Leadership | INSYNC Management Solutions

Trust

To foster true leadership, the absence of authority is crucial. Otherwise, your followers are simply complying with your instructions, and you are essentially exerting command. There is nothing inherently wrong with exercising command, as it is often the preferred approach for many leaders. This is especially true in fields like the military and law enforcement, or when you require complete control over those under your guidance. However, for leaders aspiring to truly lead through influence and inspiration, trust must be established and maintained. Without trust, no one will willingly follow you.

This issue appears particularly relevant in modern times, particularly in the realm of political leadership. Political leaders should ideally embody the highest levels of integrity, honesty, humility, and, above all, trustworthiness.

The late John F. Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States, famously stated during his inauguration, “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” This sentiment was rooted in a sense of service that used to prevail. However, in recent years, many politicians and other leaders seem to view themselves as superior to the people they are meant to serve. Rather than understanding that they have been elevated to positions of leadership to serve the interests of the people, they prioritize saying and doing whatever is necessary to secure their power and maintain their position. The consequence of this approach, particularly in the context of political competition between two parties, is the erosion of truth for the sake of victory. It seems that those vying for high office believe that winning and assuming leadership is essential to implementing their vision for the greater good. Sadly, in times where ideology outweighs scientific evidence and facts, and where the media and big businesses stand to benefit from aligning with one side of the political spectrum, the truth not only suffers but is often cast aside.

Integrity is just as essential as trust in effective leadership. It encompasses the trait of fulfilling one’s promises. Every leader has the responsibility to communicate honestly and follow through on their words. Making promises that cannot be kept or, worse, making promises with no intention of keeping them is unacceptable. It is also not acceptable to attribute your failure to keep your word to changing circumstances or to blame your predecessors once you assume office. Such behaviour demonstrates a lack of thoroughness and reflects poorly on leadership. Engaging in such practices indicates incompetence at best, but more likely a disregard for the truth.

The concept of truth itself has become a casualty of modern times. Many previously unquestionable and unchangeable truths are now dismissed by factions as “not my truth.” This shift has resulted in politics giving precedence to ideology, beliefs, and emotions over experience, science, and facts. Nowadays, even scientific findings and facts are frequently manipulated, with some scientists being influenced by financial or ideological alignment with a particular political party or viewpoint driven by self-interest. At least, this is what a significant portion of the population believes. This brings us back to the issue of trust. Regardless of where one falls on the political spectrum, trust in our leaders has been so heavily eroded that scepticism is widespread, and genuine trust in our leaders is scarce.

The erosion of trust in the integrity of political leaders has played out on the global stage, affecting countries such as the US, UK, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, reaching an unprecedented low. This breakdown in trust has resulted in the fragmentation of Western societies, with people becoming divided along ideological and political lines, fuelled by dogmatic beliefs and animosity towards those who hold opposing views. The responsibility of effective leaders is to unite people, encouraging them to come together for the greater good and to achieve remarkable feats, rather than exacerbating divisions. Unfortunately, we have witnessed numerous instances of divisive leadership in the past five years or so, and it appears to be worsening. Contentious issues of global significance, such as globalization, pandemic lockdowns, vaccinations, climate concerns, renewable energy, gender identity, free speech, and the erosion of individual sovereignty, are prevalent and are causing harm to the social fabric.

What can be done? What should be done? What are we willing to do? In my belief, we need our leaders to shift their focus from pursuing victory at any cost to doing what is morally right. They must act with honesty, integrity, and a commitment to the greater good. To be trusted, leaders must first demonstrate trustworthiness, and the most effective way to ensure someone is trustworthy is to hold them accountable.

The Power of Empathy in Leadership

Empathy, a cornerstone of emotional intelligence, holds the key to fostering connections and enhancing leadership effectiveness. While the term “empathy” is commonly used, it encompasses three distinct types: Emotional Empathy, Cognitive Empathy, and Empathic Concern. As leaders, delving into each type of empathy, understanding their intricacies, and appreciating their impact on leadership is essential.

Emotional Empathy: Stepping into Others’ Emotions

Emotional Empathy, also known as affective empathy, is the ability to grasp and share the emotions of others. It’s akin to immersing oneself in another’s emotional state, experiencing their feelings as if they were one’s own. Leaders employing emotional empathy build profound connections with team members, fostering trust and rapport.

Benefits of High Emotional Empathy for Leaders:

Strengthened Bonds: Emotional empathy fortifies relationships, crafting an environment where individuals feel acknowledged and comprehended.

Conflict Resolution: Leaders adept in emotional empathy navigate conflicts more adeptly by empathizing with all parties’ emotions and perspectives.

Employee Well-being: Demonstrating emotional empathy cultivates a positive work culture, promoting well-being and reducing stress among employees.

Challenges of Emotional Empathy for Leaders:

Emotional Fatigue: Experiencing others’ intense emotions can drain leaders emotionally, especially when boundaries are challenging to establish.

Bias in Decision-Making: Over-identifying with emotions might skew decision-making, potentially prioritizing feelings over rationality.

Cognitive Empathy: Viewing the World Through Others’ Eyes

Cognitive Empathy, often called perspective-taking, involves understanding another’s thoughts and viewpoints without necessarily sharing their emotions. It means adopting their perspective intellectually and seeing the world from their standpoint. Leaders with cognitive empathy excel in comprehending diverse outlooks, enhancing their communication and problem-solving skills.

Benefits of High Cognitive Empathy for Leaders:

Inclusive Leadership: Cognitive empathy enables leaders to embrace diversity, appreciating team members’ unique viewpoints.

Effective Communication: Leaders practicing cognitive empathy tailor their communication, improving clarity and understanding across various audiences.

Collaborative Problem Solving: This form of empathy equips leaders to tackle challenges by anticipating the needs and concerns of various stakeholders.

Potential Drawbacks of Cognitive Empathy for Leaders:

Emotional Disconnect: Relying solely on cognitive empathy might hinder emotional bonding with team members, impeding the creation of strong relationships.

Misinterpretations: Misunderstanding emotions and underestimating their influence on decisions can lead to misunderstandings and misaligned expectations.

Empathic Concern: Beyond Understanding to Action

Empathic concern, or compassionate empathy, transcends grasping emotions or perspectives. It’s about genuinely caring for others’ well-being and being driven to alleviate their suffering and enhance their happiness. This form of empathy compels individuals to actively support others in meaningful ways.

Positive Impact of Empathic Concern for Leaders:

Fostering Relationships: Leaders showing empathic concern build profound relationships with team members. When employees sense genuine care from their leader, they feel valued and engaged.

Boosting Morale: Empathic leaders cultivate a supportive work environment, addressing team members’ concerns and enhancing unity and morale.

Resolving Conflicts: Empathic concern equips leaders to understand all parties’ emotions in conflicts, facilitating effective and sensitive resolution.

Enhanced Communication: Genuine concern enhances leaders’ listening and communication, preventing misunderstandings and nurturing trust.

Challenges of Empathic Concern for Leaders:

Emotional Strain: Deep investment in others’ well-being can lead to emotional exhaustion, affecting decision-making and overall effectiveness.

Balancing Objectivity: While valuable, empathic concern must not overshadow rational decisions necessary for the organization’s greater good.

Boundary Dilemmas: Balancing empathy with professional boundaries is complex, potentially blurring lines between personal and professional relationships.

Perceived Weakness: High empathic concern might be misconstrued as weakness, undermining leaders’ authority and effectiveness.

Putting this Knowledge into Action to Aid Leaders’ Interactions

Understanding these forms of empathy empowers leaders to interact more effectively with their followers. By recognizing the nuances of emotional empathy, cognitive empathy, and empathic concern, leaders can tailor their approaches to different situations. Balancing empathy with rational decision-making ensures effective leadership that builds strong relationships, nurtures team morale, and resolves conflicts, while avoiding pitfalls like emotional exhaustion and perceived weakness. Empathy, when harnessed adeptly, paves the way for impactful leadership that drives both personal and organizational growth.

Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive congruence or consonance are the terms used to describe when alignment exists between what you think and believe, and what you say and do. When cognitive congruence exists, you will be able to commit fully to whatever task, activity, or relationship you are involved in. This differs from cognitive dissonance which exists when your thoughts, beliefs, speech, and actions are at odds with each other.

Cognitive dissonance tends to occur when you hold two contradictory but related beliefs or cognitions, at the same time and is characterised as the ‘discomfort’ felt due to this misalignment.

Cognitive dissonance is not a disease or illness. It is a psychological condition that can happen to anyone. American psychologist Leon Festinger first developed the concept in the 1950s.

Anecdotally, cognitive dissonance occurs much more frequently than you might imagine, especially when individuals feel compelled to support things they really don’t believe in and disagree with. This can be the case in their work, in law, in religion, or even as part of a group they belong to.

An obvious example of cognitive dissonance is when someone works out to maintain their health, yet smokes cigarettes or drinks alcohol knowing these products pose serious negative health consequences. A less obvious example is someone who wants to save the planet from climate change yet frequently flies to conferences in highly polluting aircraft.

What causes cognitive dissonance?

We all have our own values, beliefs, and heuristics, many of which form when we are very young and may be inherited from our parents or learned at school or from our peers. Our experiences, our culture, and even when we grew up all contribute to who we are, what we believe, and how we feel about certain issues. Cognitive dissonance can be caused by the actual or perceived need to act in a way, or agree with an ideology or decision, that does not align with our embedded beliefs or values.

When cognitive dissonance occurs, you feel torn between what you believe and what you have to do or say, and how you have to act. For example, you may be responsible for implementing guidelines or policies you do not believe in, or agree with, due to it being your job, due to peer pressure and group-think, or the fear of the punitive ramifications of speaking out. It could be that you need to abide by policies, rules, and laws, for fear of being punished, losing your job, or in today’s society, being de-platformed or cancelled.

Silently coping with your cognitive dissonance is a burden that can literally drive you to distraction and cause you quite a bit of mental anguish. Keeping your dissenting views bottled up and to yourself allows them to fester and gain weight beyond their metaphoric mass. They can cause you to become tainted, disaffected, and disengaged. They can affect your behaviour and performance and cause you to act out, particularly when your beliefs are being directly challenged and you’re under stress. The turmoil caused by your internal conflict can push you to snap and lash out at the situation, the system, or even an individual.

What can you do to overcome the internal turmoil and discomfort associated with cognitive dissonance?

First, you can acknowledge your feelings and internal conflict. Next, you need to recognise what’s causing the conflict, and why you feel strongly opposed to whatever is causing it. Then you can determine what options are available to you. Ideally, at this stage, it’s wise to fully discuss your dilemma and preferred option(s) with a trusted confidant or possibly even a professional such as a psychologist. You are then best equipped to decide how to deal with your internal struggle.

Abilene Paradox

The Abilene Paradox, was first penned by Professor Jerry B. Harvey in 1974 in an article entitled “The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement”. Much later, in 1988 Prof Harvey published a book on the topic entitled “The Abilene Paradox and Other Meditations on Management”.

The Abilene Paradox describes a group of people who collectively decide to take a trip from their home in Coleman, Texas to Abilene, some 53 miles away, to partake in a meal at a quaint local diner The premise of the paradox is that in agreeing to act on the idea and take the trip, put them on a course of action that was counter to the preferences of many or all of the individuals in the group.

The following passage is taken from Organizational Dynamics, Summer 1988, pp. 17–43. © 1988 by the American Management Association, New York – All rights reserved; and was reprinted with permission, by the Aspin Institute.

“The July afternoon in Coleman, Texas (population 5,607) was particularly hot— 104 degrees as measured by the Walgreen’s Rexall Ex-Lax temperature gauge. In addition, the wind was blowing fine-grained West Texas topsoil through the house. But the afternoon was still tolerable—even potentially enjoyable. There was a fan going on the back porch; there was cold lemonade; and finally, there was entertainment. Dominoes. Perfect for the conditions. The game required little more physical exertion than an occasional mumbled comment, “Shuffle ‘em,” and an unhurried movement of the arm to place the spots in the appropriate perspective on the table.
All in all, it had the makings of an agreeable Sunday afternoon in Coleman—this is, it was until my father-in-law suddenly said, “Let’s get in the car and go to Abilene and have dinner at the cafeteria.” I thought, “What, go to Abilene? Fifty-three miles? In this dust storm and heat? And in an unairconditioned 1958 Buick?” But my wife chimed in with, “Sounds like a great idea. I’d like to go. How about you, Jerry?” Since my own preferences were obviously out of step with the rest I replied, “Sounds good to me,” and added, “I just hope your mother wants to go.” “Of course I want to go,” said my mother-in-law. “I haven’t been to Abilene in a long time.”
So into the car and off to Abilene we went. My predictions were fulfilled. The heat was brutal. We were coated with a fine layer of dust that was cemented with perspiration by the time we arrived. The food at the cafeteria provided first-rate testimonial material for antacid commercials.
Some four hours and 106 miles later we returned to Coleman, hot and exhausted. We sat in front of the fan for a long time in silence. Then, both to be sociable and to break the silence, I said, “It was a great trip, wasn’t it?” No one spoke. Finally my mother-in-law said, with some irritation, “Well, to tell the truth, I really didn’t enjoy it much and would rather have stayed here. I just went along because the three of you were so enthusiastic about going. I wouldn’t have gone if you all hadn’t pressured me into it.”
I couldn’t believe it. “What do you mean ‘you all’?” I said. “Don’t put me in the ‘you all’ group. I was delighted to be doing what we were doing. I didn’t want to go. I only went to satisfy the rest of you. You’re the culprits.” My wife looked shocked. “Don’t call me a culprit. You and Daddy and Mama were the ones who wanted to go. I just went along to be sociable and to keep you happy. I would have had to be crazy to want to go out in heat like that.”
Her father entered the conversation abruptly. “Hell!” he said. He proceeded to expand on what was already absolutely clear. “Listen, I never wanted to go to Abilene. I just thought you might be bored. You visit so seldom I wanted to be sure you enjoyed it. I would have preferred to play another game of dominoes and eat the leftovers in the icebox.”

What the Abilene Paradox highlights is an almost universal feeling of needing to propose ideas thought to be desired by others, which are then agreed with, to “not rock the boat”.

This Abilene Paradox seems to play out regularly today by a libertarian society laser focussed on innovation and change, encouraged by a mainstream who desire harmony and are opposed to confrontation. The result is bad ideas supported by people who oppose them but do not feel empowered to speak up for fear of being at odds with the group and needing to back their conviction, possibly through confrontation and debate.

The Abilene Paradox highlights what can happen in business when there is an inability to manage agreement rather than conflict. Couple this with a lack of psychological safety to speak your mind and today’s regression of freedom of speech and this is once again the single most pressing issue facing modern organisations.

Knowing about the Abilene Paradox and that it is prevalent in many group discussions ranging from the example above to the board room and even social and political reform, will hopefully allow you to empathise with others and feel what they feel. While you can never truly know another’s mind, you should always feel empowered to authentically express how you feel without fear of offending others or of their potential ridicule, knowing they are possibly more in agreement with your view than you think.

Situational Leadership

The saying “one size fits all” really doesn’t work when it comes to leadership. Afterall, we are all different and unique. We have different beliefs, values, abilities, motivations, and aspirations. So, as leaders, why do we assume we can lead everyone in the same way? We can’t.

Imagine you’re fresh out of school and it’s your first day at a new job. You have no real understanding of what your role requires of you and therefore no idea how to achieve the list of outcomes on your new position description, if you’re lucky enough to have one. You complete some notional induction training and tick off some items on a HR check list and then you’re off. Your new boss comes over to you and rattles off 10 lines of instructions with no context or explanation then disappears into his office. How do you think you will perform? Not great I bet.

Now imagine you have been working in your role for 10 years. You have completed multiple advanced training courses and regularly provide advice and guidance to more junior staff. What goes through your mind when your boss continuously insists on explaining what she needs you to do and how she requires you to do it? Pretty annoyed and undervalued I’d bet.

Now we’re somewhat conflating leadership with management here, after all its rare that you’ll be just a leader or a manager, can you see how each of these staff members have different needs and hence need to be led in different ways?

In 1969, researchers Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard created their ‘life cycle theory of leadership’ while working on Management of Organizational Behaviour. During the mid 1970’s the theory was renamed Situational Leadership Theory.

The origins of Situational Leadership stem from related research conducted at Ohio State University on what they referred to as the two-factor theory of leadership. The researchers postured that leadership styles are dependent on task behaviour and relationship behaviour.

In the early 1980s, Hersey and Blanchard both developed their own slightly divergent versions of the Situational Leadership Theory. Hersey developed the Situational Leadership Model while Blanchard expanded the theory and developed the Situational Leadership II model, in popular use today.

The fundamental principle of the situational leadership model is that there is no single style of leadership that is effective in every situation. To be effective, the leadership style used needs to be task-relevant, and the most successful leaders are those who can adapt their leadership style to the performance level of the individual or group they lead, in terms of their ability and willingness. Effective leadership varies, not only with the person or group being led, but also based on the task, job, or function that needs to be performed.

The Situational Leadership Model has two fundamental concepts: leadership style and the individual or group’s performance readiness level, also referred to as their development level.

The figure below shows the relationship between the individual’s development level and the level of leader support they require.

As you move around the model, you’ll see that those at the Development Level 1 (D1), require the leader to demonstrate a high level of Directing Behaviour. That is to say that those who are new to a role, task, or scenario will need to be told what to do and how to do it and will require the highest level of support and direction compared to someone with much more training and experience.

As the individual gains more experience, they will move to Development Level 2 (D2), where the support they require from their leader is less directing and more coaching. At this level, the individual understands the principles of the task but lacks the full knowledge for how to complete the task on their own. At the D2 level the individual no longer needs to be told what to do but may need to be reminded how to perform certain aspects of the task. At this level the leader should promote more autonomy and lead by coaching the individual to recall their training and to put it into action. There may also be a need to confirm the training and even go back over certain aspects that may not have been fully understood.

Once the individual becomes competent, they may still lack the experience and confidence needed to function in a totally autonomous fashion. At this Development Level 3 (D3), the individual is capable of completing the task or performing their role, but may need reassurance, affirmation, and varying degrees of leader support.

At Development Level 4 (D4), the individual is highly competent and capable of completing the task or their role independently, with little or no direction. Here, the leader need only delegate the task and seek status reports on progress.

The basic directing and supporting behaviours for each Development Level are detailed in the table below. You will see how leaders can be seen to be ‘micromanaging’ their staff when they may be simply treating everyone as if they are stuck at Development Level 1 (D1).

Inversely, the busy leader who assumes their staff are all at Development Level 4 (D4), may seem to be absent and to be delegating or even abdicating their responsibilities, by staff who need their support.

This is a very brief overview of Situational Leadership Theory designed to stimulate thought and discussion. There are several criticisms of the theory with the main one being that it’s possible for individuals to be at a level D3 or D4 for some tasks while still being at a level D1 or D2 for others. The Leader would therefore need to have and maintain a very high degree of awareness of each individual team member’s Development Level and the amount of support they need. Situational Leadership is also difficult to apply to a team scenario when the individuals within the team are at different Development Levels.

Despite these and other criticisms, it is useful for leaders to know that each member of their team will likely be at different Development Levels and will therefore require different levels of support from Directing, to Coaching, Supporting and Delegating.

Once you are familiar with Situational Leadership Theory, you may find yourself spending more time observing those you lead, assessing their Development Levels, and trying to provide the support you feel they need. Be careful that you don’t attempt to implement Situational Leadership as a wholesale leadership style.

Having a basic knowledge of Situational Leadership Theory allows leaders to understand that the leadership style they use and the level of support they provide, should be tailored to match the needs of those they lead.

Giving Feedback

Giving and receiving feedback is fundamental to the growth and development of us all, but is very often difficult for the giver and confronting for the receiver.

There are many reasons for this. For example, if you’re due for a performance review, you may experience negative emotions and anxiety caused by the fear of being told that your ability, behaviour, or performance isn’t meeting expectations. Inversely, if you need to provide feedback, you may not have the experience or maturity to deal with the effect caused by your feedback, especially if it is likely to be taken badly and you’re not sure how to deliver your message.

Anecdotally, the performance of annual or bi-annual performance reviews alone are totally ineffective. In the weeks leading up to a performance review period, the reviewer will often need to take time out of their normal routine to think back over the past six or twelve months and draft their review notes. Some organisations transfer much of this responsibility to those being reviewed, requiring them to complete templated forms detailing their past achievements and future goals.

There are three key problems with this system:

It is highly disruptive for the weeks leading up to the reviews.
It creates anxiety for both the giver and receiver, that for the receiver, may last sometime after the review.
The goals set tend to focus on hitting targets for revenue or some other KPI, rather than homing in on the underlying behavioural or performance issues that would support the achievement of the desired improvement or change.

Sometimes, people’s pride or ego may prevent them from accepting the feedback, causing them to disengage or even become agitated or angry. If the giver is at all narcissistic, egotistical, or even has feelings of inferiority, they may magnify the severity of the issues or behaviours that constitute the feedback.

Either way, these are common and normal feelings experience during the ‘build up’ to a performance review and they are completely avoidable.

The anxiety sometimes felt by those giving feedback can be alleviated by ensuring proper preparation for the encounter.

We should also remember that not all feedback is negative, and even negative feedback should, in cases were the behaviour or issue is not deliberate or malice, be given in an upbeat, positive manner. The feedback should be seen as identifying the opportunity to improve and do and be better.

A good habit to develop is to record an individual’s positive and negative behaviour and performance in a dedicated notebook. The notebook is then used to recall specific behaviour and performance issues in the lead-up and preparation for the review. Feedback should also be given at the time of the behavioural or performance issue and recorded in the notebook for later review to gauge if the behaviour or performance has improved. A caveat for using a performance notebook is that you need to ensure the book is treated with the utmost confidentiality as it may be used to record sensitive and personal information.

The importance of feedback

Feedback is critical for our development and improvement. We are often too close to our behaviours, traits, and habits to have the proper perspective to see and understand their impact on us, on other’s and on the tasks or work we do.

To change and improve we must first recognise that change is needed, that things could be better, that we could improve. We also need a reason to change, for without a compelling reason, we will not be motivated to action, or disciplined to completion. There are generally only to reasons why people change, and these are to receive a reward or avoid a ramification. By this, I’m not suggesting that giving feedback and inspiring change should employee a carrot or stick mentality. Rather, what I’m saying is for someone to act and make meaningful adjustments that positively change their behaviour or performance, they must see a benefit or disbenefit attach to them making, or not making the change.

It’s only when we recognise that we have the potential to do or be better and have the drive to achieve the desired future performance level that improvement will occur. It image below shows the relationship between potential and drive on performance. It is entirely possible that an individual who possesses the skills and ability to excel may not, due to a lack of drive or motivation. The inverse is also true for those who want to succeed but lack what it takes at the time. Performance is the coming together of potential and drive and normally requires some form of ‘trigger’ to act as the catalysis for performance. This may be something as subtle as the person’s supervisor engaging with them and letting them know they are doing a great job and see bigger things in their future, to the opportunity to lead an exciting project that could result in a promotion.

The power of feedback is that it can alert us to our blind spots and allow us to consider our behaviour or performance from a different perspective. This is why the best feedback always starts by asking the subject “how do you rate or feel about your performance on…..?”. This allows the giver of the feedback to understand how the subject perceives their performance and therefore allows the feedback to be tailored to address any blind spots or misperceptions.

The giver of the feedback may then continue giving feedback through the process of asking questions that result in the receiver describing how they perceive their performance across multiple performance criteria, steered by the giver and allowing the giver to simply agree or disagree and to explain why.

When giving feedback you must be objective and honest, but this does not mean you should be blunt, brutal, or mean. You should ensure your feedback is CLEAR. CLEAR is an acronym that stands for Context, Language, Examples, Alternatives, Reset, and is explained below:

Context. When giving feedback it is important to provide context and relate the behaviour or performance to whatever negative outcome or result it manifests. This might be telling them that others performance is also impacted, or safety jeopardised, by their behaviour.

Language. How you give your feedback is as important as the feedback itself. Be aware of the receiver’s circumstances and tailor your feedback accordingly. This maybe because the undesirable behaviour or poor performance is due to a situation affecting the subject of your feedback and demonstrating empathy and compassion may be the best way to kickstart the change. Except in specific circumstances where bad behaviour or poor performance is deliberate or done with malice, your language should be inspiring, motivating, and positive.

Examples. It is important to give tangible examples of poor behaviour or low performance. You might say something like “when you do XX, it disrupts others by distracting them from their work, resulting in lost productivity”.

Alternatives. Identifying, establishing, and setting the standard for receivers is necessary. Giving receivers alternatives to their current behaviours or performance provides the direction they may need to make the change.

Reset. Once the feedback has been given, to not harp on about it. Allow the receiver time to absorb the feedback, develop and execute their plan for change, and set realistic review points to check in and gauge their progress. If the plan is not returning the necessary results, help them make adjustments and move on. Don’t forget the plan should be SMART – Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timebound.

Remember, the feedback you give is your observation and perception of the receiver’s performance. Never apologise or feel bad about the feedback you give as it is a reflection of the receiver’s behaviour or performance. You are merely raising their awareness of how you, and possibly others view them.

Feedforward

Feedback is retrospective and by virtue of its approach seeks to identify behaviour or performance issues, good or bad, and in the case of bad, to inspire or impose change. The real opportunity is to identify opportunities to coach your followers to continuously improve their behaviours and performance, and consequently their outcomes, rather than waiting for problems to occur. This approach is similar to the lessons learnt process used at the start of new projects. Based on a retrospective or post-mortem performed at the end of another similar project, the lessons learnt process seeks to prevent past problems from occurring in future projects. Similarly, feedforward seeks to head off future behavioural and performance issues by identifying and preventing the formation of bad habits.

Servant Leadership

Servant Leadership is a term that was first introduced into the leadership vernacular in 1970 by retired AT&T executive Robert K. Greenleaf. Greenleaf coined the term to describe what he believed was a type of leadership that was missing in corporations at the time. Greenleaf identified the need for a type of leadership where the leader’s role was to facilitate the success of their followers for the greater good of the organisation. It was Greenleaf’s belief that leadership should be based on serving the needs of others and helping them to serve those who they lead so that they would in turn become Servant Leaders themselves.

But Greenleaf did not invent the concept of Servant Leadership. One of the earliest examples of Servant Leadership is captured in biblical scriptures describing Jesus washing the feet of his disciples and telling them to wash each other’s feet. This was a demonstration by Jesus, that leadership is not about having power over others, but rather giving power to them. Within the military context, one of the most crucial ranks in most armies is that of the Sergeant. The word Sergeant derives its origins from the Latin word Serviens, which means to serve.

Greenleaf worked on the concept of Servant Leadership for 20 years, but it did not gain popular status until Greenleaf passed away in 1990. While there has been a lot written about the concept of Servant Leadership since 1970, it has been criticised due to the lack of published empirical research on the topic.

While most people would interpret and understand Greenleaf’s concept of Servant Leadership, as the ‘leader as servant’, his notion of the ‘servant as leader’ may be less understood. This is a very important distinction as the ‘servant as leader’ draws a very different image of the role of the leader. This misinterpretation has happened because like so many leadership concepts, much of the research and literature has not been fully read or understood by those espousing it. This is evident in the common abbreviation of Greenleaf’s seminal essay on the subject entitled “The Servant as Leader” to “Servant Leadership”. Greenleaf never intended for the Servant as Leader to be interpreted literally as the Servant Leader, which conjures images of leaders being subservient to their followers and where the leader needs to transform into a servant. Rather, Greenleaf inferred that servants can, and should lead and that this mindset of the Servant as Leader should be front of mind for all leaders as they ascend the leadership ladder.

Supporters of Servant Leadership see it as an altruistic form of leadership where the leader acts as steward and influences their followers through the demonstration of leadership behaviours and characteristics such as integrity, honesty, and empathy manifested as a genuine concern for their followers. Hence, as humans are not autonotoms and perform better when they are able to relate to their leader and feel a sense of belonging to a group or organisation, it is logical to assert that the application of Servant Leadership will help leaders influence their followers.

Greenleaf wrote about the Servant Leader being a servant first and referenced ‘Leo’ a character from a story Greenleaf read about Hermann Hesse’s Journey to the East. In this story, Leo served a wealthy family and was central to maintaining harmony and proper functioning of the group. At a certain point, Leo disappears and the family falls into disarray. Later Hesse finds Leo leading a group of his own people and realises that it was Leo’s leadership and influence that had unified the family.

Servant Leadership begins with a natural desire to serve first. Then conscious choice, the situation, and time allows the servant to grow and want to lead. A person who is a servant first is very different from one who is a leader first. One who desires to lead first may desire this based on a feeling or need for power, or merely to acquire material possessions. In some cases this person may later choose to serve after leadership is established.

“The leader-first and the servant first are two extreme types. Between them there are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature”.
Robert K. Greenleaf

The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the Servant Leader to ensure other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The best way to think about Servant Leadership is to ask if those being led grow as people because of the Servant Leader’s leadership? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society; will they benefit, or, at least, not be further deprived? This is where Servant Leaders need to be careful not to desire the adoration of their followers to the point of being weak or soft on bad behaviour or poor performance. This is what I refer to as the “Nice Leader Fallacy”.

Critics of Servant Leadership cite the lack of published research on the efficacy of the concept and infer that so long as leadership is associated with power, leaders will not be able or willing, to adopt a higher standard of leadership. It is especially true of leaders in business and in politics that the task of achieving ever greater returns for shareholders or winning the next election means there is a significant focus on the task or mission rather than on the welfare of the followers. In this scenario, the followers, aka workers or voters are merely tools for the leader to achieve their goals.

At the end of the 20th Century, there were at least 650 definitions of leadership. While there is no consensus on the meaning of the word leadership, most would agree that leadership is the process of influencing people to achieve shared goals and deliver a vision.

This implies that the followers, follow the leader not because they are forced to, or because they are being paid, but rather because they believe in the leader and the leader’s vision.

Leadership is a very broad discipline and covers self-leadership, often in the context of self-discipline and self-actualisation or transcendence, religious organisations, sporting teams, charities and non-profit organisations, emergency services, and the military, politics, and business.

Some examples of true leaders include Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi, and Mother Teresa. These leaders were able to mobilise large groups of people to follow them and indeed to participate in the execution of their missions and visions, without being paid or coerced, and without fear of punishment for non-compliance.

Based on the above ‘common definition’ and examples, true leadership can only exist if there is an absence of authority, with no consequence for the followers who choose not to comply or follow. This is because where the ‘leader’ has authority over the followers, they are not truly leading them, they are directing them. In this scenario, if the follower chooses not to follow, there are consequences. These might be being overlooked for a promotion or being found unsuitable to continue in the organisation, and in some situations could result in more dire consequences such as imprisonment or worse.

Does this mean that the concept of Servant Leadership is not valid in modern society? I don’t believe so. I believe strongly in Servant Leadership as a concept and an approach to leading. In my view Servant Leadership is a logical approach to empowering others to achieve results and for the leader to clear the path and provide the support necessary. I can’t think of a circumstance where this type of leadership would be seen as anything other than appropriate. I do, however, acknowledge that leaders who do not feel secure or safe in their positions will succumb to the pressure to return results more rapidly or in line with unreasonable projections. These leaders are likely to revert to a more authoritarian style of leadership.

This is not a failure of Servant Leadership, but rather a failure of the individual leader. Anyone can apply Servant Leadership and lead high performing teams during an economically prosperous time and within a stable industry. Reverse the circumstances and ask the same leader to lead in a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous time and they will likely adopt a much more authoritarian leadership style.

This purist version of leadership, where the leader influences their followers through willing consent is very different to the type of leadership delivered in virtually all business settings. Hence, I submit that there are almost no cases where “business leaders” are in fact leaders at all. Herein lies the dilemma for the future of leadership within a business context, as business leaders do indeed have authority over their followers and there are consequences for followers who choose not to follow.

Business leaders can direct their followers, known as employees, to perform the actions laid down within their employment contracts, which they have agreed to. Therefore, in this context, this type of leadership is not leadership at all, but rather a form of what I refer to as ‘Corporate Command’.

Business tends to follow social trends and the current trend, which has been growing for more than 20 years and seems to be gaining mass, is that of a more socialist, left-wing ideology. For business leaders, most of whom are currently of older generations, this presents a significant challenge.

The challenge for leaders will be how to drive results and maximise shareholder profits while attracting and retaining top talent? I believe the answer lies in the culture of modern organisations, the moral character of the leaders and the attitude and loyalty of the followers.

Organisations and their leaders need to keep pace with changing social attitudes if they are to offer new entrants into their organisations the type of workplace experience expected by those now entering the job market. My own observations of Millennials and Gen Z, indicates they are less focused on salary and status and more focused on job satisfaction and inclusion. They have also grown up in affluent times, are more educated than previous generations, and enter the workforce with little or no previous work experience. Whilst these have been my observations and perceptions, I acknowledge there is little empirical research on the topic.

Business is changing rapidly. Technological advances, social change, geopolitical instability, quantitative-easing and hyper-inflation, the rapid push to ‘green energy’, and the “long pandemic”, all represent an enormous challenge for current and emerging leaders. But change is not a new phenomenon, and while the rate of change today is unarguably greater than at any time in history, the challenge for leaders remains fundamentally the same. How best to lead?

In the 1960’s, Laurance J. Peter established the ‘Peter Principle’ where he asserted that “in a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to the level of incompetence”. Anecdotally, many leaders of company’s start their careers in technical or administrative fields, in which they excel. Over time, these individuals are promoted into leadership roles where the skills needed are very different from those of their previous roles. Leaders who expect to be experts in all facets of their business and remain up to date on the latest technologies and social trends will have little time left to lead. Leaders need to focus on the future and on leading, and need to place trust in the other members of the organisation to play their part.

If leaders are to rise to the challenge and lead in a humanistic yet effective manner, they will need to put aside their authority and their egos and discover the power of giving away their power. This is not to say that leaders should ignore underperformance or tolerate bad attitudes or behaviour. Followers have a role to play, and that role comes in the form of ‘servant as leader’.

One way that leaders can better lead during times of rapid change is to adopt a technique used by the military, known as Contributory Dissent. This is where the leader elicits and demands that followers challenge the status quo and contribute through constructive arguments, to discover the best way forward. Everything is on the table until it’s not. Contributory Dissent requires trust and a high level of psychological safety that gives followers the confidence and authority to propose all options. However, once a decision is made, everyone must accept the decision as if it were their own.

Another way that leaders can adapt to rapid change is to adopt a more principled based approach to business management and leadership. This is where the organisation adopts a ‘purpose over process’ approach which emphasises doing what’s right rather than blindly following orders or processes. This requires the leader to make their intent known and to empower and trust followers to make their own decisions and do what’s right. Followers should be encouraged to explore new ways to do business all the while supporting the leader’s intent and remaining firmly focused on the mission and vision.

Conclusion

While there is little empirical evidence that Servant Leadership is effective within the contextual framework of business leadership, it is a form of leadership that helps to distribute leadership throughout the organisation by empowering followers to also act as leaders. Probably the largest criticism of Servant Leadership, other than the lack of empirical research into its efficacy, is that it requires leaders to put aside their egos and relinquish their power and this is difficult for most leaders to do.

In dealing with a future that is changing so rapidly, I believe leaders need to understand the influences of social, generational, technological, environmental, and geopolitical forces on business and on people and adapt to a more humanistic form of leadership.

A final word on Servant Leadership.

The most significant criticism of Servant Leadership is its lack of efficacy. I have personally found that this can be addressed by concurrently employing other forms of leadership such as Situational Leadership developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard in the 1970’s.

Critical Thinking

What is Critical Thinking?

The term critical comes from the Greek word kritikos meaning “able to judge or discern”. Critical thinking is the ability to consistently apply sound judgment based on reliable information for the purpose of making good decisions. The best way to think about critical thinking is that it’s the type of thinking that should be applied to solving complex, complicated, and ‘wicked’ problems where finding the best solution is critical to success.

Before deep-diving into Critical Thinking, it’s useful to understand that there are other forms of thinking, the application of which are often more appropriate than critical thinking. This is because critical thinking is more difficult than non-critical thinking, can require significant research and time, and is often not warranted as the problems being solved are simple and their solutions are of little consequence. For example, you wouldn’t normally use critical thinking to help you decide whether you should choose coffee or tea for your morning beverage. The effort-to-reward ratio doesn’t stack up.

Some other forms of thinking include automatic thinking, which is often based on heuristics and applied to simple, everyday decision-making tasks such as coffee vs tea. Automatic thinking is sometimes referred to as ‘system one thinking’ thanks to the success of Daniel Kahneman’s best-selling book ‘Thinking Fast and Slow’. Other forms of thinking include analytical, design, systems, creative, abstract, and convergent and divergent thinking. These are all valid forms of thinking that when applied in the right circumstance help to inform decisions.

Critical thinking is a process-oriented approach to thinking that can help almost anyone be better at solving problems, rendering judgments, and making good decisions.

In simple terms, Critical thinking is a three-step process involving clarity, conclusion, and decision.

Critical thinking cannot, however, make you smarter as your innate Intelligence Quotient (IQ) is relatively fixed. Critical thinking can, however, help you to form better conclusions and make better decisions, maximising your mental capability and capacity which results in far better outcomes attributed to you. Consistently applying critical thinking to solve complex problems can be your superpower that allows you to surpass those with higher IQs who do not apply the critical thinking process, resulting in less consistent outcomes.

Before we delve into finding clarity, drawing conclusions, and making sound decisions, it’s important to understand logical reasoning.

Two kinds of logical reasoning are often distinguished in addition to formal deduction: induction and abduction. Given a precondition or premise, a conclusion or logical consequence, and a rule or material condition that implies the conclusion given the precondition, one can explain the following.

Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning determines whether the truth of a conclusion can be determined for that rule, based solely on the truth of the premises. For example: “When it rains, things outside get wet. The grass is outside, therefore; when it rains, the grass gets wet.” Mathematical logic and philosophical logic are commonly associated with this type of reasoning.

Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning attempts to support a determination of the rule. It hypothesizes a rule after numerous examples are taken to be a conclusion that follows from a precondition in terms of such a rule. For example: “The grass got wet numerous times when it rained, therefore: the grass always gets wet when it rains.” This type of reasoning is commonly associated with generalization from empirical evidence. While they may be persuasive, these arguments are not deductively valid.

Abductive Reasoning

Abductive reasoning sometimes called inference to the best explanation, selects a cogent set of preconditions. Given a true conclusion and a rule, it attempts to select some possible premises that, if true also, can support the conclusion, though not uniquely. For example: “When it rains, the grass gets wet. The grass is wet. Therefore, it might have rained.” This kind of reasoning can be used to develop a hypothesis, which in turn can be tested by additional reasoning or data. Diagnosticians, detectives, and scientists often use this type of reasoning.

Within the context of a mathematical model, these three kinds of reasoning can be described as follows. The construction/creation of the structure of the model is abduction. Assigning values (or probability distributions) to the parameters of the model is induction. Executing/running the model is deduction.

There are numerous other forms of reasoning, however, for the purposes of getting started with critical thinking deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning are the most widely used forms of reasoning and work to solve most problems. The image below details the basic steps involved in applying deductive and inductive reasoning to either validate a premise based on a sound conclusion or vice versa.

Almost all problems have some form of argument or premise that either validates the conclusion or is validated by the conclusion. We apply reasoning to validate the conclusion and/or premise. To help do this we can use a tool that can be remembered by the acronym FOEBA. FOEBA stands for Facts, Observations, Experiences, Beliefs, and Assumptions. We use FOEBA to perform research to help clarify the argument and ensure we have defined the problem correctly.

Facts

The facts of an argument contribute significantly to supporting or not supporting the premise and/or conclusion. It is important to perform sufficient research from a wide variety of sources to ensure you have all the relevant facts. You also need to ensure you understand the facts and how they apply in the context of the argument. Sometimes, facts can be difficult to find or prove for specific situations. This can be true for instances where the facts are unknown, some are missing, or they do not support a strong conclusion such as during an air crash investigation where the ‘black box’ failed.

Observations

Observations are useful in the absence of facts or when there are insufficient, known facts to fully support the argument. Using the crashed aircraft as an example, observing flames coming from one of its engines and flocks of albatross flying in the area might be a powerful observation that could contribute to solving the question of what happened. Equally, investigators’ observations at the crash site could help them establish that the aircraft hit a flock of albatross due to the presence of albatross feathers at the site.

Experience

Your experience and heuristics are very valuable assets as they are your firsthand account of similar situations and contribute to your knowledge, hence, your experience can also help you solve a problem. The closer your experience aligns with the problem you are trying to solve the more likely your experience will help. However, your experience can also lead you to make incorrect determinations as it is based on your past and the problem being solved may exist in the future where the situation is unknown. An example where your experience may be a powerful influence on you would be if you went to a restaurant and ended up with food poisoning. Your experience might cause you to conclude that eating in that same restaurant in the future will result in you getting sick again. You can see how this could be a biased presupposition based on your previous experience. Many changes may have occurred since you last ate at the restaurant, but I’ll bet you would find it hard to disagree with your experience and decide to eat there again in the future. The takeaway here is that your experience can have a positive or negative impact on your decisions so it’s always wise to understand this when using experience to help make decisions.

Beliefs

Like your experience, your beliefs can be a powerful influence on your decision-making. However, unlike your experience, your beliefs are much less likely to evolve over time and are much more likely to cause biases. Beliefs are established during your formative years and play a major role in your view of the world, circumstances, and situations and they can strongly influence your decisions. You only need to look through history to understand how people’s beliefs led to racist, homophobic, religious, and misogynistic policies and decisions that have resulted in mass oppression and wars. Having said that, belief in sound principles such as ‘fair play’, the proper uses of logical reasoning, and the truth of facts will likely be a positive influence on your decisions.

Assumptions

Solving complex and complicated problems is challenging. One of the main challenges is not having sufficient facts, observations or experiences, or beliefs to draw a valid conclusion. This is where assumptions can be used to fill the gaps in your hypotheses. Assumptions are thoughts you have that you presume to be correct. Based on your assumptions you can come to a conclusion. This is where you can fall into the trap of believing your assumptions are correct. When using critical thinking, you must always ask “how do I know my assumptions are correct”? The best approach to assumptions is to not make them without knowing how you arrived at them and if you cannot validate them.

The figure below shows the relationship between a premise, FOEBA, and the conclusion.

We hope this post has provided some valuable insights into the critical thinking process. Good luck incorporating critical thinking into your decision-making at work and in life more generally.

Does the weather reign over your leadership?

How you ‘feel’ impacts how you think, the decisions you make, and the way you act. If you feel sad or down, it’s likely your shoulders will be drooped, you will have a tight jaw or frown, and you may even move more slowly and drag your feet. Interestingly the opposite is also true. You can positively or negatively affect your mental state or ‘mood’ through your physical state.

Try this quick experiment. Stand up, place your hands on your hips and smile, really smile, for five to ten seconds. If you weren’t happy before, I’m guessing you feel happier now. This is because your physiology really does affect how you feel and vice versa. There are anthropological reasons for this that stem back to times when seeing the physical state of someone from a neighbouring tribe or clan, friendly and calm, or agitated and threatening, would rapidly change your posture and your mindset in a reflexive way. Coming face to face with a dangerous wild animal would also cause this reflexive physical response such as when you are surprised by a venomous snake or confronted by a wild dog. In modern times, we can relate this to stepping off the curb and being surprised by a car speeding toward us. Reflexively, without stopping to think, we’ll step back onto the curb and then feel a sense of fear and anxiety followed by relief and the understanding that we need to be more aware and careful in the future. Hence, this physical response is accompanied by a neurological response.

As a leader, your mood and your emotions will obviously affect how you feel and some situations will impact you more severely than others; however, it’s important that you don’t allow your feelings to control your judgment, decisions, or actions. You must be able to remain composed and act in a rational manner consistent with your values and character. This is not to say that you should never display normal human emotions, but you must ensure that you control these emotions and their outward display so you can demonstrate appropriate compassion and empathy without over-reacting. You need to remember that as a leader you are always on the stage and your mic is always on. You need to be able to read the situation and your followers and give them just enough emotional response to ensure they remain connected and engaged with you, but not so much that they are able to influence you to change your decisions and behaviour just to appease them.

There are obviously exceptions to every rule and extreme circumstances may require you to comfort your followers, especially individuals suffering from a personal tragedy, but even in such situations you still need to keep a degree of professional distance and remain stoic. If you break down and display too much emotion, you may well connect with your follower at a very deep level, but you will have crossed the line from objective professional leader to friend. On the surface, this may seem appropriate, harmless, and even desirable, however once the situation has passed it is very difficult to resume the previous leader-follower relationship.

During less dramatic, yet high stress circumstances or even during times of significant frustration there is no place for the display or influence of negative emotions or neuroticism. Whether you realise it or not, as a leader, you do lead by example. The way you act and carry yourself sets the standard for your followers.

Followers respond best to consistent leader behaviours. If you suffer from “mood swings” or make your followers join you on regular roller coaster rides of emotional highs and lows, they won’t know how to act around you and may even second guess whether they are going to get Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde and modify their behaviour to suit.

Leaders also need to extend their desirable, consistent, and stoic behaviour to their decision making to ensure they always exercise sound judgment and make good decisions; or at least the fairest, least worst decisions possible. In doing so, the leader will develop and keep the trust and respect of their followers.

When exercising judgment and making decisions, it’s important to employ critical thinking and not succumb to our biases or heuristics. We must remain objective and always focus on the mission and the greatest good. We must also choose what we believe in and value carefully as our beliefs and values drive our behaviours and decisions so choose wisely.

Once the leader can consistently keep their emotions under control and demonstrate sound judgment and decision making, they must be able to effectively influence their followers without the need for manipulation or coercion. Leaders need to be able to compel their followers with their knowing and willing consent otherwise they are exercising directive control, which is only appropriate in specific circumstances. I used the term compel not in a negative way such as manipulation for the malevolent benefit of the leader, but rather in a manner to convince the follower to act in the interest of the greater cause, even if to their own detriment. Critically, this compulsion must be with the follower’s knowledge and consent and at no time is it acceptable to use passive aggressive behaviour, coercion, or manipulation in place of genuine influence.

While the leader needs to be able to influence their followers, he or she needs to be wary not to be adversely influenced by their followers and not acquiesce to their demands.

We have all heard the saying “make a decision and stick to it”. I always caveat this by saying “make the RIGHT decision and stick to it”. Realising you have made the wrong decision, admitting it, and correcting that error takes courage and is the sign of a mature leader, although consistently making wrong decisions is likely a sign of poor judgment. The leader has a responsibility to act fairly and make the decisions that result in firstly the best outcome for the mission and secondly the least harm possible. In doing so, the leader must act fairly if he or she wants to retain the loyalty of their followers. Leaders can’t allow their emotions or moods to impact their objective and fair decision making. Individuals will accept decisions that negatively impact them if they trust their leader and know the decision is best for the mission and is fair. If your followers do not, you need to consider if you have the right followers?

Leading from the Front with Distributed Leadership

Leading from the front is one of the most misunderstood and miscommunicated leadership principles. When most people think about leading from the front they conjure images in their mind of some great military commander out front, sword in hand, engaging with the enemy. Unfortunately, this cinematic representation of leadership is romanticised and is seriously skewed. The sword-wielding warrior will certainly be demonstrating some enthusiastic leadership prowess, right up to the point when he is killed in the first skirmish.

One of the hardest lessons to learn in the military is that good leaders need to remove themselves from the “doing” and focus on the leading. This is because you can’t observe and adjust the plan if you’re neck deep digging a fighting pit. You need to step back and observe your part of the battlefield and direct your troops to where they are needed. You can also command the reserve troops and coordinate fire support, logistics, resupply, and so on. You can’t do these things if your head is in a hole or if you are fighting or you are dead. Don’t get me wrong, there will be times when you must get your hands dirty, and all hands are on deck. But this is the exception to the rule, not the rule.

Stepping back and commanding your troops or staff can be an uncomfortable feeling, especially if you have been promoted from within the ranks and used to be at the same level. But you are no good to anyone if you are unable to lead because you are too involved in the work or you’re metaphorically dead.

The etymology of the word leader comes from the Old English word ‘lædan’ meaning ‘to go before as a guide’. It was first used in English in the 14th century to describe a person in charge, and then various other uses came about later. Leaders were known to be those people who would step into the darkness holding a lantern and charting the way. They often put themselves at greater risk resulting in personal sacrifice or sanction.

So, how do you lead from the front whilst maintaining oversight of the battlefield? The answer is distributed leadership.

Distributed leadership is not delegating. Delegation is the specific assignment of responsibility for an activity or task without authority. That means the individual who has been delegated the activity or task is responsible and accountable but has no authority over how it is to be completed. The authority remains vested in the leader who assigned the delegation.

To paraphrase Sun Tzu, leaders should not allocate subordinate leaders responsibility for a task without also giving them the authority to complete it.

Delegation has its place, but only so far as to allocate specific work or functions to subordinates. If leaders constantly delegate, work just gets pushed down the chain of command, causing people who have got less time and earn less money to complete the work. This can result in a workforce resenting leaders within the organisation as their perception of those in power is that they are lazy and just off-load their work onto others.

The purpose of distributed leadership is to increase the leadership capacity within an organisation. It is the transfer of part of the leader’s power to subordinate leaders, allowing them the freedom to lead their part of the organisation autonomously, whilst remaining aligned to the vision, mission, and values of the organisation.

Employing a distributed leadership model requires subordinate leaders to be given the autonomy to make key decisions in their areas of responsibility. This autonomy is central to achieving the objective of empowering leaders and giving them ownership of their part of the organisation.

They should not be micromanaged, and for new senior leaders, this can be a hard thing to do. Affording members of your senior or middle leadership team this level of autonomy requires a huge amount of trust and this is often outside the comfort zone for many senior leaders.

However, this trust needs to be earned as it is dangerous to give ineffective leaders full autonomy – therefore the term “earned autonomy” is common.

Distributed leadership empowers subordinate leaders to lead from the front and frees up senior leaders to maintain one eye on the battlefield and the other on the vision.

Most militaries employ distributed leadership. Military commanders know that leadership decisions must be allowed to be made by the individual who is closest to the action; hence, they push leadership responsibility down to the lowest level practicable.

“Great leaders do not create followers, they create more leaders.” Tom Peters

The concept of distributed leadership has significant benefits for the military but can equally benefit business, especially when employed with mission command. The six key benefits of employing a distributed leadership model are:

Effectiveness – Accurate decisions and solutions that best address the situation.
Decisive Action – Action that is deliberate and targets the specific issue or circumstance.
Efficiency – Timeliness of decision making and responsiveness of the solution.
Ownership – Full ownership, buy-in, and belief in the decisions at the level where they will have the most impact.
Empowerment – Empowerment of subordinate leaders, leading to their growth, loyalty, and retention.
Ethics– Leaders who are close to the issues and those they affect are more likely to be empathetic and make more ethical decisions.

« Older Entries

Next Entries »