Recently, a colleague of mine completed a 360-degree evaluation as part of his Executive Fire Officer program at the NFA. I participated as one of many giving him feedback. After the course, he shared with me his results, much of which didn’t come as a surprise to him, other than the degree of intensity registered in some areas.
I asked what, if anything, he was going to do now that he was armed with this information. He was prepared for my question. He marched down the list of changes in perceived growth opportunities. Then he got to one particular area where peers strongly indicated that he had a hard edge pertaining to his leadership style. At this point he shared with me where he could make significant changes to soften his approach.
I abruptly stopped him and asked him, what was wrong with his hard edge? This became more than a pregnant pause. I left him to ponder this point.
360-feedback instruments are designed to help you see yourself as others do, thus providing you a mirror or revealing your blind spots (see “Eliminating Your Leadership Blind Spots”). But here’s a question: If peers see you in an unflattering way, should you attempt to change to be in more alignment of what they want? The magic in interpreting the feedback you get is determining if change is necessary and if so, what areas will provide you the most success. However, change may not be necessary in areas where coworkers would like you to be different.
Back to the hard edge. Remember: Leadership is all about taking people where they need to go, not necessarily where they want to go. That alone can provide for some conflict with those you lead and the style you employ.
When I spoke with my colleague again, I suggested that he note some generic areas that came up most frequently in the 360-degree assessment, sincerely thank all participants for their insight, and acknowledge the fact that although there are some areas where he will strive to make modifications, there are others where the results of the assessment confirm how he would like to be perceived by others.
Bottom line: You can’t please everyone. In the end, I strongly suggested that he shouldn’t lose his “hard edge.”
Nice Guys Don’t Always Win
Why did I feel so passionate that this colleague of mine shouldn’t lose his hard edge?
You acquire power to become successful so you can influence outcomes. Leadership is all about influencing outcomes. Powerful, “can do” people have an edginess to them. They are not patient, they are not content, they move beyond the current reality, and they push hard. They are driven. Let me be clear: Having a hard edge and being nice are not mutually exclusive. This is analogous to saying that people who do not attend church do not have faith.
Here is my point: Nice guys may be respected, but they don’t always finish first. Nice or not, successful managers and leaders who know what they want, who demand and aggressively seek excellence, will most always achieve more than those who don’t. So it comes down to the age old question: As a leader, is it better to be loved or feared? Can you have both respect and power?
A recent Harvard Business Review article, “Why Fair Bosses Fall Behind,” found that it was hard to gain both. The article states that “decisions about high-level promotions most often center on perceptions of power, not of fairness.” The article’s conclusion was that although fair mangers earn respect, they’re seen as less powerful than other managers–less in control of resources, less able to reward and punish, etc.
You’ve probably experienced this yourself. Have you ever worked for an officer who required more of you, pushed you further than you wanted to give at the time, or thought you could give? How about your parents? How about you as a parent? Does demanding come to mind? And why? Is it because you see a greater goal for your children, something they can’t see at the time?
On the fireground have you been ordered that your tactical objective is this or that–and to do it quickly? This is an edge we should not run from, but it should be acknowledged.
Examples of the Leadership Edge
Let’s view this edge by looking at some actual leaders. Bill Gates is the second richest man in the world. Gates and his wife Melinda have established the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, (“dedicated to bringing innovation in health, development and learning to the global community”), where they intend to donate the billions he has acquired.
Who would think this great philanthropist has a hard edge to his personality? Well, his grade school friend, Paul Allen, (57th richest man in the world) has some insight. The two of them created Microsoft and in his book, Idea Man, Allen paints a picture of Gates as being ruthless and demanding, starting with their partnership when they were in high school together. In an article in U.S. Business, Allen states that Gates was an incredibly shrewd and competitive businessman, expecting long hours and perfect work and offering occasional insults.
When you hear the words shrewd, ruthless, competitive, demanding, perfect, what comes to mind? Someone who is sharp, astute, smart, cunning, spirited, aggressive, faultless, flawless? The antonyms to these words include “passive” and “wrong.” It’s your pick: Which words would you like to describe your leadership style?
Now let’s move to a discipline where you would not think people would be edgy in the pursuit of excellence: rock-and-roll. Carlos Santana has been a professional musician all of his adult life. Named one of the 15 top guitarists of all time by Rolling Stone, Santana has 10 Grammy awards and three Latin Grammy awards to his credit. What may not be very well known is his relentless push for perfection. This is an industry known for “gold, girls and glory,” yet after each performance, Carlos listens to and reviews each song, critiquing them with each of his musicians–a far cry from party until dawn, but very similar to our after-action reports.
Jack Welch, before he became an icon in leadership circles, was known as Neutron Jack. He eliminated over 112,000 jobs and moved GE market value from $14 billion to $140 billion. Fortune named Welch “Manager of the Century”–yet he was known to fire the bottom 10% of managers each year and give the top 10% a 20% raise. He had a reputation for brutal candor with all. If that’s not a hard edge, I don’t know what is.
And Now, the Literature
If anecdotes about actual leaders aren’t enough to convince you that a hard edge is needed in leadership, maybe some research will.
“Situational leadership” is a theory developed by Paul Hersey, a professor, and Ken Blanchard, author of The One Minute Manager. They argue that there’s no single “best” style of leadership; rather, effective leaders are those who adapt their leadership style to the task and the maturity level of those being led.
Hersey and Blanchard categorized all leadership styles into four behavior types:
- Telling is characterized by one-way communication in which the leader defines the roles of the individual or group and provides the what, how, why, when and where to do the task.
- Selling is characterized by two-way communication and providing the information the individual or group needs to influence them to buy into the process.
- Participating is shared decision-making about aspects of how the task is accomplished; the leader provides less direction but a strong relationship with the individual or group.
- Delegating is characterized by the leader still being involved in decisions; however, the process and responsibility has been passed to the individual or group. The leader stays involved to monitor progress.
No one style should be used all the time. Managers and leaders need to be flexible, and must adapt themselves according to the situation at hand.
In the book Primal Leadership, Daniel Goleman takes a slightly different approach, describing six different styles of leadership:
- Visionary. Move people towards a new set of shared dreams. Visionary leaders articulate where a group is going.
- Coaching. Focuses on developing individuals, showing them how to improve their performance, and helping to connect their goals to the goals of the organization.
- Affiliative. Emphasizes the importance of teamwork and harmony by connecting people to each other.
- Democratic. Creates a group commitment to the resulting goals.
- Pacesetting. Sets high standards for performance.
- Commanding. “Military” style leadership.
Like Hersey and Blanchard, Goleman believes effective leaders move among these styles, adopting the one that meets the needs of the moment.
Although Hersey and Blanchard identified four styles of leadership and Goleman six, and 40 years separated their theories, we can see the overlap right away. “Telling” is similar to “commanding.” “Participating” is similar to “democratic.” Selling” and “coaching” are similar.
These different theories reveal a timeless truth of leadership: No one style is good for all situations. Ordering people to do things is probably the most common style–especially in the fire service–but it rarely involves praise and frequently employs criticism; as such, it can undercut morale and job satisfaction. Consensus-building is great when you have the time, but it can be disastrous in times of crisis when urgent events demand quick decisions. Emphasizing group praise can allow poor performance to go uncorrected. Coaching and selling sound harmless, but in fact they can backfire if they’re perceived as micromanaging an employee, undermining their self-confidence. To be most effective, leaders must be able to employ all the styles.
And that means that sometimes, you’ll be perceived as having a hard edge. The success of leaders like Gate and Welch demonstrate that. You must be able to keep your eye on the vision, and do what it takes to get people there–and in the fire service, that vision isn’t about profit or billions of dollars in revenue; it’s about safety and service. Think back to the colleague of mine who just completed the 360-degree assessment. Don’t you think it’s OK if his members perceive him as a bit rough around the edges–if that means that his department doesn’t experience any LODDs or serious injuries while he’s leading?
Peter Drucker once wrote, “Leadership is lifting a person’s vision to higher sights, the raising of a person’s performance to a higher standard.” In the end, we measure our leaders by their results. As fire chief, I use many matrices to determine results for my officers, but the prime objective is that “Everyone Goes Home.” I’m not concerned with which style my officers employ to achieve that, just the results.
