“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”

Mark Twain

I was recently in attendance at a seminar on business leadership in which the importance of “empowering workers” briefly became the focus of discussion.  This is by no means a new issue. We know that excessive restrictions, and the “micromanagement” of workers’ activities can indeed be frustrating, de-motivating, and can even arouse resistance and rebellion. On the other hand, it is easy to lose track of those facts when dealing with problem employees, deadlines, complexity, and various other problems that are a part of doing business in the 21st Century.  It came to pass however, that one bewildered participant blurted out in an exasperated voice, “But empowering workers, why that’s just common sense!” To him it was too obvious and true to waste our time discussing. 

I was troubled by his response— not because of what he said, but by how automatic, absolute, and dogmatic his expression was. No question that “worker empowerment” as a management tool has its place, but I have to suggest that it needs to be applied intelligently. In some work situations, there is no question that freeing up workers will keep them more motivated and help them to get more done. But that same approach can lead to chaos if applied without being sensitive to what kinds of results it’s likely to bring. I think a better rule is “Get the right tool for the right job.”

Don’t let political correctness set the standard

If one’s main goal is to be politically correct, then by all means the rule is “empowerment, empowerment, and more empowerment.” It sounds humane and progressive. On the other hand, if one’s main goal is to be an effective leader, then we’re talking about something much more serious than appearing politically correct. There is no hard and fast rule that will work if applied in a rigid fashion, especially when you factor in the differences between individual human beings.

The best leaders are always going to be those that know their work situations and their people well enough to make sound judgments that will maximize performance, regardless of what the popular trend happens to be at a given moment. Sometimes the most unpopular choice is actually the best. When it is, the truth will come out over time regardless of what the immediate social responses to it are.

Liking vs. respect

Years ago, David McClelland, a well known researcher of success in business, published an article called “Good Guys Make Bum Bosses.” In it, he discussed some research findings indicating that leaders who were overly concerned with being liked were not as effective as those who cared less about being liked and more about getting the job done. In many cases, the nicest ones frustrated and irritated the very subordinates that they were trying to keep happy. Their need to please others led to confusion about priorities and a lack of clarity regarding goals. This led to their being seen as weak, which undermined their credibility as leaders.  There is also plenty of research showing that rigid and insensitive leadership can fail as well, but that was the subject of last month’s column. 

I think that what McClelland’s work showed was that people expect leaders to lead first, putting results above the more immediate concerns with being liked. By emphasizing and focusing on results, you can engender a respect that is much more functional that simply being seen as “nice.” The truth is if you really understand the needs of those who work under your authority, you’ll know when it’s time to apply the pressure. They’ll appreciate it later. As the old adage says, ”Nothing succeeds like success.” 

People are genuinely satisfied and motivated when the results of their efforts are what are truly needed at the time. Nothing is more pleasing than a job well done. One of my most fun jobs ever was doing construction electrical work during my time in graduate school. At the end of each day, I could see exactly what I had accomplished with my hands, which was actually an exhilarating experience. 

Clear goals and the ability to communicate them

Different leadership styles, whether they’re based on being more overtly demanding or more on leading by example, have been known to work effectively. Despite these differences, what the ones that generate good results seem to have in common is clarity of direction. Clear goals that are understood and make sense are among the better motivators to be found in the business world.

This of course also raises the issue of communication skills, another essential. One of the last genuinely admired Presidents of the United States was Ronald Reagan. His values and direction for the country were understandable and clearly stated, earning him the nickname “the great communicator.” He was also passionate in his expression, signaling strong commitments to his positions. Even if you disagreed with some of his policies, you still felt optimistic about the future after hearing him address the nation.

Common sense? A trickier concept than is often believed

At the outset of this article, I cited that at a leadership seminar, one participant identified the need to empower workers as simply “common sense,” expressing surprise at our need to discuss it. This got me thinking. I find the whole notion of common sense appealing, but also have to ask some questions about what it actually is.  One way of looking at it could involve the idea of it consisting of those things that are so obvious that they need not be taught in a formal sense. Another might be to regard it as those things that everybody knows, or should at least be able to figure out. This last designation has a statistical ring to it, since it suggests that that it is widely distributed or readily available to most, or at least a lot of folks. Neither of these works however, if you stop and think about it.  Here’s why:

One person’s common sense is another person’s “BS.” A large part of my formal education was in the field of psychology, and as a young “psych major,” I took a lot of criticism. Some critics suggested that it was stupid to major in psychology because it was all common sense. Others mocked my pursuit of that field because they claimed that it was all “BS.” Both groups said I was wasting my time, but their judgments of how and why were completely contradictory. Such is the nature of common sense.

Common sense may give us truisms, but not when they apply and when they don’t.  The fellow who said that the need to empower workers (give them a lot of choices in how to arrange their work) was simply “common sense” saw it as something that isn’t bound to conditions. That’s too simple— you can have too little order or too much order in a work setting. It all really varies with the nature of the work and the individuals involved. There is no rigid guide. Good leaders are exceedingly insightful about what approach to take and when to take that approach. This goes beyond the simple generalizations that we so often accept as common sense.

Common sense is not all that common. Driving safely only takes common sense, doesn’t it? Keep your car positioned in your lane, don’t tailgate, signal when turning or changing lanes, and drive at sensible speeds, right? Wrong. Common sense is not the prevailing mentality on our roads, and the excessively high rate of accidents bears that out. In a slightly different vein, look at the ways many businesses are run, and you’ll see why we’re in an economic crisis. Also, take a look at our government. It’s pretty clear that whatever the best name for it would be, the kind of sense we need is anything but common.

Every researcher or successful leader who has commented on the subject agrees that our country is clearly suffering from a dearth of effective leadership. Most refer to the situation as a crisis.  If common sense was the answer, we wouldn’t be in this situation.  The fact of the matter is, its time that we admit that common sense isn’t common. Fred Fiedler, long term researcher and writer on leadership once offered what he called a “contingency model” of leadership. Eliminating the fancy language, his point was that the most effective leaders are those who have the capability to know when it’s time to crank up the pressure, but whose good senses also allow them to know when it’s time leave their subordinates more to their own devices. 

If you study history, you’ll see myriads of examples of effective leaders who managed to produce some spectacular results under the worst conditions. One thing that those who aspire to be the best that they can be do to help themselves and their subordinates is to study such cases. Get to know history. You’ll find that none of the really great leaders were bound by a simplistic form of common sense. What they were able to do was to masterfully apply the right kind of logic at the right time. They got the right tool for the right job.

Most of all, those who were effective had a keen appreciation for the complexity of the situations that they faced, their subordinates’ strengths, their own weaknesses, and the capacities of the competition they faced. Can these abilities be developed? Evidence from both history and behavioral science say that it is possible, but it goes far beyond anything like common sense. It takes a lot of boldness, vision, and the willingness to learn from mistakes. For some people, just admitting that they’re ever wrong is a near impossibility. Simply summarized, it takes the kind of sense that is anything but common.