Effective Leaders: Balancing the "Either/Or"

“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 email question posed by a reader who had seen research by Ames and Flynn.  That pair observed that, according to workers, their leaders managed better when they walked somewhere between the lines of too much and two little assertiveness.

This underscores the situational nature of management and leadership.


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



It’s easy to lapse into confusion based upon individual misunderstanding of terminology as well as one’s own “issues.” One person’s “assertiveness” is someone else’s “over-controlling.”  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.



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 in a more scientific way. 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.

The real issue: situational effectiveness.

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.



So, 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?

Comments

[Lynn Ferguson]

I love the definition, and it highlights why I feel we have so many ineffective managers/leaders. The definition clearly defines a leaders role is not to "do" but to help someone else "do", however often the criteria for promotion to the managers role is to be a great "doer" Eliminating teh jargon and clearly defining what it takes will hopefully help people promote base on the characteristics needed in the new job instead of the characteristics of the last job.

Thanks!

[Mike Henry]

Great post Steve. The best learning I had along these lines happened when I got to go through Ken Blanchard's Situational Leadership some years back. Wonderful teaching on how to adapt your leadership style to your team members in the context of the task or project at hand.

Thanks again, Mike...

[Steve Roesler]

Hi, Lynn,

Glad that it rang a bell with you. And yes, as long as managers get rewarded for "doing," then that's exactly what their direct reports will experience. (Why not?!)

[Steve Roesler]

Mike,

I am a 30-year+ fan of Situational Leadership and share your appreciation of the approach. Now you have me thinking and feeling, uh, "mature". I recall phoning the company when Ken and Paul Hersey started publishing the materials. The reason I remember is that they were still answering the phones themselves!

Just had a conversation with a corporate group this week that was lamenting the fact that their company is no longer spending development bucks on such application-oriented, in-depth development. Some had been through SL training with me in the early 90s and are concerned that newer, faster, cheaper approaches are, as one stated, "a mile wide and an inch deep."

What do you see going on in your world?

[Mile High Pixie]

Another good one, Steve. Meeting people where they are and guiding them in the right direction is a great way to describe the best form of leadership. As someone who teaches seminars on civil and assertive behavior and communication skills, I find that the "fine line" between too much input and too little isn't fine at all--it's a nice, comfortable road on which to travel. All it takes is being clear and up-front about what your expectations are for tasks and results, and then you have to be willing to problem-solve if you're not getting the results you were seeking. And if you're on the receiving end of not-enough direction or too-much direction, it's on you to be the one to speak up.

[Steve Roesler]

Hi there, MHP.

Well, you nailed it with the "all it takes is being clear. . ." followed by "it's on you to be the one to speak up."

Clarity and assertiveness are both products of self-responsibility.