Leadership by More Than Example

Leadership by example is the organizational equivalent of motherhood and apple pie.

Not that I'm knocking it. I've intoned its virtues to many a group and have ground my teeth when leaders fail to hold themselves to the same standards they rigorously apply to their teams. When it comes to communicating values, however, leadership by example is far too passive.

When you only use your example to demonstrate the expected forms of behavior, you may not making things worse but you're probably not making them a whole lot better. You can wander about, expecting your followers to emulate your example but, despite your best efforts, most of them haven't noticed.

Not that your team members aren't perceptive. It's just that they're busy with their jobs and wondering if that mark on their arm is cancer and if their kid is going to pass geometry and whether their old car will last another year.

Amid all of that, the glow of your grand example is easily overlooked.

So what does this mean?

It means you've got to talk to people about what matters most. You've got to talk about values and standards and which items should take priority. You have to explain why you took certain decisions and where the unit is headed. You need to note why technical mistakes will usually receive far less discipline than a values mistake and you then have to tell them that you expect them to speak up when you are failing to lead by example.

In short, you need to engage. If you think they are going to read the cosmic vibrations that you send off whenever you enter a room, get ready for disappointment. If you believe they ponder your deftly placed hints, you need to get out in the field more often.

Neither you nor they are that good.

Your leadership must be directly and clearly expressed. You're not writing a Victorian novel. You're leading people who have little time and patience for playing Twenty Questions or charades.

Don't suggest your values. Discuss them.

A Leadership Lesson: Choosing What to Overlook

Rachel told me what had happened before the revolt.

She'd been placed in charge of the department while her boss was on vacation. She'd often filled in for him for short periods and she was comfortable with her knowledge of the job. In some respects, she knew far more about some departmental operations than did her boss and she was proud of that knowledge. In fact, she felt the boss was a little lax in some areas.

Within two days of taking charge, Rachel started to crack the whip. Rules that had been unenforced were now enforced. Employees who were pretty good workers were rather tactlessly shown how they could be even better. By the third day, people were starting to ask - casually, of course - just when the boss was getting back from his trip.

By the fifth day, a few of them were in open revolt, refusing to proceed on certain projects until the "real boss" returned.

Rachel felt betrayed. She regarded all of her actions as reasonable and, as she analyzed them one-by-one, it was clear that she'd failed to consider the appearance and the context. She had failed to understand how her actions would be perceived and she completely missed a crucial part of effective management: Knowing what to overlook.

Rachel did not grasp that leadership is a constant choice of priorities and that leading often means consciously loosening a management standard here or there. She thought she could have it strict enforcement of petty rules as well as enthusiastic support of the team. Her team quickly reminded her how much leaders need followers.

Listening to her analysis of what went wrong, it was clear that Rachel had plateaued. She was refusing to admit that her behavior contributed to and perhaps even created the problem. It was as if she had announced, "I'm a very good assistant director but I'll always need a director to rein in my autocratic tendencies." That in no way discounts her very real skills and yet it is sad that a great opportunity for growth turned into a demonstration of limitations.