role in order to provide leadership. However, it does not focus solely on interpersonal behavior; it also addresses what leaders can do to develop themselves technically and psychologically. The idea behind this is to help them translate functional theory into practice by freeing themselves from old, rigid, fear-based mindsets, enabling them to flex and extend their behavioral range at will. Leadership presence is a central feature of the Three Levels model.
Levels
The three levels referred to in the model's name are Public, Private and Personal leadership. The model is usually presented in diagram form as three concentric circles and four outwardly directed arrows, with personal leadership in the center.
The first two levels – public and private leadership – are "outer" or "behavioral" levels. Scouller distinguished between the behaviors involved in influencing two or more people simultaneously (what he called "public leadership") from the behavior needed to select and influence individuals one to one (which he called private leadership). He listed 34 distinct "public leadership" behaviors and a further 14 "private leadership" behaviors. The third level – personal leadership – is an "inner" level and concerns a person's leadership presence, know-how, skills, beliefs, emotions and unconscious habits. "At its heart is the leader's self-awareness, his progress toward self-mastery and technical competence, and his sense of connection with those around him. It's the inner core, the source, of a leader's outer leadership effectiveness." (Scouller, 2011).
The idea is that if leaders want to be effective they must work on all three levels in parallel.
The two outer levels – public and private leadership – are what the leader must do behaviorally with individuals or groups to address the "four dimensions of leadership" (Scouller 2011). These are:
A shared, motivating group purpose or vision. Action, progress and results. Collective unity or team spirit. Individual selection and motivation.
The inner level – personal leadership – refers to what leaders should do to grow their leadership presence, know-how and skill. It has three aspects:
Developing one's technical know-how and skill. Cultivating the right attitude toward other people. Working on psychological self-mastery.
Scouller argued that self-mastery is the key to growing one's leadership presence, building trusting relationships with followers and enabling behavioral flexibility as circumstances change, while staying connected to one's core values (that is, while remaining authentic). To support leaders' development, he introduced a new model of the human psyche and outlined the principles and techniques of self-mastery (Scouller 2011).Scouller, J. (2011), pp. 137-237.
The assumption in this model is that personal leadership is the most powerful of the three levels. Scouller likened its effect to dropping a pebble in a pond and seeing the ripples spreading out from the center – hence the four arrows pointing outward in the diagram. "The pebble represents inner, personal leadership and the ripples the two outer levels. Helpful inner change and growth will affect outer leadership positively. Negative inner change will cause the opposite." (Scouller, 2011).
Public leadership
Public leadership refers to the actions or behaviors that leaders take to influence two or more people simultaneously – perhaps in a meeting or when addressing a large group. Public leadership is directed towards (1) setting and agreeing a motivating vision or future for the group or organization to ensure unity of purpose; (2) creating positive peer pressure towards shared, high performance standards and an atmosphere of trust and team spirit; and (3) driving successful collective action and results. Public leadership therefore serves the first three dimensions of leadership mentioned in the overview section.
There are 34 distinct public leadership behaviors (Scouller, 2011), which break out as follows:
Setting the vision, staying focused:'briefing, challenging, navigating, and prioritising 4 behaviors. Organizing, planning, giving power to others:'assigning and organising''' 2 behaviors. Ideation, problem-solving, decision-making: 10 behaviors. Executing:'educating, energising, doing, measuring, following up, and tolerating 6 behaviors. Group building and maintenance: 12 behaviors.
Leaders need to balance their time between the 22 vision/planning/thinking/execution behaviors and the 12 group building/maintenance behaviors.
According to the Three Levels of Leadership model, the key to widening one's repertoire of public leadership behaviors (and the skill with which they are performed) is attention to personal leadership.
Private leadership
Private leadership concerns the leader's one-to-one handling of individuals (which is the fourth of Scouller's four dimensions of leadership). Although leadership involves creating a sense of group unity, groups are composed of individuals and they vary in their ambitions, confidence, experience and psychological make-up. Therefore, they have to be treated as individuals – hence the importance of private leadership. There are 14 private leadership behaviors (Scouller, 2011):