It’s been a given for some time that in complex, fast moving business environments, leaders can no longer be expected to know all of the answers. And they don’t need to – by using coaching skills, they can enable their team members to think independently and create their own solutions.

What is a coaching approach?

So, what does using a coaching approach actually involve? Essentially, it’s about helping a team member to:

• Establish their goals
• Generate insights and options about the best way forward
• Choose from those options
• Feel appreciated, by acknowledging their progress
• Clearly define their next steps

As managers and leaders are still often “programmed” to provide solutions for their team members. Helping them to find their own answers instead involves some behaviour changes which include:

• Listening at a deeper level – rather than being in their own thoughts and interjecting with their views
• Being curious, open and non-judgmental
• Demonstrating empathy
• Believing that people can learn and change (a growth mindset).
• Managing any emotional reactions they might have, e.g., during a “difficult” conversation.

As Herminia Ibarra and Anne Scoular say in their Harvard Business Review (HBR) article The Leader as Coach , a coaching conversation is about “ask and listen,” not “tell and sell”. This is why coaching also differs to mentoring where a more senior person shares their experience so that the more junior person can replicate their approach. You can find more on the differences between coaching and mentoring and directive and non-directive coaching in their HBR article.

“Increasingly, coaching is becoming integral to the fabric of a learning culture—a skill that good managers at all levels need to develop and deploy”

The benefits of using a coaching approach

Coaching conversations often lead to higher job satisfaction, increased employee engagement and increased psychological safety which means employees are more willing to speak up and discuss their challenges.

A study by the International Coaching Federation (ICF) found that team members felt empowered and engaged by managers who used coaching skills, because they:

• gave them responsibilities
• allowed them to take risks
• provided them with the autonomy to make decisions
• trusted their judgment
• removed barriers; and
• allowed them to learn from their mistakes.

Team members also felt their manager challenged them to reach their full potential, as they:

• encouraged self-awareness and self-reflection
• facilitated learning
• delivered constructive feedback
• helped develop critical thinking skills, and
• provided training opportunities.

As noted by Dr Rebecca Jones , Associate Professor in Coaching and Behavioural Change at Henley Business School, coaching conversations also:

Create a culture of innovation – by being non-judgmental and open to new ways of doing things, leaders help their team members to devise new and creative ways to tackle challenges. This complements Transformational Leadership  where ongoing innovation is the norm.

Improve wellbeing – when employees feel someone is genuinely listening to their views, they feel valued and a sense of belonging, “a fundamental human need” which leads to a sense of wellbeing at work.

Improve performance – Jones goes on to say that improved wellbeing, higher engagement and improved learning have a positive impact on performance. “Leaders as coaches enable team members to focus on what really matters, increasing their effort and persistence to reach important goals.”

One of the most well-known companies to benefit from the introduction of a coaching culture is Microsoft. In 2014, incoming CEO Satya Nadella, role modelled and established a coaching approach which helped Microsoft to succeed in an era of cloud-based computing. Ibarra and Scoular’s article  has more on this.

Spreading coaching skills across your organisation

Where senior leaders may have benefited from coaching and even have been trained in using coaching skills themselves, the main obstacle to introducing a coaching culture can be the expense of training leaders and managers at every level of the organisation.

Eluminas’ Coaching Skills for Managers online course, created with busy leaders and managers in mind, is a cost effective solution to this. In addition to introducing key coaching skills and a framework to use them, it also enables leaders and managers to increase their self-awareness around the behaviours that effective coaching conversations need.

In any organisational (or social) setting, decision-making is a fundamental process that drives progress and direction. Whether it’s a boardroom, a community gathering, or a household, the way decisions are made can significantly impact outcomes and relationships. Four commonly used terms in decision-making processes are “consent,” “consensus,” “agreement,” and “alignment.”

While they might seem interchangeable, they represent distinct approaches with unique implications. Understanding these differences is crucial for fostering effective decision-making and promoting cooperation within teams.

Defining Consent, Consensus, Agreement, and Alignment

Consent

Consent in decision-making refers to an approach where individuals or stakeholders agree not to block a proposal. This means that while they might not fully endorse the decision, they consent to it moving forward without actively opposing it.

In essence, consent signifies a lack of objection rather than enthusiastic agreement. Consent-based decision-making focuses on ensuring that decisions are acceptable, tolerable, to everyone involved, even if they do not fully align with their preferences or reflect their ideal choice. A significant value in this approach is that the onus is on the dissenter(s) to identify why a decision might not reach its stated aim, and for proposers to think through and refine their proposal to more closely meet the aim.

Consent is appropriate….

• For high-stakes decisions where consensus is difficult, but objections must be addressed. With consent, people can disagree but allow a decision to move forward if their objections are heard.
• In fast-paced environments where waiting for full consensus would slow progress too much. Consent allows a good enough decision.
• When the goal is to empower individuals with autonomy for routine decisions within agreed boundaries.

Consensus

Consensus, on the other hand, is a more comprehensive form of agreement where all participants actively support a decision. In a consensus-based approach, the goal is to reach a solution that everyone is genuinely satisfied with. This is mainly reached through open dialogue, compromise, and collaborative problem-solving. The end result is unanimous agreement, where all individuals genuinely support the decision and are willing to defend it.

Consensus decision-making emphasises the importance of inclusivity and aims to address the concerns and interests of all individuals within the group.

Consensus is appropriate….

• When making major decisions that will significantly impact the entire group or organisation, to ensure everyone is fully on board.
• For complex or contentious issues where full commitment from all parties is crucial for successful implementation.
• When the group values the input and perspectives of all members and wants to find a solution that addresses everyone’s key concerns.

Agreement

Agreement signifies a shared understanding or acceptance of a decision or proposition among individuals or teams. It can range from a simple acknowledgment of a decision to a more formal commitment to support and implementation of it. Agreement may not necessarily imply enthusiastic support but rather a recognition of the decision’s validity or feasibility. Intensity of support and commitment may vary among participants.

Agreement is appropriate….

• For routine operational decisions or procedures that don’t require full consensus or consent.
• When voting on multiple options and the group simply needs to agree on a preferred choice.
• To establish shared expectations, ground rules, or meeting norms that everyone can agree to follow.

Alignment

Alignment implies a deeper level of agreement, extending beyond the decision itself, to encompass the decision makers sharing common values, goals, and a vision underlying that decision. Alignment implies a deeper level of coherence and unity, where all parties are committed to a shared direction and actively working towards common goals.

Alignment is appropriate….

• At the start of a meeting or project, to ensure everyone understands the goals, roles, responsibilities, and timeline.
• When coordinating efforts across different teams or departments that need to collaborate effectively.
• To get everyone on the same page regarding priorities, strategies, or high-level direction before diving into specifics.

In the realm of decision-making, consent, consensus, agreement, and alignment represent distinct approaches, each with its own set of principles and implications. While consent and consensus focus on reaching acceptable decisions and fostering collaboration, agreement and alignment delve deeper into shared understanding, commitment, and coherence within teams.

Whether you want to achieve consent, consensus, agreement or alignment will also depend on factors such as the importance of the decision, time constraints, and the resources available for discussion and negotiation.

Successful decision-making requires careful consideration of these differences and selecting the most appropriate approach for the situation at hand, considering the needs, dynamics, and objectives of the individuals or teams involved.

In short, consent allows forward progress with objections noted, consensus is best for major decisions needing full buy-in, agreement works for routine matters, and alignment ensures coordination. By understanding and considering these distinctions, your teams can navigate decision-making processes more effectively, promoting cooperation, inclusivity, and unity.

“Purpose is not an add-on. It’s not something you do on the side. Purpose has to be a core part of your business model and your long-term strategy.”
Carmine Di Siblo, EY Global Chairman and CEO

Before March 2020 it had become increasingly clear that Generation Z were driven more by purpose and impact than any other demographic. The 2019 Lovell Corporation report found that, 76% of millennials considered a company’s social and environmental commitment before deciding where to work and 93% wanted to shop brands with a ‘purpose beyond product’. These trends were having significant implications for organisations who could no longer rely on being a big brand and/or large salaries to attract top talent.

While this had been an emerging picture for millennials onwards, the COVID-19 pandemic brought the conversation about “purpose” to the fore amongst all generations. In the US, Just Capital, found that 89% of Americans agreed that the pandemic “is an opportunity for large companies to hit ‘reset’ and focus on doing the right thing by their workers, customers, communities and the environment.”

So, what does this mean for organisations and leaders trying to recruit, retain and develop top talent? And, specifically for you as an L&D professional, what does this emphasis on purpose mean for your organisation’s leadership, managers and employees? How do businesses create an environment for both corporate and personal purpose to flourish?”

In our experience, those organisations who are most successful in bringing the two together embrace the following:

“Servant” leadership

They have leaders who are more likely to adopt a “servant” leadership approach focusing on employee growth, both professional and personal, including wellbeing, rather than a traditional approach focusing on business position and financial success.

Those following this model believe that this shift of focus produces more skilled, knowledgeable and motivated employees who ultimately improve the management, operations and results for their businesses. Google is a good example, where taking good care of employees and the development of employee-friendly policies has led to well-documented increases in productivity and revenues.

Key components of good “servant” leadership include:

• Being a good listener
• Having empathy and trying hard to resolve issues
• Helping people to create a healthy and peaceful working environment.
• Committing to a main focus on people, analysing needs and meeting them?
• Building a community – the leader should be able to walk with and among their people, so that they serve and build a community.

This approach was adopted successfully by former CEO Starbucks, Howard Schulz who asked the question “How can I ask my partners [employees] to support Starbucks, if I don’t support them?”

Exploration of Individual Purpose – for everyone

Leaders succeed in inspiring authentic commitment to purpose, only if they believe in the purpose themselves (they can’t simply pay lip service to it) and if they have a deep understanding of what they themselves believe in and stand for. Both are essential before they attempt to communicate about purpose to their teams.

This belief in the organisation’s purpose and self-awareness about one’s own purpose must be demonstrated at all levels of the organisation. Individuals therefore need to identify what is most meaningful to them and to find a link that connects the overarching company purpose to their own.

Best-selling author Dan Pink describes this as the challenge of linking Capital P purpose with small p purpose. “Capital P is purpose in the way we traditionally think about it,” he explains. “For example, I work for a pharmaceutical company because I want to save lives. The evidence shows that this is a powerful performance enhancer, but it’s very difficult to access every day.” Small p purpose is something simpler. It answers: How am I making a contribution? In the pharmaceutical company, I may serve the business by helping out a team mate, even if I’m not one of the scientists creating a break-through drug.

As both leaders and employees explore their small p purpose, they need a safe environment to ask:

• What am I passionate about and what do I care about?
• What am I skilled at?
• How do I serve the business in what I am doing every day?
• How does that fit with my deeper enduring sense of purpose?

Providing tools and structure

We have found that organisations who succeed at being truly purpose-driven, proactively support employees in defining their purpose and establishing its link to the organisation’s purpose. One example is the global professional services firm, EY, which offers employees a series of purpose learning experiences including:

• eLearning modules
• Quarterly discussions within established “counselling” groups
• A dedicated programme focusing on discovering personal purpose and creating the link to organisational purpose
• Bringing purpose to life through authentic storytelling

Conclusion – anything is possible

Research by Harvard Business Review suggested that when people have a sense of meaning about the work they do, not only does performance improve but they also report better health and wellbeing, being better team members and they demonstrate greater resilience.

The correlation between “purpose-led” businesses and positive employee engagement and reduced attrition is clear.

And the rise in the significance of purpose, driven both by Gen Z and the pandemic, means that all organisations now need to be give it the focus that companies such as Google, Starbucks and EY have already given to it. To quote Howard Schulz of Starbucks once more…

“When you’re surrounded by people who share a passionate commitment around a common purpose, anything is possible.”
Howard Schultz, Starbucks

Research shows that empathy drives business results across many areas, from retaining talent to increasing innovation. And the sheer pace of change and the unpredictability of our (now often remote) work environments have made empathy even more necessary.

This article makes the case for empathic leadership and outlines ways in which those leaders in your organisation who might be naturally lower in empathy, can begin to demonstrate more of it.

The case for empathic leadership

The opposite of empathy, ignoring a team member’s perspective and hoping they’ll “stop complaining” is not only bad for business, it also contributes to the ongoing rise in workplace stress, anxiety and depression.

The Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE’s) most up to date report  (2020/21) on work-related stress, anxiety and depression, shows that of the 822k cases reported, the main causes cited were workload pressures, including tight deadlines, too much responsibility and a lack of managerial support.

These, and other issues which cause stress, can be alleviated by empathic leaders who not only listen to and appreciate their team members’ points of view, but who then have good conversations with them to create workable solutions.

The business case for empathic leadership is made clear in research conducted with almost 900 employees by the not-for-profit organisation, Catalyst, The Power of Empathy in Times of Crisis and Beyond by Dr Tara van Bommel. Its findings include:

• Empathy boosts productivity – employees with empathic leaders are more innovative and engaged in their work than those with less empathic leaders.
• Empathy in senior leaders is linked to a reduced intent to leave an organisation.
• Empathic leaders foster inclusion.
• Women of colour experience less burnout when they have more empathic senior leaders.

How leaders can demonstrate empathy

If the case for empathic leadership is clear, how can leaders who are naturally lower in empathy, demonstrate more of it? Outlined below, extracted from Catalyst’s research, are the three facets of empathy, with specific actions leaders can take in one-to-one conversations with team members.

This is followed by guidance published in Harvard Business Review from communications expert & coach, Joel Schwartzberg, on how leaders can communicate empathically to groups of employees.

The three facets of empathy

The first facet is cognitive empathy, which is pausing to imagine how a colleague is feeling and what it must be like to be in their unique perspective, something which it’s all too easy to avoid in a fast-paced environment.

It might sound obvious but leaders should get to know their team members as whole people, not “just workers.”They should also be proactive, inviting their team members to discuss their feelings and reflecting back what they’ve heard to ensure understanding.

The second is affective empathy, which is feeling concern for someone and/or having similar emotions.

Van Bommel points out that leaders shouldn’t assume their team members know that they care about them, so it’s important to state their concern and that they recognise when something is challenging. And when a difficulty or emotional experience arises for a team member, leaders should give them the space to fully explain it, without jumping in or diverting the conversation.

The third facet is behavioural empathy, which is demonstrating active listening and a desire to understand more about someone’s experiences and feelings.

Leaders should pay attention to facial expressions and body language – the other person’s to pick up clues about how they may be feeling and their own, to show that they are listening and not multi-tasking. Van Bommel also suggests that when someone pauses, by internally counting to five, while the other person finds their words they can demonstrate that they are listening.

None of this means that leaders have to be specialists in mental health. Demonstrating empathy means being willing to see things from someone else’s perspective and to work out how best to support them with their challenges. It’s not about taking on responsibility for fixing employees or becoming their counsellor.

Leadership communications to groups

In his HBR article 4 ways to communicate with more empathy Joel Schwartzberg, says that   “During challenging times, the most effective leadership communications are ones that deliver attention, acknowledge distress, demonstrate care, and — not necessarily at first, but eventually — take appropriate action to mitigate the situation or at least provide comfort.”

He suggests leaders should focus on four “touchpoints” in their communications with groups of employees. These apply to meetings but are also relevant for written, audio or video communications:

Unsurprisingly, the first is listening, because “sometimes just exhibiting an attentive presence can signal deep understanding and empathy.” An example would be “I want to hear about this situation”.

The second is acknowledgment, because “leaders express empathy when they simply acknowledge the challenge and its impact on staff.”  Examples include: “I recognise how this reorganisation process can be stressful.”

Because leaders need to go beyond acknowledgement, the third is to express authentic feelings of care. Examples include: “I care deeply about your ability to balance your work life and personal life.”

And although Schwartzberg says that action is typically not considered part of a classic empathic response, leaders can convey empathy in finding solutions. Examples include: “We have extended summer half-day Fridays for all employees.”

Conclusion

An empathic culture not only provides a better working experience for employees, it’s also good for the bottom line. And the good news is that leaders who are less naturally empathic can grow stronger in this area. Many of the behaviours – listening, keeping the focus on the other person, acknowledging their situation and/or challenges and working out the best way forward, are coaching skills.

If you haven’t already considered introducing coaching skills to your leaders, Eluminas can help. You can reach us here.

However, there is an additional area worthy of taking some time to investigate. How, as an organisation, do you unintentionally fuel the individual beliefs that drive a person to create burnout for themselves?

Toxic productivity describes an approach towards work, coming more from an individual’s belief system, that places excessive emphasis on being constantly busy, productive, and achieving goals at the expense of one’s well-being and mental health.

While positive productivity can be an advantageous trait, toxic productivity comes from taking it to an extreme level and can become one of the leading factors in burnout. Here’s how it can happen:

• Overworking: People driven by toxic productivity often push themselves to work excessively long hours, neglecting breaks, rest, and self-care. The focus is on quantity over quality, leading to a never-ending cycle of work.
• Neglecting boundaries: Toxic productivity blurs the boundaries between work and personal life. There’s an expectation to always be available, responding to emails or work-related tasks during off-hours. This lack of separation and constant work engagement can be draining and prevent proper relaxation.
• Unrealistic expectations: Individuals driven by toxic productivity often set unrealistic standards for themselves, striving for perfection, and never feeling satisfied with their achievements. This constant pressure to meet unattainable goals can cause stress, anxiety, and self-doubt.
• Neglecting self-care: In the pursuit of productivity, self-care activities such as exercise, hobbies, or spending time with loved ones are often deprioritised or completely neglected. This lack of balance can lead to emotional exhaustion and burnout.

There is an ancient and very strong driver for this: Status. For our ancestors, status was a matter of survival. Higher status meant better access to food, mates, and safety. Neuroscience has indicated how powerfully the threat and reward perceptions of status (our relative importance to others) can both overtly and covertly influence our behaviour (Rock, 2008). And this is a concept/fear/need we can still carry in our lives today…particularly in larger organisations, with clear hierarchies.

Of course, the outcomes form these personally driven toxic productivity behaviours are unsurprising:

• Reduced effectiveness: Paradoxically, excessive work can decrease productivity and effectiveness over time. Mental fatigue, lack of focus, and decreased creativity can result from constantly being in a state of high stress and overwork.
• Physical and mental health consequences: Burnout, the severe form of chronic workplace stress, manifesting as physical symptoms like exhaustion, insomnia, headaches, and a weakened immune system. Additionally, mental health issues like anxiety and depression can arise.

In a situation where the “benefits” of position and status in obvious – or even perceived – hierarchies seem clear and more explicit, the work of constantly vying for position can leave individuals feeling anxious, stressed, and unfulfilled. At work, salaries dictate individuals’ value. Job titles rank people relative to one another. The promise of promotions can become a compulsion to keep pushing – all becoming misplaced drivers for toxic productivity, as a way to reinforce self-worth.

Unsurprisingly, as well as blurring the boundaries between work and personal life, and bringing with it the possibility of remote surveillance, hybrid working can also exacerbate toxic productivity in several ways:

• Fear of being left out: In a hybrid work environment, there is a risk that remote employees might feel disconnected from in-person discussions, meetings, and decision-making processes that often take place in the office. This fear of missing out on important information or opportunities can lead to an intensified drive to overwork in order to demonstrate dedication and stay visible.
• Pressure to prove productivity: Remote work can lead to a sense of needing to prove one’s productivity to managers and colleagues, as there may be concerns about being perceived as slacking off, or not working as hard as those who are physically present in the office. This pressure can drive employees to overwork and put in extra hours to demonstrate their commitment and value.
• Unhealthy competition: In a hybrid work setup, employees might perceive a need to compete with their peers to stand out, especially if promotions and career progression are tied to visible accomplishments. This competitive atmosphere can lead to an unhealthy culture of comparison and excessive workloads.

To prevent toxic productivity and burnout, it’s important for individuals to cultivate a healthy balance between ‘work’ and relaxation.  I hesitate to call this “work-life balance” as that can be a misrepresented phrase because the toxic productivity (the “always doing”) can also be a part of life outside the workplace. The routes out of toxic productivity are to set realistic goals, establish boundaries, prioritise self-care, and practice self-compassion. Recognising the value of rest, breaks, and leisure time can lead to increased productivity and overall well-being.

These are all factors that can be influenced by organisational culture, consciously or otherwise. At an individual level, though, these are within the bounds of emotional intelligence. Higher emotional intelligence is generally associated with lower burnout levels. Developing emotional intelligence skills can potentially help individuals better manage stress, maintain well-being, and reduce the risk of burnout in the workplace. Self-awareness and self-management are powerful starting points and both are important areas that can be effectively worked on with a great coach.

The formal definition of burnout from the World Health Organisation (WHO) is “a syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. It is characterized by three dimensions:

• feelings of energy depletion or exhaustion;
• increased mental distance from one’s job, or feelings of negativism or cynicism related to one’s job; and
• reduced professional efficacy.

While some might say that employees should toughen up and solider on, the leaders most likely to retain their top talent are the ones who recognise that the causes of burnout lie in systemic issues that need to be addressed at an organisational level. In other words, burnout shouldn’t be seen as a personal problem to be fixed by wellness solutions.

Research included in a McKinsey Health Institute article published in May 2022, found that employers should focus more on preventing the circumstances that cause burnout rather than offering remedies to try to prevent it, such as gym memberships and meditation apps.

The research also found that toxic workplace behaviour was the biggest predictor of burnout symptoms and of employees’ intention to leave an organisation. Toxic behaviour is defined as “interpersonal behaviour that leads to employees feeling unvalued, belittled or unsafe.” [This includes “unfair or demeaning treatment, non-inclusive behaviour, sabotaging, cutthroat competition, abusive management and unethical behaviour.”]

While training people to become more resilient and adaptable in the face of such behaviour can be a buffer against its impact, the research warns that more adaptable employees are less also less likely to tolerate toxic behaviours: “Therefore relying on improving employee adaptability without addressing broader workplace factors puts employers at an even higher risk of losing some of its most resilient, adaptable employees.”

An organisational checkup

So, what should organisations do to tackle burnout at this more systemic level? The key questions that the McKinsey team suggest organisations should ask themselves are:

Do we treat employee mental health and wellbeing as a strategic priority?

The senior team should publicly acknowledge issues and listen to employee needs, something which the McKinsey team say doesn’t happen enough. Organisations should create a measure of burnout and give it equal importance to other key measures such as customer satisfaction and financial metrics.

Do we effectively address toxic behaviours?

As the research says, this isn’t easy to do. The organisations that succeed though, have leaders who are aware of the impact of their own behaviour on others; make treatment of others an integral part of assessing performance; and psychological safety is seen as important. [Effective leaders know not only that toxic behaviour leads to toxic teams but also that showing vulnerability and compassion fuels more compassionate teams].

Do we create inclusive work environments?

More diverse companies outperform their less diverse competitors. And inclusion doesn’t happen by accident. The report points to an inclusion model with 17 practices which include appreciating employees’ non-work responsibilities and equal access to the information, opportunities and relationships that help people to get on.

Do we enable individual growth?

The report refers to evidence that individual growth including learning and development programmes help to combat burnout and retain employees. Reskilling people and offering them sideways moves within the organisation, leads to improvement not only in their experience of work but also in the organisation’s financial results.

Do we promote sustainable work?

This is about more than managing workload – it includes giving employees “a sense of control and predictability, flexibility and time for recovery” in how they do their work. The report’s authors suggest adopting a “test and learn” mindset to how people do their work. In a post pandemic world, organisations that fail to provide flexibility, simply won’t attract talent.

Are we holding leaders accountable?

The report says that among other things, organisations that are doing this well “set clear expectations for managers to lead in a way that is supports employee mental health and well-being” and that they “offer training to help managers to identify and proactively ask about and listen to employees’ mental health and wellbeing needs”.

Are we effectively tackling stigma?

The writers define stigma as shame, prejudice or discrimination towards people with mental health conditions which then makes people afraid to seek help. To help “shift the perception of signs of burnout or other mental health needs as being indicative of a moral failing” organisations need to stop “rewarding overwork at the expense of rest and renewal.” Senior leaders who speak about their own struggles also helps to create psychological safety.

Do our resources serve employee needs?

This final question is about asking whether the mental health and wellbeing resources available are on a par with physical health resources. Despite an increase in mental health services, research shows that employees still find it challenging to access them.

Conclusion

Answering these questions honestly might be tough but should start to help any organisation to ensure that the systemic issues that lead to burnout are tackled. And that any lingering perception of burnout as being due to weakness is turned around. Even the most adaptable and hard working employees have their limits.

You can read the full McKinsey report here

Language is very powerful. The way we use words can be emotive and provocative. We unconsciously or deliberately choose a word because of its connotation, its imagery or the meaning it can convey. We often assume that the person with whom we’re talking holds the same imagery and meaning. This is how communication works. Or not.

We all know, that when we’re told to not think of an elephant, we think about an elephant.  But do we all have the same thought? We use our memory to build the thought of ‘elephant’ and, what you have in your head – along with all its associated memories, emotion and imagery, is likely not to be what I have…..

I think of five or six young elephants splashing around in a small lake in Thailand.  You might be thinking of them in a zoo, a circus, or maybe a wildlife documentary……  In other words, we’re most likely sharing the same construct but not quite the same picture.   Sharing the construct might be enough for some conversations but it leaves the emotion, imagery, and experiences in our minds. And it is these which colour our thoughts, and have a subtle influence on, quite literally, our frame of mind, and therefore our behaviour.

What is a manager?

So – that word: “manager”. What does that bring up for you? What might be in that shared construct? We all have experience of “managers” that help us to recreate the construct, and an ‘understanding’ of the broader elements that also contribute to our  overall picture.

If this were a discussion, we would be internally revising that construct until we came to a shared mental model of what a “manager” is.  Now what is interesting is what might be in that pool of knowledge, learning and past experiences for us to draw on to create that mental model or construct. If you look up the definition of ‘manager’ there are one or two common elements: control, direct, in charge. This isn’t surprising, given that the role of manager emerged during the Industrial Revolution, enhanced and entrenched by Taylorism – a strand of management theory based on standardisation, clear division of tasks and responsibilities, boundaries and hierarchy of authority, and strict surveillance. And, of course, pay linked to performance.

A manager (n.) is one who manages (vb.).

Consider the synonyms of manage: ‘be in charge of’, ‘govern’, ‘command’, ‘direct’, ‘control’, ‘oversee’, ‘supervise’…..and reflect on the emotional state these create within you. Other synonyms are ‘cope’, ‘make do’, ‘get by’…a manager is one who ‘copes’ – how exciting is that? In many organisations, the first line (or level of) managers are still referred to as “supervisors”, keeping that command-and-control element of the manager construct alive and well.

What is a leader?

Now – let’s take a look at another word: “leader”. What’s in that construct? Curiously, just notice, how mentioning it has changed your mood. Has it lightened ever so slightly? Doing the same as above, we get common threads like conductor, guide, confidence, passion. To lead (vb) shares  ‘to go before’, ‘escort’, ‘show the way’. Synonyms include ‘guide’, ‘steer’, ‘shepherd’.

The knowledge, learning and past experiences we draw on – those you are reflecting on right now, because I have presented you with the word – are different to those we use for “manager”. For most of you, your emotional state will be lighter, more energised, more excited holding the construct ‘leader’ than holding the construct ‘manager’.

Leading vs Managing

It isn’t completely black and white, of course, but in general terms the emotions created by what we hold in the construct of leadership are much more positive, engaging and inspiring than those we hold in the construct of management.

In our current industrial and commercial – the Fourth Industrial Revolution, post pandemic – landscape we are daily told of burnout, of disengaged employees, quiet quitting, worsening mental health…particularly of managers. And we shouldn’t be surprised. As we’ve moved into the 21st Century, the constructs that were created in the 19th Century are no longer appropriate. Yet they persist…deeply rooted in our collective psyche, even though for some time now we have recognised the shift in the management role.

When successful, management is a role ‘in service of’ others, not directing and controlling others. As we have progressively moved from the siloed, functional, mechanical model of organisations to the more fluid ‘ecosystems’, successful management is seen to be much more relational, human to human. Now we are recognising the value of managers having supportive, inclusive relationship skill: trust, authenticity, vulnerability, transparency, self-awareness, self-management. The so called “soft skills” that are so essential.

So, here’s the challenge: what would it be like if you scrapped all your managers? How would it be for anyone with ‘manager’ in their title – including you – to change it to ‘leader. Shift their – and your – mind-set…stand in a different construct. Of course, there are still instances of where ‘managing’ is appropriate – for non-human resources – but when it involves people make them leaders. How different would they – and you – feel about themselves in relation to others? How much more engaged, and engaging could they/would they be?

If you’d like some support in making this happen, we can help. Leadership is as much a mind-set as it is a skill set.

“We’re all “bundles of potentiality” that only manifest in relationship”

Margaret Wheatley 2006

“I have a couple of areas that trouble me. One area is, young people learn from the experience of older people. Some people will almost go too heavy on flexible working, and say to young recruits “Yeah, you work from home, come in one day a week”. When actually they need to be there more often, because that’s where they learn. From people who do come in, the experienced people. They don’t have to be there every day.

Another area I’m concerned about in the flexible work agenda is what i call the gender promotion gap. Will women work more from home? And men, because they are organisationally political and very much into being ambitious, go in more often. And because they show face time will get the promotions and women will be less able to push up the glass ceiling. And the gender promotion gap will grow greater. That’s another negative on it. But i think if we’re aware of those kinds of things, young people do need to learn. When you’re assessing women for promotion you’d have to look at the bottom line of what they deliver, not just whether they show facetime or not”

Did you enjoy this excerpt? Listen to the full interview with Cary.