Since sports metaphors are popular among management consultants (yielding grossly inflated speaking fees for washed up sports figures in the bargain) I always love hearing interviews with the coaches of losing sports teams. I’ve synthesized a typical example:

“Ed Jones just didn’t play very hard this game,” complained the coach. “And John Smith demoralized the team with that interview he gave you reporters yesterday. If he’d spend more time trying to hit the ball and less time spouting off, it would give the whole team a lift. And then there’s Jim Johnson. Sure, his stats look good, but he’s grandstanding. He needs to be more of a team player.”

And on, and on. If I had a manager who publicly berated his staff like that I wouldn’t bother firing him.

I’d hire a recruiting firm to sneak him into my fiercest competitor instead.

And then there were the professional football players in the late ’80s, who arm-twisted the concessionaires into supporting their strike. The next year, when the concessionaires went out on strike, do you think the football players supported them? Not a chance.

This may be one of the more useful crossover lessons from professional sports to business leadership — say what you have to in order to get your way, then conveniently forget it when it becomes bothersome.

The first time I was exposed to “employee involvement” our visiting consultant, diluting his sports metaphors a bit, explained how it would transform the role of the leader: from decision-maker and expert to “coach and mentor”.

Now there’s an energizing concept.

You still hear this nonsense every so often, so let me clear it up once and for all: coaching and mentoring are wonderful ancillary qualities for a leader. The job, though, consists of setting direction, establishing priorities, and clearing away every obstacle to success.

Somebody famous once contrasted management and leadership as “doing things right” vs doing the right things. I’m not sure I agree. I think leadership makes sure decisions get made; management makes sure jobs get done.

Making sure decisions get made isn’t the same as making all the decisions, and the most important difference between good and bad leadership is decision style. There are four ways to make decisions: Command (you just make it), Consultative (you ask a lot of people, then make it), Delegated (you give it to someone else to make), and Consensus (you ask everyone involved to make it together).

The worst leaders make a lot of command decisions. Command decisions make sense in a crisis (there’s no time to ask anyone else) and when the leader knows so much more than anyone else that other opinions add no value. Leaders who make lots of command decisions either have lots of crises (bad leadership) or weak, untrained staff (bad leadership).

Good leaders make a lot of consultative decisions. Gather a lot of facts, ask for a lot of competing opinions, and you’ll be a lot smarter about the choice you have to make.

Good leaders delegate a lot of decisions. Figure out the best person to make the decision and give him or her ownership of it. You’ll deal with less detail and the delegatee will grow with new responsibility. (Now, you get to help that person figure out which of the four decision styles to use. In most cases, I’d recommend the consultative style.)

Reserve consensus decision-making for very special situations. Consensus decisions are expensive and time-consuming. Use consensus processes when (a) you need everyone involved to own the decision; or (b) you’re leading your peers to a decision nobody has the authority to make.

If you find yourself trying to do everything by consensus, you’re not leading. Quite the opposite, you’re avoiding leadership, playing it safe.

You’re making sure you can blame the team.

It’s another re-run this week, this time a missive on who’s leading whom, and how to tell.

Any value in interpreting current events is, as always, fortuitous.

– Bob


Years ago the Lewis household had a dog named Nicky. Nicky was a Shetland Sheepdog with an overactive pituitary – he’d grown nearly to collie size, with a snout to match.

Nicky used his snout to get affection, wedging it between the human arm he’d targeted as the desired petting instrument and the arm of whatever chair it rested on.

My ex-wife had raised Nicky, training him to respond to a snap of her fingers and the word “Git!” by departing instantly. It worked every time.

When I wasn’t in a petting mood I would also snap fingers and say, “Git!” Then I would repeat myself. Nicky, sensing a lack of commitment on my part, substituted the long, sad, soulful look only brown-eyed dogs can produce for the behavior I desired, and eventually I would cave in.

I’ve always been a sucker for a dog who wants petting.

But I always wondered if, deep down, Nicky wasn’t sneering at me, convinced he’d established dominance over his owner.

I’ve never been a successful leader of dogs. Whether I’m a good leader of employees I’ll leave to those who have had the experience. Having had the experience, though, I’ve spent quite some time pondering the question of leadership, and I think I’ve figured it out.

This week, we’ll begin a series on leadership. Let’s begin by asking the most basic question we can define: what is a leader?

Never mind what constitutes good leadership, indifferent leadership, bad leadership, visionary leadership, pragmatic leadership, or whatever other adjectives you think may be important. Future columns will deal with the adjectives.

We’re going to peel the onion further than that. This week, you’re going to ask yourself the absolute, bedrock question that more than any other question will define your success or failure as a manager (because a manager who can’t lead will eventually fall by the wayside): are you a leader at all, good, bad, or indifferent?

So here’s the basic measure of a leader: who looks to whom for approval?

That’s it. Do the employees in your organization look to you for approval, or do you seek theirs?
If you’re a manager, take a hard look at your interactions. Do you tell jokes because you want employees to like you or approve of you? Do you want to be the center of attention?

Here’s a red flag: when someone in your organization tells you about how they’ve accomplished some task or other and you’ve gone through the usual Q&A on the subject, they ask you, “Was that what you had in mind?” Employees will stop looking to you for approval if you don’t give it, unsolicited, when they succeed.

Here’s another bad sign: employees filing weekly status reports filled with braggadocio – sycophantic attempts to gain your attention. Yes, they want to notice them, but it’s because you ignore them completely or they think they can manipulate you, not because they value your genuine approval.

Here’s a worse symptom: employees don’t do what you ask until you yell at them, and then they do it halfheartedly. Employees who act out of fear won’t want your approval. They just want to stay out of your way.

How you interact with peers – who looks to whom for approval in these interactions? To the extent your peers look to you for approval, that’s the extent you’re viewed as ready for the next promotion. Every corporate executive has a mental list of who belongs on the executive track. You want to be on that list? Stop looking for approval, and start giving it to others.

Give enough approval, and the right kind, and others will seek it. Give too little and they’ll stop trying; too much too easily and they’ll take it for granted.

Does this all strike you as manipulative? Me too. Think of it this way, though: somebody will get the next promotion.