“Attitude is a little thing that makes a big difference” – Winston Churchill



Only positive attitudes
Only positive attitudes (Photo credit: Paul Schreiber)

Tip to use:

1. Points out that behavior and attitude is critical when we are doing business. A great quote to express that HOW is as important as WHAT, if not even more important.

2.  The way we are looking at difficult situation, the way we approach challenges by default determine the result we can expect. Positive attitude more likely deliver positive result.

3. To set moral expectations with difficult employees. But also great to use as set of expectation and culture within an organisation or team. Part of ethical topics, like respect.

For a Q&A personal session about the topic, please e-mail: beatrix.gabulya@yourleadershipibc.com


“Well done is better than well said” – Benjamin Franklin


Tip to use:

1. Encouragement for team members who are trying to stick to excuses, when avoiding actions. empowerment to be proactive and realise plans. Indirectly sending a message that is time to act and not only talk: polite, clear and simple.

2.  Highlighting that it is more about accountability and responsibility, to take control, to hold control and check on the situation. Can be well adapted and used in Project or Program Management assignment: RACI model (Responsable, Accountable, Consulted, Informed)

3. Coaching the coach: to teach your team members that leaders say what they think, they open, transparent and find the right way to communicate anything, even bad news. Motivate your team to spread among the organisation to be proactive and take lead in critical situation. You could use the quote as a title of a program, related to either leadership, change management, empowerment etc.

Less Talk More Action.....

Less Talk More Action..... (Photo credit: JD | Photography)

For a Q&A personal session about the topic, please e-mail: beatrix.gabulya@yourleadershipibc.com

“A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new” – Albert Einstein


always make new mistakes
always make new mistakes (Photo credit: elycefeliz)

Tip to use:

1. A final summary of a conversation, when a correction plan has been worked out, due to the fact something went wrong in an execution phase. Just before introducing the correction plan this quote can be used as empowerment for communication

2.  When many of your team members questioning something and they are not convinced yet. This quote can emphasise your leadership and stand behind that you even ready to take the risk. Represents the visionary style of the leader.

3. In change management process and as a closing quote for a discussion. Fair, simple, clear, building momentum and team spirit.

For a Q&A personal session about the topic, please e-mail: beatrix.gabulya@yourleadershipibc.com

Famous Quotes for your Speech and Presentation

This is a tool for you, a tool for the “Leader”.

One of the way we recognise leaders and their leadership qualities is that they always have excellent speeches and presentations: clear vision and content, easy to remember, inspiration, not too long, well explained, talking to us and about us. Even the most serious business topic can be presented lighter and motivational. It has a great summary and one key message to take with us.

In summary: simple, effective and fun!

Those speeches and presentations are kept in our minds, usually forever.

For your Best Speeches and Presentations. This is a tool for you!


Famous Quotes – to create the best Speeches and Presentations 

tool content

1. Quote and author presented in the title of the post, so you can easily spot the right one

2. 3 tips: you get inspiration where to add, guidance how to use

3. An image/video so your audience can easily visualize the digital/printed material of speech and presentation

4. In the post you find the reference about the quote or author, to help you with background information

5. Need assistant? A personal Q&A is offered on the bottom of the post, just e-mail to beatrix.gabulya@yourleadershipibc.com

Good luck and Have fun!

Famous Quotes – to create the best Speeches and Presentations

Rebuilding trust in organisation; adopt affiliative style


We have spoken about the leadership styles, you free to choose. But most importantly important to be able to choose the right style for the right situation.

Leaders easily adopt their style as needed. Now I would like to review the situation and how to practise in execution the affiliative style.

Affiliative Style

When it works: When the leader would like to recover trust in an orgabnisation, improving communication, increase morale and create harmony in the team. Also often used in cultures, where personal relationship to be established prior doing business: Asian cultures, Latin America, some European Countries.

When does not work: It does not work when high performance is critical to achieve goals, when critical to rely on regular feedback and guidance to the team individuals.

Execution: Closer and deeper interest in the person by the leader, additionally open up and show emotions. Provide emotional support to employees in bed times, as needed. Value people and respect, understand, connect with their feelings. Leader to look after the individuals emotional needs, less focus on how exactly are accomplished work goals. Long term still positive impact on performance. Be excellent leader with EI, building up loyalty.

English: Logo Connecting Emotional Intelligence

Image via Wikipedia

Leader: Affiliative style to combine with other leadership style, usually visionary style: be clear in vision, set standards, make sure people’s individual role’s meet the group goals. This to be used in combination with the affiliative style caring approach. Leader is creating harmony within the group, approach is friendly relationship, leader gives time enough to build emotional capital and store it for the moment/period when the organisation need it. When needed the leader focus is on the emotional needs of the employee(s) vs. task goals. Highly skilled leader in emotional intelligence.

Risk of failure: When using alone as leadership style, employees are usually left alone in their performance and may lead to uncorrected poor performance. Risk of improvement therefore on individual level, due to lack of advise from the leader.

For a Q&A personal session about the topic, please e-mail: beatrix.gabulya@yourleadershipibc.com

Leadership history (3/3): Emotional Intelligence

In this 3rd (also last) chapter of the leadership history I would like to give a dedicated attention to emotions and to emotional intelligence.

historically seeing, it is a very young topic, and has been recorded any study, definition or reasearch only since the begin of 20th century. As the academic studies of psychology has been improved, where more discussion available around emotions in connection with leadership since 1950s.


The very earliest roots of emotional intelligence (and the only perhaps) can be traced to Darwin’s work on the importance of emotional expression for survival and, second, adaptation.

In the 1900s several influential researchers in the intelligence field of study had begun to recognize the importance of the non-cognitive aspects.

As early as 1920, Thorndike describes the skill of understanding and managing other people as the term social intelligence.

Similarly, in 1940 Wechsler described the influence of non-intellective factors on intelligent behavior, and further argued that our models of intelligence would not be complete until we could adequately describe these factors.

In 1983, Gardner has introduced the idea of multiple intelligence; interpersonal intelligence and intrapersonal intelligence.

  •  interpersonal intelligence – the capacity to understand the intentions, motivations and desires of other people
  •  intrapersonal intelligence – the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate one’s feelings, fears and motivations

In Gardner’s view, traditional types of intelligence, IQ can’t completely explain cognitive ability or performaned outcomes.

Wayne Payne’s has used first as term in his doctoral thesis A Study of Emotion: Developing  Emotional Intelligence in 1985. However, prior to this, the term “emotional intelligence” had appeared in Leuner (1966). Greenspan (1989) also put forward an EI model, followed by Salovey and Mayer (1990), and Goleman (1995). The distinction between trait emotional intelligence and ability emotional intelligence was introduced in 2000.

Substantial disagreement exists regarding the definition of EI, with respect to both terminology and operationalizations. Currently, there are three main models of EI:

  • Ability EI model
  • Mixed models of EI (usually subsumed under trait EI)
  • Trait EI model

Ability model

Salovey and Mayer’s conception of EI strives to define EI within the confines of the standard criteria for a new intelligence. The ability-based model views emotions as useful sources of information that help one to make sense of and navigate the social environment.

They explain that individuals vary in their ability to process information of an emotional nature and in their ability to relate emotional processing to a wider cognition. Their model describes four types of abilities:

  1. Perceiving emotions – the ability to detect and decipher emotions in faces, pictures, voices, and cultural artifacts—including the ability to identify one’s own emotions. Perceiving emotions represents a basic aspect of emotional intelligence, as it makes all other processing of emotional information possible.
  2. Using emotions – the ability to harness emotions to facilitate various cognitive activities, such as thinking and problem solving. The emotionally intelligent person can capitalize fully upon his or her changing moods in order to best fit the task at hand.
  3. Understanding emotions – the ability to comprehend emotion language and to appreciate complicated relationships among emotions. For example, understanding emotions encompasses the ability to be sensitive to slight variations between emotions, and the ability to recognize and describe how emotions evolve over time.
  4. Managing emotions – the ability to regulate emotions in both ourselves and in others. Therefore, the emotionally intelligent person can harness emotions, even negative ones, and manage them to achieve intended goals.
English: Managing emotions - Identifying feelings

Image via Wikipedia

Mixed models

The model introduced by  Goleman focuses on EI as a wide array of competencies and skills that drive leadership performance. Goleman’s model outlines four main EI constructs:

  1. Self-awareness – the ability to read one’s emotions and recognize their impact while using gut feelings to guide decisions.
  2. Self-management – involves controlling one’s emotions and impulses and adapting to changing circumstances.
  3. Social awareness – the ability to sense, understand, and react to others’ emotions while comprehending social networks.
  4. Relationship management – the ability to inspire, influence, and develop others while managing conflict.

Goleman includes a set of emotional competences within each construct of EI. Emotional competencies are learned capabilities that must be worked on and can be developed to achieve outstanding performance. Goleman posits that individuals are born with a general emotional intelligence that determines their potential for learning emotional competencies.

Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI)

Bar-On defines emotional intelligence as being concerned with effectively understanding oneself and others, relating well to people, and adapting to and coping with the immediate surroundings to be more successful in dealing with environmental demands.EI develops over time and that it can be improved through training, programming, and therapy.

Bar-On hypothesizes that those individuals with higher than average EQs are in general more successful in meeting environmental demands and pressures. He also notes that a deficiency in EI can mean a lack of success and the existence of emotional problems. Problems in coping with one’s environment are thought, by Bar-On, to be especially common among those individuals lacking in the subscales of reality testing, problem solving, stress tolerance, and impulse control.

In general, Bar-On considers emotional intelligence and cognitive intelligence to contribute equally to a person’s general intelligence, which then offers an indication of one’s potential to succeed in life.

Trait EI model

Soviet-born British psychologist Petrides proposed a conceptual distinction between the ability based model and a trait based model of EI and has been developing the latter over many years in numerous scientific publications.

Trait EI is a constellation of emotional self-perceptions located at the lower levels of personality. This definition of EI encompasses behavioral dispositions and self perceived abilities and is measured by self report, as opposed to the ability based model which refers to actual abilities, which have proven highly resistant to scientific measurement. Trait EI should be investigated within a personality framework. An alternative label for the same construct is trait emotional self-efficacy.

The trait EI model is general and subsumes the above other 2 models from Goleman and Bar-On. The conceptualization of EI as a personality trait leads to a construct that lies outside the taxonomy of human cognitive ability. This is an important distinction in as much as it bears directly on the construct and the theories and hypotheses that are formulated about it.

Source: Wikipedia, Darwin, Thorndike, Wechster, Gardner, Payne, Leuner, Greenspan, Salovey, Mayer, Goleman, Bar-On, Petrides

Leadership history (2/3): Behavioral Models



Behavioral Models
In the 1st Chapter of Leadership History, we have reviewed the trait theory and the critisism of this theory. In response to that theorists began to research leadership not from the individual point of view but rather to see leadership as a set of behaviors, evaluating the behavior of successful leaders, determining a behavior taxonomy, and identifying broad leadership styles.

Lewin, Lipitt, and White developed in 1939 the seminal work on the influence of leadership styles and performance. The researchers evaluated the performance of groups of eleven-year-old boys under different types of work climate.

In each, the leader exercised his influence regarding the type of

  • group decision making,
  • praise and feedback,
  • project management, as management of group task,

according to the following 3 leadership styles: authoritarian, democratic, free-rein leader (also known as laissez-faire)

Managerial grid model

A graphical representation of the managerial g...

Image via Wikipedia

The managerial grid model was developed by Blake and Mouton in 1964 and they concluded their studies in five different leadership styles (Autocratic or authoritarian style, Participative or democratic style, Laissez-faire or free rein style, Narcissistic leadership, Toxic leadership). The styles are based on the leaders’ concern for people and their concern for goal achievement.

As an example of the new view of leadership, David McClelland has described leadership as the person takes a strong personality with a well-developed positive ego: self-confidence and high self-esteem are useful even essential to lead.
Positive reinforcement Model

B. F. Skinner is the father of behavior modification and developed the concept of positive reinforcement. Positive reinforcement occurs when a positive stimulus is presented in response to a behavior, increasing the likelihood of that behavior in the future.

The use of positive reinforcement is a successful and growing technique used by leaders to motivate and attain desired behaviors from subordinates. Research covering the last 20 years suggests that reinforcement theory has a 17 percent increase in performance.

Additionally, many reinforcement techniques such as the use of praise

  • are inexpensive,
  • providing higher performance for lower costs,
  • increase productivity.

Situational theories

Spencer (1884) said that the times produce the person and not the other way around. This theory assumes that different situations call for different characteristics. Following this theory, no single optimal psychographic profile of a leader exists. “What an individual actually does when acting as a leader is in large part dependent upon characteristics of the situation in which he/she functions.” – explains Spencer

Some theorists started to synthesize the trait and situational approaches. Building upon the research of Lewin, academics began to normalize the descriptive models of leadership climates, defining three leadership styles and identifying which situations each style works better in.

The authoritarian leadership style – approved in periods of crisis but fails to win the “hearts and minds” of followers in day-to-day management;

The democratic leadership style is more adequate in situations that require consensus building;

The laissez-faire leadership style is appreciated for the degree of freedom it provides, but as the leaders do not “take charge”, they can be perceived as a failure in protracted or thorny organizational problems.

Theorists defined the style of leadership as contingent to the situation, which is sometimes classified as contingency theory.

Four contingency leadership theories appear more prominently in recent years:

Fiedler contingency model, situational contingency

He has defined two types of leader:

  1. those who tend to accomplish the task by developing good relationships with the group (relationship-oriented), and
  2. those who have as their prime concern carrying out the task itself (task-oriented).

Fiedler found that task-oriented leaders are more effective in extremely favorable or unfavorable situations, whereas relationship-oriented leaders perform best in situations with intermediate favorability.

Vroom-Yetton decision model

In collaboration with Arthur Jago  they developed together a taxonomy for describing leadership situations, which was used in a decision model where leadership styles were connected to situational variables, defining which approach was more suitable to which situation. This approach was novel because it supported the idea that the same manager could rely on different group decision making approaches depending on the attributes of each situation.

The path-goal theory

It was developed by House, according to him is the meta proposition that leaders, to be effective, engage in behaviors that complement subordinates’ environments and abilities in a manner that compensates for deficiencies and is instrumental to subordinate satisfaction and individual and work unit performance”. The theory identifies four leader behaviors, achievement-oriented, directive, participative, and supportive, that are contingent to the environment factors and follower characteristics. The path-goal model states that the four leadership behaviors are fluid, and that leaders can adopt any of the four depending on what the situation demands. The path-goal model can be classified both as a contingency theory, as it depends on the circumstances, and as a transactional leadership theory, as the theory emphasizes the reciprocity behavior between the leader and the followers.

The Hersey-Blanchard situational theory

The model proposes 4 leadership-styles and four levels of follower-development. For effectiveness, the model posits that the leadership-style must match the appropriate level of follower-development. In this model, leadership behavior becomes a function not only of the characteristics of the leader, but of the characteristics of followers as well.

Functional Leadership Model

Functional leadership theory (Hackman, Walton, McGrat) is a particularly useful theory for addressing specific leader behaviors expected to contribute to organizational or unit effectiveness.

Functional leadership theory has most often been applied to team leadership it has also been effectively applied to broader organizational leadership as well. In summarizing literature on functional leadership: observed five broad functions a leader performs when promoting organization’s effectiveness. These functions include environmental monitoring, organizing subordinate activities, teaching and coaching subordinates, motivating others, and intervening actively in the group’s work.

Transactional leadership and Transformational leadership

Berne first analyzed the relations between a group and its leadership in terms of transactional analyses.

The transactional leader (Burns) is given power to perform certain tasks and reward or punish for the team’s performance. It gives the opportunity to the manager to lead the group and the group agrees to follow his lead to accomplish a predetermined goal in exchange for something else. Power is given to the leader to evaluate, correct, and train subordinates when productivity is not up to the desired level, and reward effectiveness when expected outcome is reached. Idiosyncrasy Credit, first posited by Edward Hollander is one example of a concept closely related to transactional leadership.

The transformational leader (Burns) motivates its team to be effective and efficient. Communication is the base for goal achievement focusing the group on the final desired outcome or goal attainment. This leader is highly visible and uses chain of command to get the job done. Transformational leaders focus on the big picture, needing to be surrounded by people who take care of the details. The leader is always looking for ideas that move the organization to reach the company’s vision.

Functional leadership model

The Neo-emergent leadership theory (from the Oxford school of leadership) espouses that leadership is created through the emergence of information by the leader or other stakeholders, not through the true actions of the leader himself. In other words, the reproduction of information or stories form the basis of the perception of leadership by the majority. It can be contended that the perception of all leaders is created and in fact does not reflect their true leadership qualities at all.


Job performance generally refers to behavior that is expected to contribute to organizational success (Campbell). Campbell identified a number of specific types of performance dimensions; leadership was one of the dimensions that he identified.

The Ontological/Phenomenological Model for Leadership

One of the more recent definitions of leadership comes from Erhard, Jensen, Zaffron, Granger who describe leadership as “an exercise in language that results in the realization of a future that wasn’t going to happen anyway, which future fulfills the concerns of the relevant parties…”. This definition ensures that leadership is talking about the future and includes the fundamental concerns of the relevant parties.

Source: Wikipedia, Lewin, Lipitt, White, Blake, Mouton, McClelland, Skinner, Spencer, Fiedler, Vroom, Yetton, Jago, House, Blanchard, Hackman, Walton, McGrat, Berne, Burns, Hollander, Cazmpbell, Erhard, Jensen, Zaffron, Granger

Leadership history (1/3): Trait Theory


, ,

When doing networking, talking to others and talking in different foreign languages, we usually try to translate leadership into a local language. Often the translated word does not really include all qualities and core of what leadership really means, as used in English.

This has been my motivation to deep into the topic and deep primarily not only into the recent understand of leadership, but an understanding how leadership has been developed over time.

To make this article practical and usable in daily life or as leadership tactic, knowledge, my goal here is to give a handy, concise summary of leadership history.

Trait THeory of Leadership – Early history

The very first recognition of importance of leadership leads us back to Plato and Plutarch. They have explored the question “What qualities distinguish an individual as a leader?”. They made the assumption that leadership is rooted in the characteristics that certain individuals possess. This idea that leadership is based on individual attributes is known as the “trait theory of leadership”. In other words, a leader is in all situation is a leader, because has specific individual attributes makes him/her leader.

Trait Theory – 19th Century

Thomas Carlyle has identified the talents, skills, and physical characteristics of men to become leader, as individual attributesin his work Heroes and Hero Worship (1841).

Galton’s Hereditary Genius (1869), he examined leadership qualities in the families of powerful men and studied generations of first and second degree relatives. Galton has concluded that leadership was something to inherit, leaders were born and not developed.

Both of these notable works lent great initial support for the notion that leadership is rooted in characteristics of the leader.

In summary, for decades, this trait-based perspective theoretical work in leadership, conducted over a hundred studies proposing a number of characteristics that distinguished leaders from nonleaders, like:

intelligence, dominance, adaptability, persistence, integrity, socioeconomic status, and self-confidence.

Let us stop here for a moment to see, how many of these descriptions we find back in recent definitions. Before stepping on to the next stage of leadership history, please take a moment to think through the above leadership qualities. Some of them are still there when we describe nowadays leaders.

English: Figure 1. Model of Trait Leadership
Image via Wikipedia

Criticism of Trait Theory – 20th Century

In the late 1940s and early 1950s Stogdill and Mann found that while some traits were common across a number of studies, the overall evidence suggested that persons who are leaders in one situation may not necessarily be leaders in other situations. Subsequently, leadership was no longer characterized as an enduring individual trait. Based on further research and studies showed that individuals can be effective in certain situations, but not others. This approach dominated much of the leadership theory and research for the next few decades.

In 1980’s new methods and measurements were developed that would reestablish the trait theory. New research design methodology allowed researchers to see that individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks. Additionally to the new technic and methods in researches, the 1980s statistical advances allowed researchers to conduct more and deeper analyses, where they could quantitatively analyze and summarize the findings, from a much wider view and multiple studies to be included in these analyses.

The conclusion they have made were:

  • Leaders are leaders across a variety of situations and tasks
  • Significant relationships between leadership and each quality:
  • intelligence
  • adjustment
  • extraversion
  • conscientiousness
  • openness to experience
  • general self-efficacy (person believe in own competence)

A very recent summary of trait theory has been done by Zaccaro (2007):

  1. focus on a small set of  such as Big Five personality traits, to the neglect of cognitive abilities, motives, values, social skills, and problem-solving skills;
  2. fail to consider patterns or integrations of multiple attributes;
  3. do not distinguish between those leader attributes that are generally not malleable over time and those that are shaped by, and bound to, situational influences;
  4. do not consider how stable leader attributes account for the behavioral diversity necessary for effective leadership.

Source: Wikipedia, Plato, Plutarch, Bird, Stogdill, Mann, Carlyle, Galton, Zaccaro

True leaders love people, value people’s differences

This statement from me is simple based on my experience ower the last 20 years.

But I am wondering whether you share my opinion. When I think about my managers over those years, regardless my position, I must say: only a few I truly remember. I can count them on one hand. Not because I am so strict in choice, but because only few of them has left something memorable with me, something I truly believe has contributed to who I am today.

So what is common of those leaders, who are more than managers?

Leaders they are primarily focused on the person, and has a true interest in their employees. They go beyond task management, they go beyond to see people as resource.

True leaders they see potentials, they see the human, and they have a honest interest in both strength and weaknesses. True leaders are open and able to delegate, to trust. They manage people individually. Leaders link people to work together they match the differences and create a dimension of creativity to explore everyone’s strength and diversity.

True leaders are many times also highly experienced in sales and have excellent sales skills and they can use it perfectly in their management or leadership style. True leaders are capable to sell the idea and gain commitment to work together for a win-win situation, that is why they are the good negotiators, when it comes down to performance review and to set future goals or to discuss task assignment. They value people’s differences, and they can deal with it, they can take the advantage of working with different personalities.

Real leaders vs. managers are the ones care about their employees and support them in difficult times. Leaders build on a strong relationship, emotional intelligence. Leaders are open, transparent and result driven. They also give their trust, the freedom to fulfill roles and execute plans, based on people’s different personal goals and capabilities , develop their employees and they are not afraid to see the growth of their team.

True leaders accept and cooperate when time changes and their employees reach higher position, become their peers. They are the ones to shake hand first with you at the reception of your new promotion. Those promotion moments grow the new generation, the new leaders, the new role models.

So they are my leaders vs. my managers.

Please share your experience, share your stories of your leaders.

Free: to resolve your business challenge

Leaders often facing with business challenges, personal issues, life-work balance practical questions or just about to execute change process.

Many times need urgent resolution, advise and all that quickly, from a reliable source, someone objective, preferable a third-party. Someone outside of your organisation, someone to trust.

This is now all free for you. How does it work? In simple 5 steps

1. Describe in max 5 sentences your challenge, should be an easygoing e-mail to me beatrix.gabulya@yourleadershipibc.com

2. I will ask maximum 10 more questions from you to answer. The questions are short, pragmatic, to the point.

3. Answer those in max 10 min and shortly to me.

4. You receive an assessment of your situation and 2-3 options for the resolution

5. Based on your personal needs, you can use a 10 min consult about the topic with me on a call.

Why not to try..

  • takes you only some minutes
  • free
  • efficient
  • result driven

E mail me now: beatrix.gabulya@yourleadershipibc.com

Thank you trusting me, looking forward to hear from you!

Best regards,