Drawing the Line

If you’ve read any of my blog entries, you know that one of my core tenants of leadership is that a leader has no greater goal or responsibility than helping the members of their team achieve their goals. This obviously requires getting to know each team member well in order to understand what their goals are. It’s natural to build empathy and become close to your team members as you get to know them, as you make their dreams and desires the purpose of your day, as you enable them to grow beyond their current role and abilities, but how close is too close.

I will say that that empathy is absolutely necessary to be an effective leader. It will motivate you and help you push through the hard times, but it can be a double-edged sword if you lose perspective and a professional distance. Employees who feel that you are more buddy than boss may be tempted to push the boundaries trusting that their friend wouldn’t punish them, that their special relationship means the rules don’t apply to them.

This attitude can be as destructive to the morale of a team as almost any other team dysfunction. If any team members are perceived to be receiving special treatment and avoiding punishment for bad behavior, then team members who are doing everything right won’t be motivated to follow the rules either. The choice then becomes to allow discipline to slip across the entire team, or to punish your friend and risk losing a good employee. The only good way out of this situation is to never allow it to arise in the first place.

This can be harder than it sounds. Building a positive relationship with your team members, establishing trust, participating in team building exercises are all valuable activities, and are designed to bring the team closer. How does a leader who has organized and participated in team lunches, after work socials, and holiday parties with their team keep a professional distance? For people like myself, who are naturally social and build relationships easily, this is a real danger.

Maintaining Authority

I believe that, like all leadership activities, one should start with one’s goals in mind. What are you looking to achieve and what are you trying to avoid through these social activities? You want your team to see you as a person, to trust you, to believe that you have their best interests at heart. At the same time, it is critical that you maintain their respect, be someone for them to emulate, model behaviors you would like to see in your team, and above all maintain authority.

I’m not talking about the authority given you by your position at the company: formal authority. I see formal authority as a tool of last resort when all other avenues have failed. Using formal authority is an admission of failure, and should be avoided whenever possible. Leadership, when done properly, makes formal authority unnecessary in almost all situations.

The authority that I mean is informal. It’s the authority granted to you by your team in the way they listen to you not because you’re the boss, but because they respect your opinion. Informal authority gives a leader’s voice weight in a way that formal authority never can. Informal authority is what allows you to correct your employee’s behavior through a simple side conversation instead of an HR-approved Performance Improvement Plan. It’s this authority that must be guarded at all costs.

Create Space

One way to maintain professional distance is to decline invitations to lunch. Lunch is when people vent their frustrations, complain about their work, and, sometimes, their boss. This venting can be healthy and necessary for an employee, and they can’t do it if you’re always there. Give them space to talk to each other about what’s bothering them, and if you’re running a strong, healthy team, then the other team members will talk the employee through the problem for you.

It’s good to not have to solve everyone’s problems, and if anything really important is said, you’ll probably hear about it anyway. Eating lunch with the boss might be fun and not overly stressful sometimes, but it’s definitely a different experience than a lunch that’s just with peers. It’s still a team building exercise, just one you don’t have to always participate in. This will set the expectation that you will join sometimes, but not always, thus leaving room for different conversations to occur at different times.

Always at Work

When you do choose to join your team for a social event, it’s critical that you be cognizant of your behavior. I tend to be very informal with my team both in the office and out, but I would never allow myself to get drunk, tell inappropriate jokes, or display any behavior that would undermine my authority. The easiest way to ensure this is to think that if you are with anyone from you company, anywhere, ever, then you are at work. If you can’t say it or do it at work, then you can’t say it or do it if you are with someone from work.

For me, this is a rule that leaves no room for compromise. It can be difficult sometimes to remember to behave differently in some social situations than others depending on who you’re with, but as I wrote earlier, the consequences of a misstep that could compromise your informal authority could be disastrous. If you feel that treating all social situations with coworkers as a work event is excessive or not something that you can trust yourself to do, then I would strongly advise you to avoid these situations altogether. It is far better to remain a distant leader than one who is too close to the team.

You know you’re striking the right balance when your team comes to you with problems, and actively polices each other without your intervention. That speaks to a healthy team dynamic that needs to be carefully nurtured. The leader sets the example, models the company’s culture, and is responsible for cultivating a healthy team dynamic. Leadership takes discipline, empathy, and moderation, and a strategic leader would never put their team or their position at risk for a night of socializing.

Busy Is Dumb

Anyone in IT can tell you, and Americans are notorious for this, that a completely full calendar is a badge of honor. Ideally not only should you have every minute of every day committed, but you should have overlapping meetings, preferably three deep. The thinking, as best I can figure it goes, “if you’re important, then everyone wants you to be in their meeting.” If you’re not as busy as you can possibly be, then you’re not contributing to your full ability.

The Busyness Fallacy

I have fallen into this trap, as has almost everyone I’ve ever worked with. No one has ever explicitly explained this to me, it’s cultural, implied. You notice that the people you report to have more full calendars than you do, and that the people they report to even more so. Expectations are set, and everyone very quickly comes to the same understanding: busy is good. Busy = advancement.

The longer I’ve been in the workforce, the more I’ve realized that conventional wisdom isn’t always right, however. I’ve found that some of my most profound insights have come from questioning what everyone just knew to be true, and almost nothing is held to be more true than the above. It’s for this reason that I was shocked when I read that Warren Buffet, the very symbol of American success, sustained over decades, had, at most, a single item in his daily planner that he’d kept his entire career. He would often have no scheduled appointments on a given day.

How? Why? Was Warren Buffet’s time not important? Was he not needed in meetings? By clients? How could he get away without committing every second of every day to someone or something, and why would he want to? It got me thinking.

Question the Fundamental Assumption

What is the effect of being busy all the time? Sure, attending a ton of meetings meant that you were in the loop, your voice was heard, your input recorded, but was that really the best use of one’s time? Of course, there are important meetings, but not every meeting is critical. While you’re busy, what is happening outside of the meeting room, and what signal does it send to your people that you’re always in one?

It occurred to me that adding a meeting to your calendar, in effect, took some of the slack out of your day. Slack that could be used to have a conversation with someone, handle an unexpected issue, or just sit and think for a moment. Schedule enough meetings, and there ends up being no slack in your day for these ostensibly less important things, but really, what could possibly be more important in a leader’s day than being available for his people?

The message that continuously being in meetings sends to your team is that you’re off doing important leader-y things, and that they should just learn to handle their unimportant issues by themselves. It removes availability, and creates an artificial separation between you and your team. This is exactly why I strongly advise against anyone in leadership ever wearing headphones at work. It sends the signal that your time is too important for your team, and that you should not be bothered.

Time to Breathe

After this realization, I’ve taken to actively leave as much time as I can open on my schedule. I attend meetings that I think are worth it, but don’t attend everything that I possibly can. I leave huge gaps in my schedule, and spend that time either at my desk available to my team, or walking around actively engaging them to see if they need anything from me.

It’s a sign about how ingrained the philosophy of busyness is in our culture that despite this, when people come to my desk to ask me a question, they often preface it with an apology or an acknowledgement that they know how busy I am, but if they could just get a moment of my time they’d really appreciate it. I consistently respond that nothing I could be doing would be more important than helping them with their problem, but the apologies persist. If they’re reluctant to bring their issues to me when I’m sitting quietly at my desk, do you think I’d ever hear about it if I spent all day, every day in a meeting? I’d never have any idea what my team was doing, if they were struggling, and I’d never be available to help them with their problems.

Serving Your Team

This approach has an additional benefit that reinforces another priciple of mine: creating opportunity for others. Some meetings are important, but not critical. They need leadership in attendance, but does it have to be me? I’ve started asking members of my team that have shown an interest in leadership or management to attend these meetings in my place, and to let me know if anything comes out of it that needs my attention. This has the duel effect of keeping my schedule free, and giving members of my team exposure and experience leading meetings.

Inevitably things go wrong where something important gets missed, or a detail gets miscommunicated. Afterall, these people are learning how to lead. Imagine, however, how much worse these misses would be if I were constantly in meetings and less aware of the issues the team was dealing with. By keeping my time free, I notice much faster and am much more available to deal with things that unexpectedly come up.

I know that this entire post could be construed as a defense of laziness, of having others do your work for you, but the truth is I’m just as busy all day as I ever was before. The difference is that I spend all of my time handling things that only I can do. Things come up unexpectedly all day, things that I would be otherwise unaware of if I kept myself fully scheduled, and I have the flexibility to handle them. I spend all day addressing my number one priority, helping my team.

In the end, it’s not about doing less work, it’s about priorities. By leaving your day open, you are prioritizing your team over the appearance of importance, prioritizing flexibility over your own visibility, and prioritizing your teams goals over your own, and nothing is more important than that.