I recently met with two potential clients located three blocks from each other whose company cultures were poles apart.
The first was run by a decisive, iron-fisted leader who built his business from scratch. He made all the decisions and delegated nothing. The second was led by a nice man who sought consensus from his management team for doing virtually everything.
Both approaches come with pitfalls.
An exclusionary leader — someone who calls all the shots — does not engage his lower level talent, which can lead to disengaged workers, mistrust, and gossip.
An inclusionary leader — such as the second mentioned above — seeks approval of his management team before proceeding with decisions that can materially impact how the business is run. Rarely will those people make a hard call. They will do what is best and easiest for them. Personal political motivations trump business logic every single time.
The exclusionary leader’s problem was quite predictable: The natives grew restless. When a couple big decisions he had forced upon the masses did not pan out as expected, those suppressed rose up and demanded his ouster.
The problem faced by the inclusionary leader was also predictable: The “inmates were running the asylum.” Together they managed the boss.
The best leadership approach is neither iron-fisted exclusionary or a pandering inclusionary.
A good leader knows that he or she is accountable for the emotional health, fiscal strength, and winning culture of their organization. Orchestrating these things means there are times to lead, follow, or get out of the way — situational leadership at its best. Knowing when to do what based upon the situation reveals someone’s talent pertaining to the art of inspiring others.
My work with the exclusionary leader was interesting in that he paid to hear my advice — that he could not run the company the way he built it — but, having heard it, dismissed it. Change for him was not possible. His was a hardwired DNA — a bit of a mad scientist — in that he knew how to build a company but not run one with fluid efficiency. He knew what worked for him but did not want to flex to, what would be for him, an uncomfortable delegation style.
The inclusionary leader presented a totally different, but quite predictable, problem. He flew me in to discuss why his company’s morale was so poor and turnover was so high.
Line worker turnover in a high-touch business was roughly 100 percent per year. He had a nice niche and wanted to grow the business quickly. With no workplace continuity, the cost of turnover was prohibitive, and what was being sold to customers was different than how things got done. The human merry-go-round of disengaged workers was a barrier to growth.
When I showed up for that meeting, I expected to meet alone with the president. What I ended up walking into was a room full of line managers flanking the president — the same people responsible for the problems.
I pulled no punches. “The problem is fixable,” I said. “But it’s going to be uncomfortable. Nothing will change if you do not change the culture.”
What the managers heard, of course, was, “Red alert! Red alert! This guy is a change agent!”
During the course of an hour or so, I dissected the situation, explained why the problem existed, shared the five areas of the business that needed to be changed, and effectively shot myself out of any possible work because all five of those business process owners were in the room and threatened. They knew their shortcomings would be revealed. And I knew they knew it.
As I studied the room dynamics the big question I had in my mind was, “Will the boss support overdue and much needed change . . . or continue placating these managers who caused this mess in the first place?”
I left that day with no question in my mind what the problem was, who was culpable, and what needed to be changed in order to fix it. The boss escorted me outside the building and thanked me for a great session.
Two weeks later I received a cryptic email that read, “The team decided not to use you.”
The team. “The team” decided to fix things themselves. This, of course, will never happen. They will continue the chaos. Self-interest protectionism never repairs anything.
There is zero chance the turnover problem will get fixed and less than zero the culture will change. The same people that cause massive turnover problems and promise to fix them never do. What the boss needs to do is step up, own the decision, and clean-sheet its operations. He need to bring in professionals to assure the smooth machinations of a stable, high-performance business.
A big job title does not always assure situationally adept leadership. At times a smart leader needs to earn the big check by making the hard calls; and there are other times he or she needs to delegate, empower, and hold others accountable for the attainment of business objectives core critical to success.
Regardless how strong a leader is, no one is best at everything. And regardless how nice a boss wants to appear to his or her troops, there is trouble in pandering placation.
I know. I’ve seen it.