Last time ("Why Ted Lasso is the perfect HRO leader") I briefly introduced the concept of players and coaches as it pertains to leadership. In the sports world, there are coaches and players that serve distinct roles on the team. The coaches are the individuals that stand on the sidelines in close proximity to the players and give instructions to the players on what to do in order to accomplish the goal. They help motivate and train the players to perform at their best, and they usually develop the team's strategy and tactics so that they will be successful on the field (or the court). The players are the individuals who are on the field (or the court) executing the plays, which they must do together as a team.
Occasionally, we hear of individuals who formally serve both roles. For example, Tris Speaker was the manager of the Cleveland Indians in the 1920's, but he also played centerfield for the team. Pete Rose was another player-manager for the Cincinnati Reds in the 1980's and broke Ty Cobb's all-time hits record as a player-manager on September 11, 1985 with his 4,192nd hit. Incidentally, Rose was the last person to serve as both a player and manager in major league baseball. These days, we think of the player-coach role more informally - for example, people say that whenever Peyton Manning was playing quarterback that it was like having a coach on the field. Sports writers say the same thing about NBA player LeBron James today. But how does this work in organizations outside of sports?
As Mark Murphy, writing for Forbes said, "If you're an individual contributor who also manages the work of other employees, you're what is called a Player-Coach." Murphy cites three famous examples of the Player-Coach in Steve Jobs, Henry Ford, and Thomas Edison. All three of these legendary figures created and led organizations that have stood the test of time (Apple and Pixar, The Ford Motor Company, and General Electric, respectively) while remaining very much "hands on" tinkerers in the day-to-day operations. For example, Jobs played a major role in the design of a number of highly innovative products while CEO at Apple, including the iPad, the iPod, the iPhone, and Apple Music.
We generally think of CEOs as playing more of a Coach role than a Player-Coach role, though Raja Jamalamadaka argues in "The 3 leadership pillars: Captain, Player, and Coach" that "A leader is one who effectively plays the role of a captain, player, and coach - and knows when and how to effortlessly shift roles." I would emphasize the second half of his sentence - the ideal leader "knows when and how to effortlessly shift roles." In other words, the best leaders know when and how best to play each role. As Jamalamadaka admits, "Even the best leaders can't successfully lead every single initiative that shows up in their lives."
I am reminded here of one of my favorite scenes in the HBO series, "Band of Brothers", when Major Dick Winters once to step in take control for one of his under-performing direct reports, company commander "Foxhole Norman". Major Winters' own boss tells him immediately to stop, at which point Winters relieves Norman of command and delegates responsibility to Lt Speirs. This particular example is probably an extreme one, but rather than taking over as "Player-Coach", Winters stays focused on "Coach" and tells Speirs to lead the attack (with very few instructions, I might add).
I would offer an additional caveat. As I've often mentioned in a number of posts, one of the five defining characteristics of High Reliability Organizations is what is called "Deference to Expertise". The most important role that leaders can play is to create the vision and help their teams understand what needs (i.e. the strategy) to be done in order to achieve that vision. Leaders within High Reliability Organizations provide the framework and guardrails in which their teams operate. These leaders push decision making, especially in times of crisis, as much as possible to the frontline leaders and managers who almost always have the most up-to-date and most accurate information, as well as the expertise needed to make the right decisions. However, there is a difference between "Deference to Expertise" and being completely "hands-off" as a leader (taken to the extreme, this is often called "Laissez-Faire Leadership"). In other words, if you were to place being "too hands on" as a leader (i.e. a Micromanager) on one extreme and being "too hands off" ("Laissez-Faire Leadership") on the other extreme, "Deference to Expertise" lies somewhere between the two.
The Forbes Coaches Council provided what I thought were some useful tips or recommendations on how to strike the right balance between being "too hands off" versus being "too hands on" (and micromanaging) (see the article "The Danger of Blind Trust Vs. Micromanagement in a CEO"):
1. Create expectations and accountability
Leaders should set clear expectations, roles, and responsibilities at the very outset. They may want to be more involved when someone on their team is taking on a new role, in order to build up mutual trust and confidence. In other words, early on the leader may be playing more of a "Player-Coach" role. Once mutual trust and confidence has been established though, it's probably time to step back and watch the team thrive. Here, the leader should shift to the "Coach" role. Leaders should also hold their front-line leaders and teams accountable for their performance, again through a "Coach" role as opposed to a "Player-Coach" role.
2. Trust and validate
"Trust but verify", a phrase once used by President Ronald Reagan to describe how he was handling nuclear arms negotiations with the Soviet Union, is probably a bit too extreme and in my opinion isn't really consistent with the concept of "Deference to Expertise". Leaders who trust their direct reports can always "validate" if they have concerns about performance.
3. Be present as a leader
There's no better way for a leader to establish and build trust and confidence in his or her team than to simply be present. Just showing up to see how the team is performing can go a long way. I remember a time several years ago when I was leading our hospital's Incident Command during an electrical fire in one of our buildings. The fire department had to shut off power to the entire hospital in order to contain the fire. As our team was working to keep our patients, families, and staff safe, I remember our hospital CEO showing up and checking in with me. I gave him a very high-level brief of the situation and what we were doing, and he responded, "Sounds good - let me know if you need anything" and walked away. I knew that (1) he was confident that I was handling the situation to his satisfaction, (2) he trusted me to do the right thing, and (3) I had his full support and backing. There's nothing like being present to build mutual trust and confidence.
4. Give away power while ensuring clear vision and goals
The problem isn't really about giving away too much power, it's about not providing support and clarity. A leader's job is to make sure that people are set up to succeed, and the best way to do that is to be absolutely crystal clear about the his or her vision for where the organization needs to go, as well as the goals for the team that will help facilitate attaining that vision.
No comments:
Post a Comment