I’m fascinated by the difference between style and standards in leadership practice. This week during a coaching session, a leader shared the tension he feels between letting his people do things their way while ensuring that things get done the right way.
That’s so honest, and something I think that many of us struggle with.
There’s no hard and fast ruling on this one, but we must always begin with answering “what is right?” for the job in question. If we have empowered our teammates with clear expectations of the job, then we can measure and evaluate the performance indicators in order to reinforce behaviors or refine them. If we haven’t, then a solid resetting of guidance, support, and resources may be in order.
This in place, how can we make room for different styles, while still upholding agreed upon standards? And how can we look for clues to distinguish between the two?
We can begin by identifying the non-negotiables in our mission - what must be done in order to be effective? If the teammate is getting the job done effectively, ethically, and in keeping with the prescribed expectations, then let them rock on with their style.
Leaders may feel a sense of tension if that style is different from their own. We might be a bit uncomfortable watching something done differently than we would do it, but that discomfort is an accepted part of the mantle of leadership. As leaders, we know that the solutions often reside closer to the action, and we must be willing to learn from our people as much as we hope they would be willing to learn from us.
Even if we used to be in that job, and we had a particular style to execute it.
Learning something new can be difficult. Learning something new from your employee can feel difficult and awkward.
Photo Credit: @bernardhermant via Unsplash
When I became a Sales Director for Quest Diagnostics, I had the chance to learn this lesson in the field. I had a teammate who just did things...differently than everyone else. When I joined the company, we were peers, and I observed her approach from afar finding it a bit…odd. She was unique. She did things her own way. And I knew that her way wasn’t my way.
For example, she would create cheat sheets on word documents for clients that had specific details on them that--though they were correct--did not come packaged and pretty in our corporate generated marketing sheets. And regardless of how many new gizmos, sell sheets, or new products our company launched, she still did the work in her style. And year and after year, she exceeded her goals - ethically and within the limitations of communicated expectations.
When I became her manager, I was wary about her style with clients and unsure about what to make of her unique training materials. She was a nurse, however, thus medically qualified to speak to these matters in a way that I was not. She had the education and the clinical experience to cut through the fog and get to the heart of what the providers needed, so I gave her the benefit of the doubt and observed - discomfort and all!
Consistently, she got the job done. And her clients loved her for her unique insights and her superb customer service.
Though I knew that I wasn’t geared to operate the way that she was, I learned a lot from her while she taught me the difference between style and standards. For that I am grateful.
But it didn’t come without its routine challenges for me as her leader. Every little deviation from the corporate norm was a tiny little challenge to our system and I had to decide if those differences were ethical, safe, and beneficial. I had to determine if her style was in keeping with my guidance. Sometimes it wasn’t. And to her credit, whenever one of her style deviations was ineffective or questionable, she received the feedback like an adult and she changed her approach like a professional.
I suspect the trust I gave her to execute things in her style earned the trust I received in return when those adjustments needed to be made.
Photo Credit: @krewellah87 via Unsplash
But it doesn’t always turn out that way, even when we as the leaders may lack the specific technical or tactical proficiencies that our teammates have for the job at hand. Sometimes teammates hide behind their qualifications instead of using them to achieve or exceed the standards.
If a teammate is not getting the work done, then we as leaders must intervene. And though we are all unique individuals, at the end of the day, we don’t get paid for our style, we get paid to produce the work. When the mission isn’t getting accomplished we’re not having a conversation about style; we need to have a conversation about performance.
I recall another teammate that I managed who was empowered to do a job, and was certain about his approach. That person had great experience; he had the degrees and the acumen to back it up. We needed him to monitor and evaluate the critical indicators of the work we were doing. This work informed our community of partners and funders of our progress and illuminated actionable insights for program improvements. The role was mission critical, and his work production consistently missed the mark.
During routine performance reviews, though his tasks were not hitting benchmarks, he would constantly invoke the style card, asserting his need for empowerment and trust. As leaders we must always remember that accountability is always on the other side of empowerment, and that trust is a two way street.
We trust our people to do the work, they must trust that we will inspect it.
After months of missed objectives, and rejected or deflected feedback, I eventually had to let that teammate go. Because when the style isn’t accomplishing the mission, then the style needs to change. And if a teammate is unwilling to see their faults and grow--if a teammate is unwilling to change--then that individual is opting out of the job he or she has signed up for.
We all take pride in our work, but if we're prideful at work, the team and the work always suffer.
A colleague who refuses to change their approach (though the results remain consistently below expectations) is demonstrating a degree of obstinance that cannot be allowed to persist. Obstinance disrupts teams leading to a breakdown in cohesion, poor performance, and missed objectives.
We are all people. We all matter. And we all get to choose whether we wish to be on the team we are on, or to be elsewhere. Accordingly, if those obstinate individuals wish to retain their style while failing to achieve the standards, then that person can remain an individual elsewhere while the team moves on without them.
That’s a choice we all have to make as leaders when we have folks who are holding on to their style at the detriment of the standards.
There is always space for style in execution, as leaders we have the gift of holding the discomfort of learning from others, along with the tension of ensuring that the standards of the role are achieved. Afterall, a standard that goes unchecked is merely a suggestion. And suggestions are matters of style. And when a teammate is wed to their style in the face of failed execution, it is our responsibility to clarify and correct in order to achieve success.
And though much can be learned--both ways--nothing replaces the responsibility to achieve the prescribed expectations that our organizations require of us. And sometimes the very best thing we can do for someone is to sit them down and give them permission to take their style elsewhere, especially if we’ve had the difficult conversations and we are getting nowhere.
Thumbnail photo: @cavespider via Unsplash