The paradoxes of leadership

Last Friday afternoon I was driving from Sydney to Canberra to visit my mother. I've always found road trips to be great opportunities for thinking and reflection, and on this particular trip I was doing some thinking about a presentation to a client organisation for this week. As I sifted through different ways to present some information, my mind kept pulling me back to the inherent contradictions and paradoxical nature of what it is to be a leader. Consider something like - To lead, one must first follow. I know, I know ... it's almost like haiku poetry!

It's almost a cliche or a truism when we say that we live and work in a world of complexity, ambiguity, contradiction and paradox. But even if it is a cliche, that makes it no less valid.

And here are some of the leadership paradoxes that I scribbled down in my notebook while taking a coffee break ...

Loose & Tight, Work & Play, Lead & Follow, Captain & Coach, Create & Conform, Clarity & Ambiguity, Competence & Commitment, Responsibility & Accountability, Centralised & Devolved, Structured & Unstructured, Innovate & Conform, Rational & Instinctive, Direct & Allow, Inspire & Coax, Teach & Learn, Results & Team, Individual & Team, Change & Consolidate, Conventional & Revolutionary, Doubt & Possibility, Experience & Naivety, Intellect & Emotion, Active & Passive, Like & Respect, Unity & Diversity, Clear & Fuzzy, External & Internal, Culture & Structure, Revolution & Evolution, Rigid & Flexible, Cause & Profit, Shareholder & Stakeholder, Objective & Subjective, Reflection & Action, Certainty & Doubt, Loyalty & Dissent, Honesty & Sensitivity, Passion & Professionalism, Long term & Short term, Decisive & Patient, Risk & Reward, Plan & Evolve, Conservative & Adventurous, Diversity & Homogeneity, Confidence & Humility, Competitive & Supportive, Classical & Rock and Roll, Thinking & Feeling, Me & Us, Now & Later, Egoism & Altruism, Responsibility & Entitlement, Private & Public.

Phew ...

I know that's a long list. But if you have just skimmed over it, go back and read through it again slowly.

Because one of the things that I have learned in more than 20 years of leadership experience, is that a critical job of leaders, at all levels, is being able to balance the seemingly dichotomous nature of paradoxes like those in my list.

But the complication is that you are rarely just reconciling one at a time. The very real complexity is that you must be able to comprehend and synthesise a range of these paradoxes for every task that you undertake, with every team in which you lead or work, and ... just to add some further challenge ... you need to be constantly adjusting your response to these paradoxes over time - because nothing stands still.

So what? How can we do this as leaders?

Daniel Goleman provides us with one useful model in his summary of six leadership styles. (If you haven't read his book written with Richard Boyatzis and Annie McKee entitled Primal Leadership: Learning to lead with Emotional Intelligence, you should.)

Goleman's six styles - Visonary, Coaching, Affiliative, Democratic, Pacesetting and Commanding leadership - suggest a range of approaches that can be taken, depending on the time, the task and the team. Leaders need to be able to utilise the appropriate style for the situation and their team. But more than that, they need to be able to comprehend one final paradox.

So what is the final leadership paradox?

Not only do leaders need to adapt their style, but a truly effective leader must also be able to recognise when the time comes for them to relinquish the leadership role and hand the reigns over to someone else. It's our haiku again - Leaders must also be followers.

Directive Leadership

A couple of weeks ago I was speaking to a PhD researcher doing some work comparing the leadership styles of Australians and Americans. She asked me if I had ever given a direct order while I was in the military.

I had to think pretty hard about that question. I had certainly given a number of direct orders on the parade ground, and in contexts similar to that - ie when controlling large groups of people in synchronised activities. But otherwise I have never had to use that phrase so beloved in the movies " ... that's a direct order".

The researcher told me that my recollections were pretty similar to many other Australian military leaders, but very different to those from an American military leader background. Why was this the case?

At the risk of over-simplification, let me try and explain it through the use of situational leadership.

Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard popularised the model of situational leadership in the 1960s. Even if you don't like the One Minute Manager series of books, you have to admire the skill of Blanchard and others in distilling some pretty complex skills down into readily understood - and therefore used - models.

One of the four basic leadership styles defined in situational leadership is the "Directive" style. This type of leadership style sees the leader providing specific instructions and then closely supervising the accomplishment of any task. It is the classic case of providing a direct order.

Of course this kind of leadership style is entirely appropriate ... in some situations, and with some teams. Unfortunately, in my experience, it is also frequently over-used. If your team are highly competent professionals, then constantly directing them is likely to get right up their noses pretty quickly. Similarly if they are highly committed and enthusiastic about their tasks, then the directive style is likely to quickly diminish that commitment.

Situational Leadership suggests that the leadership style must be relevant to the specific circumstance in which the leader is working. In other words, your leadership style must relate directly to the level of competence and commitment your team members exhibit. Directive leadership is only appropriate when the team has both low competence and low commitment, otherwise the coaching, supporting or delegating leadership styles will be much more effective.

From my experience, most of the teams in Australia that I have worked with are both competent and committed. Some of the military teams I have worked with have been exceptional in both areas. In these instances it's been much more important to engage the team members to take advantage of their experience, their professional skills, their initiative and their drive so that we could develop a collaborative plan. This quickly became "our" plan, not "my" plan, one where success and responsibility were shared.

That's part of the reason I have never had to emphasise a task by stating ... that's a direct order.