One Best Way?

One of the more vexing problems facing leaders is determining the right way to lead. In The New York Times' business section (e.g. Sunday edition), one can read interviews of leaders and what they have attributed to their success. It is not unusual to read things like "be clear about your goals," "be nice" or "hire the right people," and all are true to lesser and greater degrees.

Similarly, a famous quote from Aristotle (Book II, 1109.a27, retrieved 8-14-12) stated [variant translation] the following: "Anybody can become angry, that is easy; but to be angry with the right person, and to the right degree, and at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way, that is not within everybody's power and is not easy." The entire quote can be modified for leaders, but here is a smaller rendition: "Many can be appointed a leader...but to lead correctly with a person...and calibrate it correctly to attain the desired outcomes is not easy." This modification captures the challenge facing leaders day-to-day and reveals that leading and leadership can be downright difficult and painful. Since workers don't operate like machinery, that is, push button “A” and they behave always with X behaviors, leadership is more nuanced.

Two schools of thought have emerged. The first is that there is one best way to lead. Leaders who follow this mantra find their "comfort formula" and then stick with it. This leader will find a successful approach and then apply that same or similar approach from position to position. For example, a task-oriented leader will stay focused on tasks regardless of the workers, context or position held. Task orientation does not exclude relationships but it would prevail. Alternatively, a leader might be more relationship focused and then those behaviors are favored.

The second school suggests that leaders need the fortitude and capability to adapt and adjust to their followers, context and organization, and shift as the "winds change." This leader is constantly in a state of flux and calibration; that is, he or she is vigilant in the adjustment of behaviors and decisions in order to reach an optimal outcome. (Key assumption: The leader has formulated an idea of the future state he or she is driving toward and is always working toward.)

All leaders generally seek an optimal solution (hopefully it is for the benefit of the organization), but the former uses a "best way" philosophy and applies its approach consistently. The latter, like timing the stock market, shifts and adapts to keep the business on track. The research suggests the adaptable and flexible leader is more effective. Unfortunately, research does not match the reality of human behavior.

Where do I stand? Intellectually I recognize that adaptive leadership is more effective, but troubled by focusing solely on the ideal way of leading as most practitioner publications seem to reveal. That is, it is very difficult to remain vigilant and sensitive to each follower and the situation at all times and to adjust behaviors almost at a whim; consider the intensity of the concentration needed to attend to the almost constant movement "on the ground" throughout a work day. In other words, to keep one's sanity, a leader must reach some level of steady state or "automation" in order to conserve energy for running the business. This is where I believe the "one best way," to a certain extent, can be applied. Leaders need to find what they are comfortable with and perfect that approach. This becomes their foundational leading platform (FLP). 

Once the leader has identified his or her FLP – task orientation or relationship orientation (see previous publications) – it becomes the starting place for growth. That is, the self-awareness of what they are comfortable with becomes the placeholder for future development. Therefore, instead of focusing on becoming the polar opposite of where one lies on the scale, the leader can experiment and test ways to expand behaviors beyond the range of where they are; these movements may be small and incremental. Instead of moving toward a fixed point out there, it starts where the leader is. Therefore, behavioral range becomes the goal as opposed to reaching superior levels of flexibility, which is difficult for anyone to achieve. Range of movement is key to becoming more effective and psychologically it reduces the perception that a complete change in personality is necessary.

Here is how this would work. If a leader favors a task orientation, he or she can learn how to be more relationship-oriented by trying new behaviors and reflecting on the results; what was learned can be used to update future behaviors (see AOR in previous posts). Another approach for the task leader could be to increase one's degree of Emotional Intelligence (EI), which can be learned¹ through training and mentoring. Another avenue is for the leader to recognize the outside limits of his/her range and fill any gaps by hiring staff with the necessary competencies and abilities.

In addition to focused attention and expanding from where one is, leaders should always glean what they can from respected publications. As mentioned earlier, The New York Times' leader interviews can be one place to turn. The Center for Creative Leadership's website, blogs and e-newsletters (they are now offering a Massive Open Online Course or MOOC) can also provide valuable clues. Here are a few of the thousands of ideas written about:

** Be nice! I define this as civility, respect and positive regard for another. Even workers who are not getting it done should be treated as human beings; I am not advocating the avoidance of taking disciplinary action when needed, but that everyone deserves human treatment and not treatment as an instrument of the organization.

** Goal setting is a simple but effective technique. That is, be clear about the goal and task, set a time frame, assign accountability and make sure it is relevant and achievable, and the leader is on the way to increased success. Strangely enough, I see leaders and organizations falter on this single point time and time again. Why is something so simple not done?

The list can go on.

To summarize, leading the right way with the right people at the right time is very hard. Leaders need to find their beginning space (style) and then concentrate on expanding their behavioral range from that position. When a leader can't get there, another avenue would be surrounding him/herself with those who have the capabilities that are missing. Some of the credible press provides useful ideas on how to be effective, and with universal appeal.

Your thoughts are welcome.

References 

¹ Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York, N.Y.: Bantam Books.