In the last instalment the subject of overly deferential behavior was discussed with a view to helping the leader firstly be more aware of the dynamic and secondly identify practicable tools to create a more empowering atmosphere to facilitate equal participation at the table. Feedback has been that, well, what is the difference? What is the difference between being overly deferential and just being in a perpetually defensive posture in the face of passive-aggressive leadership behaviours? One comment was that “yes, I’m reluctant to disagree or propose solutions. I’m even reluctant to do anything without getting a specific and direct instruction, because, as far as I’ve come in my career, I still get reprimanded like a child for speaking or acting ‘out of turn’. So I wait for the boss. Because that is what is expected and rewarded! Yet, when appraisals come, tables turn and we are said to be timid, ineffective and lacklusture, It’s disempowering but this is not the first leadership position for me, nor is it the second, or third. I have to assume the posture or lose my livelihood. It is that simple.”
From a coaching perspective, this is definitely one of the top issues that often emerge especially in a team coaching assignment. The new, emerging executive looking to define his or her engagement style and refine his or her goal-setting and relationship management skills; the mid-career leader feeling stuck and wanting to identify and overcome obstacles, while the mature executive is, usually, looking for skills to future-proof the organization. Different team members with different priorities, perspectives, and, different levels of receptiveness.
The challenge is, simply wanting better performance doesn’t lead to getting better performance. It takes deliberate effort and practice to define what “better performance” is in measurable terms, and develop an actionable plan to go from here to there. It’s going to be different with different leaders. And typically, delegation skills, as well as being more accessible and less intimidating, are among the top development needs in leadership. There are leaders who must learn how to control unreasonable emotional outbursts. You can’t simply intimidate a team into excellence—at least not over the long term. Suppressed or bridled emotions contribute to that ‘walking on egg-shells’ environment. Use of reliable diagnostic tools to profile the individual executive, or the executive team, yields valuable insights into culture and ingrained behaviours like displaying conceited or entitled behaviours, managing through passive-aggressive means and cultivating overly deferential behaviours in the team. The right coaching can help measure improvement in team relations and identify which behaviors are useful and which are not.
But it appears the issue is not a lack of coaching opportunity. It is more about culture. If it is true that the leadership is the single biggest determinant of the quality of organizational culture, then culture can’t change or improve without leadership commitment. None of this is new to anyone. What we need to be asking is, what is the commitment level of the leaders, through their respective hierarchies, to change from deferential cultural norms to mutually respectful?
