Proactive versus reactive leadership

While the most effective leaders are almost always proactive, the vast majority of organizational leaders that I have met in the last three decades of working with organizations have been predominantly reactive. Dictionary.com defines “proactive” as: “serving to prepare for, intervene or control an unexpected event or situation, especially a negative or difficult one; anticipatory.” On the other hand, when we refer to reactive leaders, we usually refer to leaders who have their actions determined by situations, so they generally act a posteriori.

One of the main causes that organizational leaders react reactively rather than proactively is that a large percentage of leaders are fearful. Unfortunately, many leaders are ill-prepared for leadership and fearful of making the wrong decision, so procrastinate when action would be the recommended course. This can result in taking an incorrect and indecisive action, or procrastinating and not taking the necessary actions. Many of the most effective organizational leaders are extremely frustrated when dealing with reactive co-leaders.

Organizations must conduct strategic planning on an ongoing basis. There is also, in most cases, the need for greater financial control of your organization. Another area that proactive leaders realize they need to emphasize includes organizational budgeting and the importance of effectively using zero-based budgeting. Another danger for many organizations is that too many leaders fail to recognize the importance of taking real fiscal restraints and controls. Most organizations should severely limit the number of controls that staff have over organization funds, including limiting the size of checks that a staff member can sign. It is also recommended that organizations create a maximum sum where only one signer is required for a check, and that above that amount, more than one signer is required.

Leaders must recognize that financial obligations and methods for organizations, and what are the appropriate courses of action, are different for organizations than for individuals. Much has been written about the “prudent man rule,” which requires leaders to act fiduciary as the most prudent (or careful) individual would. While certain financial risks may be acceptable for individual portfolios and investments, much more conservative restrictions should be placed on the organization’s funds.

One of the most recurring problems that organizations face are those related to personnel. Proactive leaders try to anticipate what might happen, while reactive leaders often adopt a wait-and-see attitude, not shake the boat. Organizations that have continuous periods of reactive leaders almost always end up with problems, and sometimes even crises, that are preventable and regrettable.