Contrasting Leaders

It isn't a great academic leap to state that not all leaders are created equally. Many of us can point to leaders that either inspired us or made us dread going into work. For the most part most of the managers with whom I've worked fell between these two extremes. I've been fortunate in that I've not experience too many toxic leaders. Even completing this exercise I struggled to think of a leader that was the polar opposite of what I considered to be a great leader.

In the end I settled on a former Chief Controller from my time in the Air Force. In all fairness this leader was stuck with a senior leadership structure that appeared to be dysfunctional in its pettiness but that doesn't excuse this leaders responsibility to filter that for his followers. Filtering some of that pettiness is one way  a leader gains trust. This Chief failed in that regard and his interpersonal relationships were based on favoritism. It didn't help that this particular posting was frustrating for me in a great many ways and he didn't seem interested in forming the type of relationship where I could speak with him regarding these things.

What is particularly toxic regarding the above situation is that this leader wasn't overtly a bad person. He wasn't prone to fits of anger, he didn't demean people, nor did he micromanage or abuse authority. In some ways the almost gentle negativity and behind the scenes favoritism was worse. At least with an in-your-face horrible manager you know where you stand and you can plan accordingly. That doesn't make them good leaders but it does make them easy to read. Instead the constant sense of unease and uncertainty meant that it was a slow death of morale. I left work drained nearly every day and dreaded the thought of another moment in that place.

Contrasting that manager was my first manager in post-military life. She was the manager for the South Dakota Department of Labor and while to this day I am not sure what I said in the interview that impressed her I am glad I did. Postings in government jobs are political even when they aren't supposed to be. There is a constant worry over appearances and what the tax payers will think and this can lead to directives that can be frustrating at times. Additionally, funding is always a constant worry. Yet despite this this manager took time to get to know the people that worked for her. She was a good judge of character and seemed to know when you were "off" or struggling.

While she could be directive (which is sometimes needed) if there was an opportunity to modify a process or figure how best to implement whatever brilliant scheme the Governor's office had cooked up she would ask the people it would affect how best to get it done. She also did an excellent job of keeping the staff informed of what changes were coming or what current issue was on the radar of someone at the capitol.

That being said, what really set her apart was the genuine concern for the people in her office. I always got the impression that she would fight tooth and nail for us and was far more interested in developing people rather than keeping them in line. It made a huge difference in the way I felt getting up and going to work in the morning.

In some ways comparing military leadership and civilian leadership isn't totally accurate. Military leaders have a captive audience and more absolute authority. Civilian leaders may like to think they have those things and for some jobs (entry-level or areas where employment is scarce) that may be true but at certain level people have options. Civilian leaders therefore have a vested interest in developing loyal workers. However none of that excuses military leaders from their negative traits. I left after my enlistment was up largely because of the leadership failings I saw. I only left the job at the State as I needed more career development and advancement potential. Additionally the State of South Dakota isn't big on wages. While wages are not the primary reason people leave jobs they can play a part. Those variables were out of the State Manager's control though if they were I may have stuck around.

I am not sure that she would have considered herself "resonant" even if she did or did now know the term as it applies to leadership. Part of me thinks that applying labels to one's self as a leader defeats the point of resonant leadership. If one is only being relationship minded in order to make one's self feel like they are resonant than they are doing it for the wrong reasons. What made her unique was that it was a natural part of her personality. She didn't be a good leader to earn the title of "good leader" she just was. That doesn't take away from the importance of learning about leadership skills and taking a good look within but I posit that if a leader is trying to be resonant simply to earn the title they will fail. A leader must first seek to improve themselves simply because they want to be a better person. The rest tends to fall in line.

                                                                              

Positive Leader	Not so Positive Leader
Delegated	Favoritism
Trusted her people	Petty
Solicited opinions	Interested in appearance
Interested in personal struggles	Didn’t want to learn about people