How Much Involvement?

Last week I described how a leader should find his or her Foundational Leading Platform (FLP) and begin the development process from that position. I believe it is best to capitalize on who one is as a leader rather than trying to completely change. Building behavioral range or flexibility can assist a leader on being more effective in a multitude of situations. Of course, challenges remain even after extending one’s adaptability. An interesting yet pervasive obstacle to success is the challenge of selecting how much to actually lead. All too often, leaders get this wrong. Some leaders are over-involved and participate in some meaningful way in every project or make certain groups turn to him/her for decisions “before we move forward, we must check with the boss.” Other leaders are polar opposites and are nowhere to be found (i.e. hides in the office, never circulates among the staff or does not make decisions).  Perhaps this leader is afraid of being labeled a “taskmaster” or is anxious about his/her involvement (“What if I make a mistake?”).

Leadership is a calibration problem. How much and when to lead is key and a miscalculation can cause serious problems.

Consider the leader who feels compelled to be involved in everything. First, he/she trains the workers to decrease their own initiative on doing independent work (“Why bother? The boss is going to have to look at it anyway.”). Second, it decreases the motivation of capable workers because they are restricted from applying their expertise to projects. Finally, leaders like this are sending the message, “I have no confidence in you.” One of the important attributes of a Transformational leader is his or her personal concern (individualized consideration)¹ for his or her team; over-involved leaders fail this dimension.

Where does this need come from? Perhaps it is the leader’s narcissistic belief that he or she can do it better, knows more about the task than others or is more knowledgeable about what is best. Those with a higher level of the narcissistic trait will use the approach to demonstrate his/her prowess and expect accolades in return.

It can also be about control. Control is an interesting word as it relates to leadership. Control is the exact opposite of leading; instead, leading is about working with and in conjunction with followers and slaying the dragons together. The Transformational leader works side-by-side with the worker to transcend (change) the current state of the organization for its betterment. Control is associated with power, and the exercise of power is antithetical to the concept of leading.

Is there ever a time when a leader should be involved in everything? It could make sense at a time of crisis; a leader would not want to “outsource” a crisis decision to his team. However, leaders should utilize the knowledge and skills of the people who surround him or her. If he or she does not have the confidence in the team, then he or she has the wrong team.

Aside from a crisis, how much should a leader dial back his or her involvement? The best answer is “it depends.” One model that has been explained in previous publications offers some clues. That is, Situational Leadership Theory² prescribes how a leader should respond to an employee based upon how confident, willing and able he/she is for specific work. A leader is guided to be directive if a follower is low on all three variables and to reduce the degree of involvement as a worker’s readiness for a task improves.² At the highest level of readiness, the recommendation is for greater levels of empowerment – the leader becomes less involved (task or relationship) but does not disappear.

The alternative to being over-involved is being absent or exhibiting low levels of engagement. This leader may have the opposite effect. Followers may feel abandoned and find the direction of the business or project mysterious; a leader can solve these problems through communication but is not likely to exercise this option if he or she leans toward operating at a distance. Workers generally want to do the right thing and move forward, but in the absence of a leader, they replace gaps in information or direction with conjecture about what should be done; sometimes their guesses are good and other times not. 

One would think that some workers might react positively to this type of leader and view his or her absence as a sign to take charge. In my experience, this rarely occurs, and if it does, co-workers block the “take-over leader.” What is more likely to occur is nothing; people, especially when the business is not stable, will wait to be told what to do.

There are several possible reasons a leader might follow a disengaged approach. First, he or she may not understand the concept of leading and that it does require ongoing involvement. Second, a leader may lack the confidence in his or her abilities generally or as it relates to specific work. Third, a leader may be fearful of doing the wrong thing and making a mistake. Finally, the leader may think he or she is empowering but instead his/her actions are interpreted as Laissez-faire; sometimes leaders are blinded by their own interpretation of how they are leading until they are confronted with the facts, perhaps through a 360-degree feedback mechanism.

The message is that a leader must find some way to calibrate his/her level of involvement and, similar to the cruise-control leader (see previous publication), must adjust to keep things on track. Leaders who don’t attend to this challenge may gravitate toward the extremes described: over- or under-involvement.

The antidote is to consistently work toward a solution to the calibration issue and discover in practice the appropriate degree of involvement. A starting place may be for the leader to confirm he/she is up to the leadership challenge; leading is a tough job that requires resiliency. Since calibration is so difficult for most, leaders need help; the use of models and tools can be beneficial. Even tools that don’t have the best research support (e.g. SLT)¹ can be of assistance because it helps the leader consider how to behave.

Leaders need to be cautious in their exercise of over- and under-involvement. Each causes organizational hazards as it relates to workers and how they respond. Behavioral calibration is among the most important leader challenges.

Please feel free to make comments.

References

¹ Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2011). Organizational Behavior (14th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

² Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K.H. (1995). Situational Leadership. In J.T. Wren (Ed.), The Leader's Companion: Insights on Leadership Through the Ages (pp. 207-211). New York: Free Press.