Why ‘one-size-fits-all’ management is a thing of the past

When I first stepped into a leadership role, back in my 20s, I was determined to adapt my style to best suit those I led. In fact, my company trained us how to do it, so I was engaged, on board and equipped to do it.

My first leadership 360 came around. I recall rubbing my hands in glee, so sure that I had nailed “one-size-does-not-fit-all” leadership. Well, it was a disaster. The worst results I’ve ever had in anything (including chemistry, which was pretty bad).

A complete leadership fail. They absolutely hated it, and felt that because I treated everyone differently, I was inconsistent, and even untrustworthy. Devastating.

So, in my next leadership gig I took the opposite tack – this is me, take it or leave it. That didn’t work either – I could feel the friction right away.

Fast forward 20 years and we are in a workplace dominated by millennial preferences, and on top of that, we are in a world where personal values have never played a stronger role in the workplace. And this means that leaders need to get this right more than they have ever needed to.

What is the right approach?

There is no one answer to the question “how to manage”. If there was, leadership experts would be out of work! But surely, I hear you ask, there is a rule of thumb, or a general principle that you can follow that is a one size fits all?

If I was to call out one specific thing that “fits all”, it’s judgement. Leaders who have great judgement can be both their authentic selves and adapt to those around them, all without any dissonance because they’ve judged it right.

How do you do that?

I like to think of it as “style” and “substance”.

Psychologist Kurt Lewin branded three leadership styles in 1939, (with a fourth added later on by James MacGregor Burns): autocratic, democratic, laissez faire, and transformational.

Autocratic leaders often have attractive qualities such as decisiveness, self-confidence, and a steadfast eye on the prize – but used in the wrong situation, that can come across as micro-managing and disempowering.

Democratic leaders enjoy having others participate in the decision-making process, which is creative and morale-boosting, tend to be strong communicators and are easily approachable. However, when this is overused, the leader can slow down or dumb down the decisions that are made and can be seen as overly consultative.

Laissez faire leaders are great delegators, running faster-paced functions and empowering their teams. But if your team is not skilled or not clear on purpose, then this style will overwhelm them and result in paralysis or costly mistakes.

Transformational leadership is based on absolute clarity to vision and goals, and two-way communication to ensure the commitment remains high. However, it can also result in burnout as this relentless future focus can be unrealistic.

So, we have to use our judgement when determining what style to use – deliberately – in what situation, and underneath that style, we have to be true to ourselves – our own values and boundaries.

That’s where the substance comes in. You need to know your values and boundaries as a person and as a leader – and many leaders don’t know this, they’ve never been helped to explore it.

Focusing on style before I had a handle on substance was the mistake I made 20 years ago. And in today’s workplace, that mistake would have been even more costly.

Rebecca Houghton is the author of Impact: 10 Ways to Level up your Leadership.