Styles and Needs: The Chasm that Separates Leader and Follower

Let’s start with a simple equation:

C=R=L or Communication = Relationships = Leadership

Notice there are no qualifying adjectives either before or after the word “Leadership”. I submit to you that ONLY great and effective leadership is leadership. I have witnessed this on more occasions than I care to recall; bad, tyrannical, dictatorial, selfishly motivated, uncaring, and narcissistic leadership is not at all leadership. In other words, can we rightly contend that there are no bad leaders, just bad people who really aren’t leaders after all?

I don’t mean to insult anyone’s intelligence here, but the very word suggests followership. To lead means that there are those who have chosen to follow. No coercion, no power-hungry demands of obedience, no compliance through threat and fear, no insecurity, just the beauty of a professional working relationship between leader and follower.

That said, let’s revisit our simple equation: Communication = Relationship = Leadership.

An effective working definition for leadership is the positive influence of a person or a group. The truth is, a leader’s job is to cause a team of workers to complete tasks for the greater good of an organization, and the best way to get that done is to develop healthy meaningful relationships with each of the workers. Some could argue that the same result can be seen in an organization with a “bad leader” but the premise of this article is that the workers really aren’t following, they are only complying. ?But they will only comply for so long before they leave. This is NOT followership.

I read a study not long ago that reported 80% of workplace turnover is due to workers who were/are not happy with their leaders. To be fair, I am certain that this included those who just didn’t want to follow rules. I have met them; they walk among us. But, for the most part, these are people who could not stick around any longer with a “leader” whom they could no longer stand behind. In other words, people don’t leave jobs, they leave leaders.

It is important to note that I do believe that there are two kinds of leaders who seem to be failing. The first kind is the leader whom we have already declared is no leader at all. This leader is intentionally self-serving and cares little for the employees; they are a means to an end. Then, there are leaders who just can’t seem to pull the organization together in a cohesive, productive way that results in an organization resembling a well-oiled machine, no matter his or her best intentions. This leader checks all the boxes of what he or she thinks is the right way to motivate, influence, and increase productivity, but to no avail. For this reason, I titled this article “Style and Needs.”

Every person has a style, or personality trait, which translates into how that individual perceives and responds to circumstances in life. It is comfortable and seems right according to that person’s perception and style. The problem is that one’s style, more often than not, does not align with the followers’ needs.

Here is a simple example.

Assume you have an extroverted leader who is goal-oriented, task-driven, highly motivated and a risk taker. Also, let’s assume this leader is not tyrannical but really does care for the well-being of the team. This leader’s style attempts to show empathy by solving all the company’s problems with solutions that he or she has developed over the course of a few months.

This leader brings the team together and lays out the solution and sends the team on their way to execute. We can almost guarantee that there will be those in that meeting, whether right away or not long after, who will begin to think that this leader does not care about the thoughts, ideas, and input of the team. If this is a regular practice of this leader, it won’t be long before team members begin to say things like “It’s his way or the highway”, “He never asks us what we think”, or “We are the out there dealing with the problem and that solution does not seem right to me, I don’t think he cares what we think.”

I would imagine that this leader would be hurt by these statements, since he actually does care about the team. He saw a problem and his “style” drove him to create a solution whereby ensuring the team all have jobs next quarter. However, he failed to connect with the “needs” of the team; their style.

For this leader to recognize the chasm between his/her style and follower needs and draw the team together, he should have brought the team together, reiterated the problem and went around the room asking for ideas and solutions. This approach shows value toward team members and keeps the leader in check to avoid being misinterpreted. He laid down his style for the needs of the team. Of course, there are other examples that can begin with an introverted leader as well. I’m sure you can imagine them.

I suppose part of the problem is what I would consider the overuse and misunderstanding of the idea of authentic leadership. You can google “authentic leadership” for yourself, but what I would say is that there are those who believe they have to be “true to themselves”, or that they have to “keep it real”, all out of fear of being deemed fake. I could not disagree more.

The truth is, there are skills and competencies that are so powerful, so effective, and so inspirational that a leader can develop a “style” that is out of character of his or herself, but never cause the follower to think less of that leader or think he or she is inauthentic. The reason for this is that these skills constitute such an effective way of communicating that followers actually respond with “Wow, he gets me!”

?Are you looking across an 80% chasm in your leadership? You won’t close that chasm by demanding followers work harder and fall in line with greater compliance. You close that chasm by building better relationships with each of your team members, and that is done by communicating better.

That may sound very simplistic, and it would be if I didn’t define communication with its most powerful skills. Leaders must lead with less personality and more competency. There are seven competencies that define Servant and Transformational Leadership, and they are these:

Servant: Assuring, Emotional Intelligence, Empathy

Transformational: Critical Thinking, Decisive, Collaboration, Empowering

We refer to these competencies as Counterintuitive because they run contrary to our human nature. They are learned and developed and often are challenging since there are specific competencies that are harder for specific personality traits. But they are necessary and vital, nonetheless. Without these skills, leaders will continue to struggle with the chasm of Styles and Needs.

Feel free to connect with me to learn more about minimizing your "style" and maximizing your skills to meet the needs of those around you.