We previously explored the idea that leadership is a knowledge-based profession. We suggested that, to excel, leaders must develop expertise not only in technical areas, but also in the human knowledge base, that body of learning about how human beings act, react and interact.
When presenting these ideas in our consulting work, the question of leadership “style” often arises. How does adherence to the principles of the human knowledge base accommodate variations in manner and approach, clients want to know. How are basic human differences accounted for?
Because leadership is a personal undertaking, those in positions of authority will always display a wide range of personality. This is natural and appropriate. But what leaders must understand — what they cannot afford to misconstrue — is that style never justifies violating the human knowledge base.
This is true for all areas of human endeavor. Professional chefs, for example, employ a vast range of culinary styles, from down-home and diner to fusion and vegetarian. But they must all cook meat to the same temperature if they wish to kill harmful bacteria. They must all heat milk gradually if they wish to keep it from scorching.
They must all conform to the same body of knowledge about universal, unalterable principles if they wish to practice their craft effectively, regardless of the particular style or approach they have chosen to employ.
Like cooking, leadership can accommodate a wide range of styles and approaches. But like cooking, its fundamental principles necessarily supersede any notion of philosophy or personal preference.
A leader might be naturally introverted, but the performance of his staff will suffer if he does not give them sufficient feedback. A leader might be naturally exacting, but employee morale will plummet if she indulges in excessive or unconstructive criticism.
Put simply, a leader can no more use style to justify unhelpful or unhealthy leadership practices than an architect can use style to justify designing unsafe and structurally unsound buildings.
This is a dynamic we have all seen in organizations we’ve worked in or supervisors we’ve worked for. The question, though, is the degree that we ourselves fall prey to.
How often do we, inadvertently or unconsciously, excuse questionable leadership choices because “that’s just my style”? And to what degree might those choices be harming the human systems we lead?