The dictator and the punching bag
It wasn’t too long ago when, if you said the word leader, your imagination might conjure up something resembling a dictator - essentially, someone you didn’t question. My go to image is Meryl Streep’s character in The Devil Wears Prada, her quivering assistants ready to bend to her every whim. Whilst the film is a fiction, there clearly were and sometimes still are, leaders that bring with them an overly authoritarian style, often resulting in an unhappy and toxic workplace.
Although this method of running an organisation has far from disappeared, these days there’s a much greater understanding that, aside from the moral argument for doing so, creating a culture where people are happy is going to get you better results. A new idea of leadership has emerged - leadership that is people-focused, vulnerable, nurturing, about holding space for teams to flourish rather than telling them exactly what to do. And, if well executed, this can often work, creating workplaces that people want to show up to.
But every so often, something else creeps alongside all these positive outcomes that’s a bit less comfortable - that these kinds of leaders can sometimes end up being talked about, and occasionally treated, as a punching bag. It’s right that those in positions of authority make themselves open to questions and constructive criticism, and I’d always want to work in a culture where spaces are made for opinions to be expressed safely. But at the same time, I’ve heard stories of leaders convening meetings to discuss difficult decisions openly, only to be shouted at by unhappy team members in front of their colleagues. Sometimes, there will be a big wave of push back about a decision that a leader’s made that can be presented in an unkind or disrespectful way that is as much an attack on the leader personally as it is on the decision specifically.
Now, you could say - fair enough. The deal when you’re a leader is that you have to make decisions; sometimes people don’t like them and part of your job is dealing with the fallout of that. And if you’re going to make a culture where people feel able to express their opinions and have their voices heard then you need to take the rough with the smooth in terms of what those voices might be saying. But I don’t think it’s as simple as that. Surely no one deserves to be shouted at by one of their colleagues? What level of respect is a leader owed by their team? Any? None?
One of the reasons these kinds of situations might occur is a shift in the workforce towards people who, in general, have a greater distrust of those in power than previously - a position I have sympathy with. We’ve heard enough stories about those who abuse their status and positions in all parts of society that it’s easy to jump to the old adage that power tends to corrupt. At the same time, as many of us are questioning the structures and systems that we work within, expectations of leaders have never been higher as we look to them to make a break from the way things have been done before.
In stand up comedy, the phrase ‘punching up’ is used when a joke targets a person or group of people with greater power than the person telling it. It’s considered broadly acceptable, in a way that ‘punching down’ (the opposite) is not. I think, sometimes, when leaders are treated like punching bags, it’s viewed in this light - it’s OK, because they’ve got the power. But what’s different is that these are more immediate interactions, not the one-way joke of a comedian in a spotlight at the expense of a person or people who may never hear the routine. The power in being a leader is in the role, not the individual, and whilst it’s right that those who have it should be held to account, it can be easy to forget that they are people too, with feelings that can be hurt. It also perpetuates a feeling, on both sides, of ‘them and us’ which is rarely conducive to a happy working culture.
I was listening to an interview with writer Charles Duhigg on the Eat Sleep Work Repeat podcast and something he referenced caught my attention. He was talking about a technique called looping for understanding, a way of communicating that demonstrates clearly to the other person that you’re listening to them. He describes the three steps involved in this technique - asking a question, repeating back what you’ve heard, then asking if you’ve got it right - and goes on to reference an example of it in action. An experiment was done in the USA that brought gun control activists and gun rights activists (some of whom might own 45 to 50 guns) together to try and facilitate civil conversations, using this technique, after years of screaming at each other across picket lines. Duhigg describes the amazing effect this had on the conversations that took place, in particular the sense of psychological safety that was created that allowed both sides to clearly articulate their point of view and be open to hearing what the other had to say.
When talking about this example, Duhigg says that the goal of a conversation is to understand each other, not necessarily to agree, and I think that approach can help us find a middle ground between the dictator who will not be questioned and the punching bag who isn’t treated with respect. It’s right that, as leaders, we should be prepared to defend our choices and maybe the way to do so is to use this looping technique - that if staff members are upset about a decision and want to tell you about it, then you a set up a conversation where the goal is simply to understand each other. They tell you how they feel, you repeat it back and check if it’s right. Then you tell them why you made the decision you made, and ask them to repeat it back and check with you if it’s right. Feeling heard, rather than simply listened to, is an incredibly powerful thing, even if everyone still disagrees at the end of it.
As a leader, it’s your prerogative to make decisions - that’s the point of the job - and, in my experience, most leaders are trying to make the best choices they can in circumstances that are often far from ideal. There are some instances where bad decisions are made for bad reasons - and I’d hope that a conversation that’s about understanding each others’ point of view can help to differentiate one from the other. If the team members who have an issue with your decision still feel strongly about it, there are usually mechanisms by which they could take things forward, like raising a complaint or a grievance. If you, as a leader, come away from a meeting realising that you made a bad call, you might either be able to change it or let your team know that you made a mistake and you’d take a different course of action next time. And if no one agrees but everyone understands each other a little better, then you and your colleagues have had the kind of conversation that can only take place in a psychologically safe environment, which is an essential component for making good decisions and building an organisation that people want to work at. I’d chalk that up as a win.