Character counts, as we have often heard throughout the last decade. With corporate meltdowns, and other leadership debacles in the news, character is popular again. The thing to remember about how character functions in leadership is that it means more than not lying, cheating and stealing. Those issues may be the ones that make the headlines when exposed, but the vast majority of character issues in leadership are not moral or ethical in nature, but functional. As I wrote in my book Integrity, character is not just about being good in the moral and trustworthy sense. It is about how well a leader functions day-to-day in the essential interpersonal and functional tasks of leadership. Those abilities come from other aspects of character, which I refer to as a person's makeup, or the essential ways that we are constructed and put together.
All of us tend to function in the mode that our natural makeup defaults to, especially when we are not watching ourselves. If we are hard drivers, we tend to default to pushing people too hard. If we are big picture people, we can get sloppy on the details. If we are problem solvers, we can lose touch of our vision and fail to develop new things that will grow our mission or enterprise. In other words, as the Bible says, the tree produces the fruit. A bad tree cannot produce good fruit, and vice versa. The areas in which we are out of balance will naturally find themselves expressed in our organization. Another example: impulsive people become impulsive leaders, and risk-averse people take too long to act.
In this issue, I want to address one of the areas of personal makeup that leaders do well to think about: the spatial balance between you and the people you lead. Sounds obtuse, doesn't it? What I am referring to is that every human has a characteristic (there's that word again) mode of being connected to others, and being separate from them also. Think of your personal relationships for a moment. Some people are overly possessive of their loved ones and do not allow or desire any time apart. They want to do everything together, and talk about every topic, detail and decision. When they have time apart from each other, they see it as "something gone wrong." Other people enjoy being together and being connected, but really want to have their "alone time," and enjoy their separateness. While there is a balance that is good for most relationships, there is also an inherent problem in many: when one person has a style that conflicts with the style of the other, you have real conflict.
I see this all the time in leadership coaching and consulting, especially where there is conflict on a team. Many times it comes down to one of a few issues:
1. The leader is imbalanced in one direction or the other
In this scenario, a leader may be too distant and disengaged from the people he or she leads, and goes past "delegation," to, as Ken Blanchard says, "abrogation." The leader's natural preference for independence and separateness leaves his people somewhat lost in the woods, trying to find their way out by themselves. Motivation, information, inspiration, realty, cohesiveness leading to speed, and many more important functions are lost due to this leader's unplanned, but natural style of disconnecting and not being involved enough, either relationally or functionally.
Or, he may be imbalanced in the other direction, and be a "hovering" leader, much too involved in everyone's business, decisions, work flow, and domain so that two things happen: autonomy of function breaks down in the other person, slowing them down and rendering them less than who they are able to be, and the leader drives them crazy. I hear them ask me, "Can you get him/her out of my yard so I can do what they have asked me to do???!!!" Again, what the leader is often not recognizing is that this functional leadership problem is coming out of his or her characteristic way of being a person. Some people are naturally disengaged, and some are overly controlling. The question we all have to ask is, "Which style do I default to?"
2. The leader in inconsistent
In this scenario, the leader is disengaged at some times - and overly controlling at other times. It is like the parent who is rarely involved with the kids, then comes into their play space, gets mad at whatever is going on, yells and scolds them, and then unplugs. No learning, coaching, or relational goodies were experienced by the kids. Too often in organizations, leaders do the same thing. They are not involved, and then they swoop in and are excessively involved, especially in an emotional tone that is not helpful. Even when they are nice about it, the sudden meddling in a micro way has the same effect of making everyone crazy. Just like the first problem of imbalance, if the person would look at themselves in their bigger life picture, this is probably a style in many of their other relationships as well. It is, again, characteristic, i.e. character makeup. (If you like the word "personality" better, I understand. But character aspects of important leadership functions can go across many personality types, and get to more essential issues of how humans function. For further information on these, see my book Integrity: The Courage to meet the Demands of Reality (Harper Collins).
3. The leader and the team have never discussed their differences in style
This is huge. While default styles may be different in people, the real bonfires start when they clash. It is important for a leader to discuss with a team how their natural styles of creating and functioning in different ratios of connectedness vs. separateness might be bumping up against one another. Then the task is to stop the moralizing and finger-pointing, realize that they have different preferences, and find a way of working together that does two things: satisfies each of their needs to work effectively, and meets the needs of the business. Each has to give up some natural preferences, and each has to bow to the real need of the business or mission in terms of getting together, trading information, and letting go of what is not theirs to worry about. When they do that, morale goes up, relationships are restored, and things move forward. Allow enough independence, and get together enough to stay connected.
4. The leader does not think of these kinds of things about himself or herself
Let's face it - leaders have a long list of things to do, and self-reflection may not seem to be the most urgent . However, it can be the most vital, as a leader's style can drive people away, or cause a mission to fail. Too many times, leaders do not observe themselves until something is about to blow up. As Proverbs 13:18 says, "He who ignores discipline comes to poverty and shame, but whoever heeds correction is honored." When we self-correct, or are corrected by others, it is time for examination. The best leaders don't just take time to reflect on their leadership; they also seek out coaches or mentors to help them in that process. Make sure that you do both, and in that time of reflection, look at your style of space vs. togetherness. Make sure that it is balanced enough to meet the needs of your mission, and that it is also a good fit with your people.
Remember - no one taught you this in business school. These are personal, character issues that you learned in life, especially in your formative years. Just like all other aspects of character, though, these end up being the things that produce the real fruit of your efforts. Who you are determines results. Be sure that you are balanced enough in this area of your makeup to get the results you desire, create a team with happy people, and give your organization everything it needs from you. God Bless!
