Skip to main content

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.


Being a leader is tough. Really tough. And it's easy to think you're doing it right, but even easier to screw it up and not know until it's too late - or even worse, convince yourself if an employee doesn't work out that it was just a bad hire.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, mostly because I'm leading a small multi-disciplined team and want to make sure they feel supported. I've become more in-tune with the way my actions can either enable or prohibit my team from really achieving their career goals. I'll admit, I'm really hard on myself and do a lot of reflecting at the end of each day, but still second guess myself and wonder if I need to be more self aware. In many ways this has helped me become more aware of my mistakes and pushes me to solicit feedback from my team more often. It's not uncommon for me to reflect and ask about a particular comment I made, or ask how I can improve next time, and apologize if I think something I said or did may have come across the wrong way. My team seems very receptive and appreciative of this, but ultimately I can't really know how well or poorly I'm doing unless they feel safe sharing feedback. After all, I'm there to help them be the best they can be - my success is simply an offshoot of theirs.

Something I've noticed through much of these periods of reflection is that it's really challenging to build trust - real trust - with a team that's reporting to you. Ultimately, as a leader, your team is at your mercy. Retaliation is a real fear for most people. As a manager, you have the upper hand regardless of whether you're horrible at your job or phenomenal at it, and your team will likely treat you the same way regardless of your performance. I've realized how important it is to really pay attention to my own actions, words, and behaviors, particularly when it's all too often that checks and balances are not upheld in corporate environments. When it comes down to it, leaders are most often assumed to be right and employees assumed to be wrong. It's not right or fair, but because leaders are expected to give feedback to their employees and not the other way around, it's easier for leaders to feel offended and retaliate if they hear something they don't like, or simply avoid asking for feedback from their teams altogether. Another flaw in the feedback stream is that a leader's manager is the one to typically provide feedback, even though they have no visibility into how well they're managing their team.

Skip step feedback can help with this, but ultimately, managers have to be incredibly self aware, willing to receive constructive feedback, and allow themselves to be vulnerable. It's common for managers to assume they're supposed to have all the answers, which can create added pressure and a false sense of authority. I think a common misconception is that being in a leadership position means you know more than your team. From what I've seen, it's the complete opposite. If you're a great leader, you'll hire people that know more than you in different areas and empower and trust them to do their jobs. It's also really helpful to have the right values circulating through a company where employees are praised for sharing candid feedback with their peers and leaders. 

It's also too often that selfish, insecure, under qualified, or power-hungry people with control issues end up in leadership positions for the exact reasons that should keep them out of management. This obviously creates a negative work environment for the teams and prohibits productivity and innovation. If a leader is experiencing consistent turnover on their team, they're firing people frequently, or their team consistently underperforms, it's really important to look at the leader rather than their team. After all, people most often quit managers, not companies, and perform significantly better with a great leader versus a bad one.

Ultimately, being humble enough to realize that as a manager, we don't have all the answers and we need a great team in order to achieve big things. We can demonstrate this through our own willingness to admit failures, ask for help, and lead by example. Consistency builds trust and our actions need to align with our words in order to make our team feel safe sharing feedback so we can all improve and do our best work.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Recruiting is an art and a science.

Traditional recruiting involves gathering as many applications as possible and hoping the right one finds its way to the top. At any given point in time, the candidate pool will change, so essentially this means you're left trying to find the best of what's available and not necessarily the best candidate for the role. Most recruiting teams focus on gathering rather than hunting; being reactive rather than strategic. The focus has primarily been on high volume and a short time-to-fill (the period of time it takes between posting a job to hiring someone into the role) rather than searching for highly qualified candidates in a proactive manner. Outdated recruiting practices are inefficient and costly for many reasons, but many companies continue to use them today. Compare candidates to the requirements of the role, not to each other. Hiring is expensive and extremely time consuming. Unfortunately, we've become accustomed to believing that talking to more candidates means

Human(e) Resources: Building a Culture of Trust

Human Resources more often than not has reflected an ideology that employees are liabilities instead of assets. From the way the subject is typically taught, implemented, and understood, HR is handled with the assumption that employees' intentions are bad rather than good. It may sound trivial, but this one shift in perception can have a huge impact on a company's culture all the way through its bottomline. Guidelines vs Policies Most HR policies are done reactively, either due to something that happened at the company directly or as an attempt to learn from other companies' mistakes. Regardless, these policies are in place to protect the company and not its employees. EEOC regulations and employment laws are there to protect employees, but by the time those come into play, it's usually too late for the company to fix the problem without penalty. The conundrum ends up cycling with the company trying to cover its tracks and employees filing claims after leaving in

The great, the bad, and the average.

There are a million blog posts describing all the characteristics of bad recruiters - trust me, I'm well aware. I constantly battle this perspective when working with candidates for the first time. So what does it take to be great? I mean really great, not just above average. Let's face it - average is still not a place any recruiter wants to be. The TL;DR of it is this:  Create a great experience from start to finish. This should apply to the way you work with candidates and the teams you support. Do what's best for the candidate and your teams.  Changing jobs is one of the most stressful events of a person's life. Don't forget that this is a matchmaking process meant to find the right person for the long run. Be honest and responsive. Searching for a job can be as stressful as starting a new one. You're busy, I get it. So is everyone. But make it a priority to respond to anyone that reaches out to you, even if they're not a fit. And always - always