Let My People Go
Good Leadership Brings Freedom | A leadership story
Lasting freedom requires our commitment to act responsibly and in the best interests of our people, our teams, and our organization.
Leader Blind Spots
Mindy’s problem
Not long ago, one of my colleagues (Mindy is the name we will use) and I met over coffee and we dove quickly into a topic that was bothering her.
Mindy was processing a decision she made to remove a key person from her leadership team. She was wanting to process her thoughts out loud and I was a willing sounding board. We began by examining one of her unanswered concerns:
How could one of her direct reports (we will call her Sally) on her leadership team get to a point where they began wrecking team cohesion and making decisions that threatened team sustainability?
It wasn’t that way from the beginning with Sally. Before the forming of the organization, the two were close friends. They had deeply respected each other and committed to the principles of servant leadership.
Mindy told me she never experienced a problem quite like this with any of her other leaders; only now with Sally.
I told her what she was facing was not that uncommon.
Then I asked what course of action she took when she first sensed the problem. I asked if she went directly to Sally about what she was observing.
Mindy shook her head yes and said, “eventually”.
She went on to explain, she wasn’t convinced at first she had a problem and attempted handling the concern more generally in a way she thought would strengthen the entire organization.
Leading by example works with those wanting to go where you are leading
When Mindy learned Sally had been exhibiting behaviors contradicting established team culture, she thought expressing her expectations of what it means to be a leader in an all hands meeting would help. Her leadership team observed her lead by example daily. Taken together Mindy thought that would be enough to reinforce organizational culture without having to single out Sally.
Mindy explained her hope was that Sally would be self-aware enough and see she was not living up to her commitment to put her people first. In turn, perhaps others modeling after Sally might realize the subtle point Mindy was conveying in hopes of helping others to self-correct.
Coaching works . . . on the coachable
Mindy’s reinforcement of vision through sharing stories about organizational culture during the all hands meeting didn’t result in the change she was hoping to see.
The next logical step to take for Mindy was clear. Now Mindy went to her most faithful technique . . . coaching.
Mindy is an effective coach. She connects best with people as she coaches them and is her primary way of leading. She has helped countless people using her expertise.
Coaching works with most people helping guide them towards achieving objectives they care about.
And coaching previously worked with Sally, but something had changed.
Mindy discovered Sally had become uncoachable. During their sessions, both were engaged. Afterwards Sally deviated from her prior commitments and way of working. Mindy didn’t notice at first because Sally knew just the right thing to say.
In their regular one-on-ones, Mindy would ask about upcoming deliverables, and Sally would always be able to show progress and list off accomplishments. There was no disputing the productivity of the team and Sally’s ability to get things done.
Mindy had to admit that she should have noticed sooner and would have, had she been doing her part to hold Sally accountable.
Something was different now. Despite all the notable progress, concerns from other leaders and team members were surfacing. They would come to Mindy in the form of e-mail questions about why such-and-such was done in ways that were disruptive to their teams.
Similarly, side conversations in the hallway with team members expressed increasing frustration in Sally’s way of doing things. They felt she was placing her priorities over all other work they were responsible to deliver. They were now feeling undue pressure.
Through some purposeful investigation, Mindy confirmed that Sally’s methods of persuasion had become coercive. On top of that, she was now making decisions no longer aligned to organizational objectives.
Taken individually, these deviations might not have been material enough for alarm. Taken together, Mindy was now concerned.
Clearly leading by example and coaching were no longer effective in helping Sally. Something was clearly wrong. The evidence confirmed that Sally had adopted the power leadership model.
I asked what she tried next. She said, I asked Sally to go to lunch.
Relationships matter
During lunch Mindy told me she and Sally reminiscenced about how they had built the organization together and why she was excited about the future. Sally praised her team and pitched future offerings still in the forming phase.
Sally was clearly engaged.
Throughout their time together, the energy was positive. Nothing seemed off. They talked about their respective families and other personal topics.
Mindy had covered all the bases and then proceeded to ask, “Are we okay?”.
Sally, replied, “Never better. Love what we are doing together!”
Those remarks and a good lunch set Mindy’s mind at ease. At least for a few days.
Unsettled matters rise
Mindy had covered a lot of ground and since our time together was coming to a close, I asked her to summarize the situation just prior to her decision to remove Sally from her role. She listed off 4 unsettled matters.
Loss of credibility: Members outside of the organization were raising questions about her ability to lead collaboratively
Drifting from team values: She had adopted other values and a way of working that was outside of the team agreement
Making decisions beyond authority: Sally began making decisions not delegated to her placing the organization at risk
Introducing fear: Her own team was reporting coercive acts which was introducing fear into the organization
The final act
“Was there some last thing that happened before you made the change?”, I asked.
Mindy indicated there was. “Something shocking actually, that I didn’t think Sally was capable of . . . she lied to me.”
“How did you know?”, I pressed.
Mindy told me the story.
She had made a decision to cut back on some discretionary spending that would effect each of her teams. None of her leaders liked it, but got on board. Mindy asked each of her leaders to talk with their respective teams and share their reactions.
Each leader did. They each reported no one encountered any problems. The one exception was Sally. Sally said the cuts ‘devastated’ the team and reported to the entire leader team how they felt under appreciated for the work they had been doing and that Mindy should reconsider the cuts.
Since Mindy had hired almost all of the individuals on Sally’s team herself and knew them well she was surprised at their reaction. She began reaching out to see why they were so upset and if she could just talk to them they might better understand.
Something wasn’t adding up.
After a few days she had her answer. Sally made the story up.
When Mindy confronted Sally with what she had learned, She went through a whole range of emotions from upset, defensive, and then remorseful, but the whole time never admitting she used her team to make a point in the leadership team meeting.
“So that’s when you gave her the news?”
“Yes”, Mindy replied. I couldn’t keep a leader on my team that was dishonest and manipulating others.
Sounds like you did the right thing for the team I told her.
“Why did you wait so long?”
“Basically, because I didn’t want to believe it and I’m still growing as a leader myself. I should have acted much sooner. I didn’t, and my people suffered when they didn’t have to. I’ve learned a lot from this whole thing. Thank you for listening to me walk through it.”
We left the coffee shop together and parted ways.
Shepherd Thinking
I completely understood Mindy’s perspective. I wouldn’t want to remove a close friend from a team.
As Mindy is a servant leader, I was surprised that she took such a long time to make a decision. Why her team put up with all that turmoil caused by Sally still leaves me unsettled.
Fortunately, the team members on Mindy’s team did speak up and Mindy was open to hear the concerns objectively. I think Mindy became wiser as a result of the experience and suspect she will act more quickly next time.
I could tell Mindy regretted waiting so long. I think that is good. When we learn from our failures, they can produce lasting change.
Mindy suspected she lost trust of some of her people as a result. I bet she to some extent. One benefit to shepherding your team is that they are quick to forgive when we admit our mistakes. Our people feel safe when they know where they are supposed to be. They want to follow the leader that will care for them.
Mindy forgave Sally too. She could understand that Sally was feeling pressures on multiple fronts which led her to take short cuts. We all face pressure. The difference was Sally’s response to it.
It is hard to comprehend how some people give up their inner convictions so easily. It happens every day. People want the ‘quick win’ and the ‘low hanging’ fruit. It is possible that perhaps Mindy didn’t know Sally as well as she had thought.
My conclusion was Sally found herself in the grip of transactional leadership and little by little made compromises. This course had taken its toll on those around her and her friendship with Mindy. Sally had lost permission to lead and it cost her dearly. Having chosen that form of leadership for years; I understood. I too had to pay a price.
Clearly, there were signs that Sally was in the process of leaving the team even if Mindy hadn’t stepped in.
Mindy’s reflection on Sally’s trade-off
A few months later, I caught up with Mindy to learn if she had any regrets.
She explained there was transition, but things were pretty good and getting even better. Her team was stronger now with Sally out of the picture.
Mindy did have a couple thoughts she shared with me.
In retrospect she felt that Sally may have began resorting to fear based leadership regardless of established group norms, prior agreements, and other peoples' feelings as a short cut. Understanding this now explained some of the attrition from her team. It might of been a coincidence, but probably not.
She also shared a few other questions she was considering as she intended to use this experience to help her grow as leader.
Mindy’s list:
Was it her fault that the Sally was acted this way?
Since she hired Sally and was her biggest advocate for the role, what did that say about Mindy’s judgement?
Should she have acted sooner to remove Sally?
Wasn’t she supposed to trust her people to do the right thing?
Should she have left her on the team and given her a second chance?
Aren't people allowed to fail? If so, how do we walk through it?
Why didn't Sally take responsibility when confronted with the facts?
How can I use this experience to grow as a leader?
Conclusion
Was there a root cause that was driving the behavior?
Yes. It was the difference between freedom and license
Freedom as result of giving trust requires responsibility. Freedom demands that we restrain ourselves, License can lead each person to do what they think right thing regardless on how their actions impact others. It can even result in disorder and chaos.
People who take license and lord over others reject their responsibility as leader when they give in to their personal ambition.
We see this all the time. They make leadership about them, not about those they serve. Ultimately they find themselves in opposition to freedom as they look to impose their will on others. Doing this stifles creativity and ability for our teams to do their best work.
Shepherding Principles instead sees leadership in terms of our responsibility to others. In fact, good leadership sets people free to release their talents and skills that benefit teams and communities.
The problem: Sally confused freedom with license.
Freedom and license must not be confused: freedom embraces responsibility and is guided by reason and virtue; while license is choice without restraint.
Shepherd Leaders guide teams to greater freedom
Freedom requires good character in order to keep it (hire people that do right when no one is looking)
Receive feedback regularly (to broaden our line of sight)
Timely reflection (increase self-awareness about how our behaviors impact people)
Want to learn how to shepherd your team?
RESOURCES
Our motive for wanting to lead. is extremely important. Patrick Lencioni tells us motive is the most important. In fact he advises that only individuals with the right motive should lead. Do you want to know what that is? Check out his book.
While the title Fire Someone Today, might seem a bit harsh, freeing people to go do what they are designed to do is important for them and for your organization.