Embracing Diversity: Not Everyone Wants to be Led the Same Way
Tailoring Leadership for Individual Needs
No two people are exactly the same in this world. This is a basic fact that's evident in all areas of our lives, including the business realm. Far be it from me to explain the obvious here, but in some circumstances, even the most apparent thing isn't so clear at first glance.
When first stepping into a team management role, it's quite natural to aspire to be a good leader for your team members and, above all, to want to treat everyone equally. Though it may seem obvious you quickly learn, firsthand, that it's not possible to treat all the folks in your team in the same way.
You might be wondering why I'm making this statement. There are several angles to consider this issue from, let's explore some of them along with the mistakes I've often made.
👀 From the Leader’s point of view
The first mistake a leader makes is wanting to treat everyone equally. Indeed, at first glance, it may seem like a positive thing as no favoritism is shown in any way. The mistake is treating people with equality, you should always choose equity over equality.
Senior vs Junior peers
The most glaring example is the difference between senior and junior peers. There are several aspects you have to consider depending on the seniority of your teammates:
🧭 Guidance vs Delegation: while you can easily delegate a task to a senior, this doesn’t work with a junior, who instead needs guidance and close supervision. On the other side of the coin, a senior who receives very detailed instructions for a task may be a bit upset
👏 Feedback and Recognition: a senior might expect feedback more oriented to the continuous improvement and the contribution to achieved results. With a junior you should also focus on encouraging feedback to help them grow and celebrate also small improvements and minor autonomies gained in the field
✨ Decision-Making: while it is expected to involve seniors more in strategic decisions and the planning process, a junior should be involved more in project-scoped decisions
I could move further with tons of examples like the ones above but I think I’ve already hit the point: you should give to each member of your team the exact opportunities needed to do their best.
Keep in mind that these are generic examples but you should set the expectations for each team member and you should not rely on generic expectations based on the seniority.
Peers with same seniority
While what I’ve just mentioned may seem obvious, there is another important aspect not so obvious: how to lead team members with the same seniority.
A mistake I often made was to always ask the same people to do the same type of tasks. Eg. all the tasks in a specific part of the domain or with a specific technology. They already have the knowledge so it’s easier for them to get the things done, isn’t it? The problem here is that you create silos in which knowledge is not shared across the team but resides only in specific individuals. Have you ever heard about the bus factor? Don’t expose your organization to this risk!
Another common mistake is to rely always on the most skilled team mates when you need to complete a risky or time-sensitive task. While you cannot delegate a risky task to a junior, this doesn’t mean you cannot involve more people on it.
In both cases, indeed, we can involve more people in the task to share the knowledge and, also, to train the team's attitude towards working on more dangerous tasks. Just as you had to learn to make decisions or lead a team through experience, your team members will also learn and grow through the space you give them to gain experience.
Different communication styles
There is no one-size-fits-all approach to communication. Different team members have unique communication preferences or styles and sometimes we have to adapt our approach to accomodate these differences, ensuring that everyone feels heard and understood. Some team members may prefer written communication, while others may prefer face-to-face interactions. It’s not only about the format, it’s also about the tone and the frequency. The goal is always to ensure the communication is effective.
One the best advices coming from the Radical Candor book about feedback is: Public Praise/Private Criticism. As paradoxical as it may seem, I've learned from experience that not everyone wants to be praised publicly to avoid embarrassment. It happened to me only once, to be honest, but it's further confirmation of how open communication with the team is essential.
Biases and Assumptions
We are human beings before being leaders and it can happen to not realize that we've been influenced by biases or assumptions that may influence how you perceive and evaluate the contributions of team members. Avoid making assumptions based on stereotypes or preconceived notions, and strive to evaluate each individual's contributions objectively and fairly. Challenge yourself to look beyond surface-level traits or behaviors and recognize the value that each team member brings to the table.
👀 From the team’s perspective
In a Linkedin’s post, Daniel Hauck states:
Don't become a manager, sell ice cream. At least if your goal is to make people happy. If you aim to make people smile and give them short-term satisfaction (and give yourself a little dopamine hit) - management is not for you.
I couldn't agree more, but the concept isn't as straightforward as it seems. Especially if you've come from experiences where you've had unsympathetic leaders and vowed never to be like them. In such a case, which was also mine, you'd want to please everyone and ensure they're all happy to prevent them from experiencing what you went through. The truth is, by doing so, you're not helping them in any way; in fact, you're silently steering the team into a dangerous situation.
Here's an example of how I found myself receiving feedback that was diametrically opposed to my intentions. I have a habit of asking for feedback from the members of my team at regular intervals, which can be provided either in written or verbal form. Here's an example of feedback that completely caught me off guard.
[…] Now on to the part that probably you’re more interested in 😄 I know you do it with good intentions, I’m just expressing how I feel about it. One small thing that I wish would be different is when you need a hand or when some “small” task needs to be done, you don’t assign someone to the task but you ask for volunteers. That makes me uncomfortable and sends me to a thinking spiral: “Should I volunteer?”, “What if I don’t volunteer, am I seen as a lazy person?”, “I have things on my plate, maybe the other guys are more free”… you get the point 😄 Maybe what could be easier is just to pick someone to get the task done, since you as a leader have knowledge of what’s on each team members plates, and know which one is a better fit for the task at hand. This doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing and it doesn’t have to change, since I think it’s probably just my anxiety 😄
Someone might think that giving room for manoeuvre instead of constantly pushing is a good thing and allows people to feel free to decide what to do. In reality, this doesn't always work.
Of course, all of this varies from person to person and from context to context. In this specific case, however, what seemed to be a move of a “good leader” to me, I found out actually caused anxiety. And what I just said is probably the biggest take away of this post:
What worked with one person and in a specific context most likely won't work again when the person and/or the context change.
There’s another example I’d like to share with you to show how different people in the same context act - and react - differently despite having access to the same resources at the same time. A few years ago I started mentoring a team of two (let’s call them Carl and John): same project, same country (and city), same age, just different skills. The goal of the mentorship was to help the guys grow both in terms of hard skills and soft skills. I tried to understand their aptitudes and, in what way, prepare a personalized growth plan for each of them.
Long story short: the growth plan was perfectly aligned with the needs of both. My initial mistake was applying the same study methodologies to both. Later on, when the progress of one of them didn't align with expectations, I discovered that the method I had applied simply didn't work for him while was exactly what the other guy was looking for.
Same context, different people: John needed to study all the theory before experimenting in the field, while Carl couldn't study the theory unless he first experienced firsthand the benefits and reasons behind a particular technology.
Once we changed the approach and found the right motivation triggers the growth was significant, especially for hard skills.
TL;DR
There are many ways to understand how your teammates want to be led but, for sure, the easier one is: open communication. Foster this culture within the team, and eventually, it will bear fruit. Ask your team openly what they prefer. They may not always respond or tell you everything they'd like to, but over time, they'll gain trust in you if you show them that you're actively listening.
Credits: Illustration 1