How Does Assertiveness Influence Leader Effectiveness?

What would you say is the first key skill of a leader who hopes to balance over-assertive and under-assertive in order to  lead from between their two extremes?

That was the question posed by Dr. Ellen Weber in a recent Brain-Based Business post. Ellen pointed to some research by Ames and Flynn  who observed that when leaders walked somewhere between the lines of too much and two little assertiveness… they managed better … according to workers.

That led to some conversation about the situational nature of management as well as the terminology used to describe how managers act.

Galba Bright quickly noted the situational issue and Wally Bock weighed in with his thoughts on the terminology, especially the use of the word "assertiveness"  vs. "controlling."

I began to comment and then realized by the end that there was probably a full-blown post there. So here goes:

What About Over-Assertiveness, Under-Assertiveness and  Leadership?

Ellen mentioned that some of her conversations about the topic take place in Ireland. Since I've spent a lot of time living and working in Europe, I've had to get used to the fact that when people there talk about management and related behavior, they do it a lot more conversationally using everyday language. Quite frankly, I find that the absence of behavioral jargon can make it a lot easier and more natural to discuss topics whose buzzwords can build tension.

In the U.S., there is a recent history of attempting to carefully delineate behaviors using very specific language. This is, in part, the result of approaching human behavior as a science. Since behavior is, indeed, quite situational, this approach serves at least three purposes that I can see:

1. It provides a common language that, when used appropriately and above board, highlights nuance and helps one understand how specific actions impact one's effectiveness.

2. It provides specific definition of attributes that can lead to promotion, rewards, or dismissal. Which means that it also makes dismissal more explainable. (Likewise, terminology can become great fodder for one's attorney in the event of a dismissal).

3. It lends a "scientific" aura to common-sense training and development which, while fully understood as desirable by most reasonable managers, can't be bought and paid for without the "proof" that comes from a smathering of statistics and a few 6-syllable words that prove how deeply meaningful those statistics must really be.

I believe the real issue is situational effectiveness.

For example, if I don't know what to do or how to do it, then my boss has to be very directive and explanatory. If my task is something that I've done well a million times, then I want to know what the deadline is and I'll deliver it. Nothing more. If I need something along the way, I want a manager who I can go to for advice or re-direction. In the first case, the manager manages me closely. In the second, the manager is my consultant.

The reason that Ames and Flynn saw what they did is really rather simple: Since most of us as workers are at least somewhat competent and, hopefully, somewhat mature, any behavior that operates at either extreme will be seen as:

1. Unnecessarily overbearing and somewhat demeaning

2. Unreasonably absent of relationship and connection, and therefore not engaged. Or overly focused on 'relationship and happiness' to the exclusion of completing the task successfully.

Anything in between will be close enough to respectfully  engage one's employees as well as create an atmosphere that invites questions and help, when needed.

Then What is Effective Leadership?

The desire and ability to meet other people where they are and then spend the right amount of time helping them get where they need to go.

Sometimes it's a long walk together. Other times a brief conversation and a nudge in the right direction.

What does a person need to manage in such an effective way?

1. A high degree of self-awareness regarding one's innate tendencies toward one extreme or the other

2. The desire and ability to manage those tendencies in a way that serves the needs and performance of others

3. The humility to pause regularly and ask "How am I doing?"

4. The decency to listen to the answers.

5. The wisdom to make selfless changes as a result.

That's my take, minus the jargon.

What's yours?

Click on your preferred subscription area at the top of the sidebar on the left. You'll always get the newest post!

Comments

[Elmo The American Classified Ads Free Utilizing Google Dude!]

I have found that reading about historical leadership about people like Alexander the great or George Washington are very, very helpful!

Great Blog!

[Manchild]

Hello Steve,

Excellent! Insightful! What a great post!
Thank you, for sharing such an informative and useful message.

Manchild

[Steve Roesler]

Hi, Manchild,

Wonderful to see you back and your gracious comment is much appreciated.

[Scott M]

I like your points at the end of the post. Of course, that is only the starting point. The next thing to ask is how you can accomplish each point.

1. For self awareness, perhaps a personality profile (such as Myers-Briggs) will help a manager understand himself better.
2. To gain the ability to manage his tendencies with his employees, he will need to understand their personalities also. Either ne heeds to be good at reading people, or perhaps his employees can complete a personality profile test also.
3 thru 5. This requires a structured procedure in place, such as a true 360 review process, with appropriate consequences.

Anyway, I think this illustrates why the best managers are 'people-persons'.

[Steve Roesler]

Hi, Scott,

Good point about the need for ways to build awareness of self and others, and learn to effectively manage both.

I can't think of any successful leader I've worked with over the years who has not used one or more of the tools you mentioned--or similar ones--to become more effective.

What makes those tools effective is using them as a starting point for a conversation about preferences, strengths, and weaknesses, and how best to use those characteristics in the service of the organization and each other.

Thanks for stopping by, Scott, and I look forward to your insights and suggestions in the future.

[Wally Bock]

As Steve rightly points out, a good deal of this is situational and task specific. That's true in growth situations. As people become more adept at specific tasks/assignments they can make more and more of the basic decisions about what to do. However, in disciplinary situations, where you've determined that someone working for you has the ability and resources to do a job and they don't, you tend to take control away as the worker proves unwilling to do the work correctly. There's a diagram I use to illustrate this. In general, though, as people grow in ability and demonstrate willingness to pitch in (we sometimes call this engagement) we give them more and more control. As they present and unwillingness to pitch in and work effectively we take away their control.

[Scott M]

Wally,

I want to offer a counterpoint to your post. Managers must remember that not everyone wants or needs control (or not as much control as the manager thinks they want). Not everyone wants to 'grow' the way that managers think they should grow. That is why it is important to understand your employees personalities.

I hope I'm not reading too much into your post. It's only that this is a very personal topic for me. I don't like a lot of responsibility. I don't like to be "in charge". And I'm content with the limitations that places on my salary and career growth. Many times in my career I have struggled with the tendency for managers to give me more 'control' than I could handle (or perhaps just more than I wanted), simply because I'm good at my very specific job duties.

So it's better to know your people's goals and not force them to 'grow' in areas they don't aspire to, than it is to take away their control because they didn't live up to your expectations.

[Wally Bock]

Hi Scott,

Thanks to your post, I get to clarify again. I don't think you're "reading too much into it." Instead I think you're telling me I need to clarify something.

When I talk about "growth" I mean growth in the the ability to do the six or seven key tasks that make up any job. It's not career growth or anything like that. That should be up to the individual.

When I talk about "control," I mean control of the basic decisions about how the work should be done. I define four control choices for working with subordinates. You choose among them based on the person's ability to do a task and his or her willingness to do it.

The art of supervision is giving you as much control as you both want and can handle and then dealing with you in a way that's comfortable for you.

[Ellen Weber]

Thanks for the link and for the great takeoff on this topic Steve. It was fun to read while traveling in Ireland and it was well received there too! Loved your tools.

Scott makes a great case for hearing from folks at work - and the challenge is to create the communication skills and good tone to let managers know what targets we have in mind. That would help leaders to know who wants what job and to honor people like Scott's wishes.

Tone and communication are often under-rated as top tools for gaining the kind of understanding called for so well in your post and Scotts:-) Great discussion! I've learned from points and counter-points! Thanks!

[Steve Roesler]

Ellen, Scott, and Wally,

Wow. This is what a conversation is all about: I'm not even here and it's going strong!(Well, now I'm back).

One of the things that I'm finding fascinating is the impact of the word "assertiveness." It led to different meanings, different descriptions of leader style, and different tools for gaining understanding in conversations.

Scott, your situation is not an easy one. It sounds as if you are very clear on your abilities as well as your desire to be a solid individual contributor. I hope that your employer will finally recognize and honor those. All of our organizations need clear-minded individuals whose goals don't include "climbing the corporate ladder" but, instead, focus on how to provide outstanding competency in a particular discipline.

[Galba Bright]

Hello Steve:
Thank you so much for the link. I enjoyed your post. Your 5 no nonsense pointers speak to Emotional Intelligence. As you say, an effective leader uses his/her self awareness to constantly check whether his/her preferred style is actually effective and seeks to adjust it accordingly when necessary.
Having lived and worked in the UK, I can relate to your observations about the relatively conversational approach taken in that country, compared with the US where there is a great interest in measurement. Management is part art, part science. An obsession with measurement can stifle initiative. One last idea on situational leadership, as well as the person to person level, where one adjusts one's approach to the particular individual (a la the One Minute Manager), there is also a macro level, where one leads according to the organisational situation, without considering the needs, preferences and styles of particular individuals, for example in an organisational crisis or turnaround.

[Steve Roesler]

Hi, Galba, and thanks for stopping by and adding another dimension to the conversation. The immediate and pressing needs of an organization are factors that sometimes get lost in the focus on long-term development.

Hmmm. Sounds as if we should follow through on this with a post :-)