Squid #20 - Balance

Where DAS assumes complete control of the podcast topics for 2024 (not precisely a coup but Peter is assuming a subservient role...)

Exploring Balance in Leadership

DAS and Peter reflect on the 'old school' style of command and direct leadership and the more relevant and appropriate blended leadership model that is both expected and needed in the modern business world.

Peter, despite his 'underling' position does lead the conversation in the somewhat random direction of tightrope walking records that DAS consider interesting but not specifically relevant to the podcast topic.

Happy New Year - they are back! 

Transcript

0:08

Welcome to the squid of despair, unscripted musings on business life leadership, creativity, transformation, and all the myriad of other work life events that get in the way of good night's sleep. Hosted by David ailing Smith and Peter Taylor. Happy New Year, Peter. Yes. Happy New Year. Wow. Yeah, it's another year over another nother year in the life of the screen of despair. But it can keep going, doesn't it? I mean, we've had enough positive feedback to persuade us that you are me talking nonsense. has got an audience? Are they real people? Are they just voices in our head? Well, that's a great question. No, I've seen the stats that, you know, people are logged on and listening in. So that's good. Oh, yeah, we have a cunning plan. So it's all good. All good. And it's my turn, isn't it to kick off the first squid of 2024? Well, yeah, I mean, I think the listeners should understand that the dynamics have shifted here. And, you know, after you and I had our pre holiday season, get together, I give you the topics for this year, really? Because so yeah, it's now every episode of the screen of despair from now on, for the foreseeable future is going to be a surprise to me. Well, was that because my choices are always better than yours? Or is it because I always do my homework? Or is it because you just can't be bothered anymore? It's actually none of those reasons. And so stop being me is the new year's resolution, I thought I suggested it to you yet again, was be nice to me in 2024, but isn't working? Maybe 25. Now, listen, I appreciate the the opportunity to steer squared into the areas that I'd like to explore. And thank you for, for facilitating that, Peter. That's a horrible image of his papers in my mind, but go on, carry on. All right. So you want to know, do you want to know? Yes. Please tell me what is the very first squid of this bear for 2024? So I want to talk today about balance, Peter. Okay. And I suppose the subtext is, you know, is balance a superpower? Or is there any excuse for inaction? And there's, there's lots of angles to this. And we can take it any way we want to. But I suppose where I was starting this was, you know, I think, in leadership, as we reflect on sort of leadership styles over all the time, over many years, we've been working together, Peter, if Steve really hasn't it from a more command and control sort of centered approach to a more agile and collaborative approach? And so it's become perhaps a more balanced practice, then historically, it was. And then, you know, broadening that definition of balance, if you think about different personality types, there's, there's an argument, I think that balance is good. So for example, if you take a perfectionist, where the emphasis is on speed, perhaps getting it done quickly. And actually, that's not true, is it a perfectionist, the emphasis is on delivering it perfectly, isn't it? Whereas the pragmatist perhaps, is about delivering it quickly. And so, you know, you've got personality traits that tend towards an extreme and everyone's on the spectrum, but balance is seemed to be good in that context, take as sort of an analytical type where, you know, decisions are made based on data and an intuitive type where decisions are made on gut, you know, at the extremes, there are challenges with that, but balance, perhaps a good thing there. You look at tactics, you know, a tactician, someone will generate plans for the short term, but that's a visionary generates a long term vision, but actually, they don't work in less than in balance today. So that's my, that's my premise. Peter. All right. Wonderful monologue. Thank you for the time to start thinking about it. I gotta bring this back to us. I feel that we have a degree of balance in the way work I'm the world funny Maverick one and you're the sensible one. Okay, all Daleks have that kind of bands, don't they? They do. And so is that about your tone? There wasn't one that that you took as a compliment? No, but is that to do with teams and the the, the benefit of diversity and having different skills combined? I think I'm, I think, okay, that's a good place to go. I was thinking more within within an individual. Okay, right. Okay. Balanced is something that I think has become more in vogue, actually, whereas I don't know, specialism and absolute focus, it seemed to be perhaps less advantageous these days. Is that true? So yes, I think, you know, if I look at, well, I would say our successful leaders at the moment, they are of a more balanced nature. I mean, you know, we, he's not long as you say, to go back in time, and in, you know, we could have drawn the typical kind of sales leader, the services leader, the marketing leader, they would be of a specific type to that class historical view of the role. Yeah, I mean, not going to name names, but you know, now, and there's still an element to that. But now there is there is more balanced leadership in leadership, it seems rather than, you know, I am a what, X leader or y leader or whatever, no, but there are different leadership types, of course, and certain scenarios require the sort of more direct leadership, you know, we've talked before about, you know, if you're on a battleground, you're not actually looking for consensus, or you're looking for very, very immediate, you've a very results oriented approach, whereas, so the business world today, I think, is looking towards more relationship driven leadership styles, I think. And of course, you know, all team members are different and need different things from their leaders. But simply this idea that actually balanced I think, is a good thing. But if you if you generalize a bit, you know, there's that phrase isn't a moderation in all things. Have you ever heard that phrase better? Yes, that's I have heard that phrase, and it wasn't directed at me. Well, apparently, I did research this apparently, that goes back to the ancient Greeks, where it was felt to be, you know, a phrase that was that was in common parlance, but it was I actually I don't, I don't agree with that phrase, because you know, you can't, you can't have moderation in moderation or things. It's not got any kind of moderation in murder any kind of moderate. No. So I'm not actually sure that's helpful, really, even though I'm on the edge of concern now, because you've talked about war, battlefields and moderation in murder, I think sounds like a title and Agatha Christie. But being balanced, you know, work life balance is seen as a good thing, isn't it? Where you, you, you set boundaries, and you manage your time and, you know, engage in activities that bring you joy, alongside your work that balancing? You know, you know, in a work situation is seen as a as a good thing, isn't it? Yes, it is. I mean, it seems to be something that was certainly accelerated through the whole pandemic experience that the people, you've looked at certain articles and listened to certain things, and it's feels like that, that, you know, accelerated the the move already, where people were wanting more balance in their entirety of their life. And organizations are, are dealing with that now. So, you know, I was gonna go on to a question about, you know, is the balance leader or balance manager a result of a mindset of the individual or a or a persuasion by the majority that this is what's required? Well, that's a good question. There's a lot of power to that question. Apparently, someone once told me, script three. Know what episode it is? Well, I, I mean, I think I think people bring their natural talents to a leadership role, don't they? And so they have tendencies. But then I think, I think I think probably where I'm taking this, I think, is that leaders have to flex their leadership styles, according to the situation and according to their team. So, you know, some, some groups function better with a more directed approach. And some groups function better with a more collaborative approach. And I think, you know, for me, one facet of good leadership is, is being sensitive to those nuances and actually being able to adapt one's approach according to the requirements. I think we all have tendencies. I mean, that's particularly true view, of course, but we all have tendencies where we would prefer to spend our time but I think the good leaders can generate themselves into these other into these other places. I mean, would it be fair to say that sort of leadership broadly falls into two camps, you've got sort of result oriented leadership, and then perhaps, more relationship oriented leadership where one is perhaps more to use the old vernacular more command or control oriented and one is more to do With delegation, collaboration, using the diversity of the team to achieve the results over a longer time period, go along with that as long as it's described as more spectrum which can allow the leader to move up and down that spectrum. I think it's the parameters that you can move towards. I mean, yeah, there are some people that are gonna be far more results orientated by nature, and it's hard work to go down to the relationship level than the others are, perhaps more extreme on the relationship and harder to go out into the kind of directive. This is what you should do type world. Yes. But I think you know, it for those of us that work in teams, it's very helpful to understand I think, within your team and for yourself what you prefer, because then, you know, you can help people be effective, can't you by manifesting in the way that makes them happiest or most productive? You know, within the realms of getting stuff done? Of course? Well, yeah, I think that's very interesting. Because I'm, we're gonna, we're gonna head off this trip, because I guess I was having a conversation with someone today over lunch, or it was all around. And he used to do bands, but it was, you know, we were talking about fun, we're talking about funding building teams, and the value of pharma, happy teams are productive teams, that kind of thing. But we also reflected that, you know, you need balance there as well, because what makes one person happy doesn't necessarily make another person happy. And, you know, the bigger the bigger and more complex you're taking, the more range of personalities and needs and kind of ability or desire to have certain types of fun is more varied. They're going to be harder and harder. The bigger the team we got, yeah, yeah. Well, and it's also expertise, isn't it? I mean, there is a model there is there is something called the balanced leadership model, which I saw as part of my massive research for this podcast, which actually, it was in the project world, which I thought I was, I was going to ask you about this. So and it talks in terms of horizontal leadership and vertical leadership in, in project teams. And the theory is that you sort of have a vertical leadership, which, let's say, in essence, is the project manager. So it's the individual that's charged and visibly responsible for the deliverables. Horizontal leadership relates to the expertise required to get things done. And what a good project manager does is delegate that across to someone who leads that work stream. Because they have the expertise and they're charged with that responsibility. And so there's there seems to be a recognition that you need to flip between these different horizontal and vertical leadership's depending on the expertise required to complete the task. Well, yeah, I think it's also true on the type of project team community, you're leading really, because, you know, we know there in some businesses, there is a dedicated team, which project management leads from the front room, but the majority is a project managers try and persuade people that don't actually report to them to contribute and be part of the the objectives of this particular project, but they actually work for other people and have other priorities. So, you know, that's a that's a whole topic in itself, really. But it's interesting that that I mean, that's not limited to the project world is it? I mean, we see it in the project world, because of the way sort of responsibilities come into existence that are not particularly hierarchical, but someone's made responsible for an endeavor and it sort of often just trample across the hierarchical lines, doesn't it? It? And it's one of the skills project managers had, isn't it to be able to manage that sort of diversity of command and control, empathetic leadership communication? And, you know, bringing experts in to the party? I mean, it's Yeah, I mean, they have, you know, that covers, they have a skill, they have an experience to do that. And they have a, they have a form of authority to do that. Absolutely. We see the pain where in the world that are described as projects, as usual, where we're asking business leaders to undertake some form of change. They don't have the necessary that kind of level of authority or experience when the change was trying to lead incorporates other parts of the business. So that kind of negotiation and navigation, communication, all of that is sometimes challenged. But taking that a step further, then so do you think that sort of balanced leadership if we could describe that as balanced leadership in terms of the responsibility shifting to the right person at the right time, do you? Do you think the corporate worlds heading that way? Do you think the hierarchical constructs have got a lot softer? And that actually, you see groups working, where it's all about the outcome and different members of the groups lead at different times, depending on their skill sets? What you said? Well, I think you have both. I mean, I think our own industry you still see those kinds of structural leaders in place go into the major parts of the business operations. But then across that, certainly you see a kind of a bleed across where, you know, certain groups are trying to achieve something that require other groups to contribute to or, you know, aligned to. And so, you've got both of that going on. It's kind of like a, I guess it's kind of like a messy matrix over the top. And so, you know, in that context, where you've got a messy matrix, and you're sort of trying to balance the leadership across stakeholders, is that perhaps a contra argument? And that what's required is someone very senior saying, this is the way it's going to be. So it does away with all the nuances, absolute clarity to a deliverable. It rides a quote, Coach and Horses through people's sensibilities, if it's not being communicated properly, but it will achieve it is probably more likely to achieve a quicker result. So is that an argument against balanced leadership? Well, first of all, I'm quickly registering the trademark messy matrix. I think I've just made that up. So that's, that's my now. Right. Secondly, you heard it here first. I, it's, it's, it's a time and a place and a need. You know, sometimes, sometimes majority times, you know, the cooperative collective approach really works. But every now and then you need a more authoritative, decisive, this is the way we're going to go. And it's interesting, I think, you'll often see that in organizations, as they start to replace their senior leadership, that suddenly becomes a little bit for a period of time it, it perceivably becomes more directive, I think, in their kind of leadership, they're new they can they can actually make decisions, and they can point in a certain direction, this is a new way to go. And then I think it begins to settle down again, into the kind of softer leadership style management style. What do you think that's a dynamic around? someone taking a new position responsibility and wanting to demonstrate progress in their first 90 days? You got the first 100 days or whatever, isn't it? Yes. I mean, I mean, it is they've been brought in for a purpose. But I think, you know, we all deal with resistance, you know, passive or otherwise, inside organizations. So you know, I need a leader coming in, can be less concerned about that, because they will be they have the support of the organization and senior leadership, clearly, they're here to do a job, they have to demonstrate it, and they can make some rapid decisions. And then they settle down into the, into the near the normality of business life and perhaps become a little bit more balanced in what they know, in their approach. Yeah, so there's a there's a rule I used to apply, which I don't think I've ever talked to you about b2b or recognize it in a new role, where you've probably got a couple of yeses until you get to know because element of goodwill and faith and, you know, you've been appointed for certain reasons, and therefore, there's a little bit of momentum about being in a new role. And so perhaps that's part of what we see with new leadership that actually it all perks up a little bit, because everyone's aligned for for a couple of cycles. And then, and then the reality dawns on everybody that actually this is much more complicated than I thought it was. Yeah, well, I think it's, I think, from an individual's point of view is like this. Yeah, it's Resistance is futile is, you know, this is the new person coming in negative shape it the way they want it, and then a realization that, you know, what, actually, you know, we can, we can sit behind this, but we can also continue to operate in our, in our old way of working and in as part of the challenge to the whole kind of transformational world as well, is that, you know, the majority concern the slow things down, not through any significant resistance, but just quietly getting on with life. But then I wonder whether you're gonna go back to your your world of the project world that, you know, that balanced leadership approach that I was describing, which is sort of necessary to get at that collaborative approach? Is that why executive sponsorship is important. Because, you know, ultimately, there needs to be someone of enough seniority to make a decision that trumps everything else. Absolutely. I mean, that's one of the key points of an executive sponsor, even apart from the kind of experience and insight they can bring to support product managers, the project manager is only going to have a reach up to the organization to a certain level, typically, to the heads of their executive sponsor. I mean, a sponsor will have the ability to navigate, negotiate a much higher level will also have a, probably an insight into the landscape of what the business is trying to achieve and other commitments and other priorities and bring that back down into the project. So yeah, you definitely, you know, the most successful away you see that kind of very strong partnership. So I wonder when whether then balanced sexually, you know, a balanced leadership approach is perhaps it's of the moment and it seemed to be a more appropriate style of leadership or more effective style of leadership. You compared to the historic sort of command control, tend to be male oriented. style. And that diversity within teams. And the balance we see within groups of people that have different preferences in terms of the way they sort of conduct themselves on those various curves that we talked about earlier is also a good thing. But actually, without that, a stringent quality of an executive sponsor, or a decision maker that's particularly focused on driving through all of them mush when it's required. It actually, it needs both factors in a working life in order for the, for the project or the endeavor or for the organization to be successful. Would that be would that be fair? Do you think? Yeah, I think that's fair, I'm gonna we leave. I mean, are we lean on to the most effective leader in the long run, leaders can come in and be very effective for them for a short period of time. But is it someone who can flex that balance? Bring that balance? I think so. I think we're we're saying that a balanced style actually requires a leader to operate across the spectrum of leadership styles, according to the team, and according to the moment, and according to the mores of the organization, I think, yeah. And therefore, perhaps, what was not so good about the autocratic style was not that it didn't get things done. But it actually that lack of flexibility didn't empower the group's the organization to an extent where it probably meant that that sort of leadership style doesn't get the best out of the individuals, it might, it might facilitate a quick result in the moment, but perhaps a sustainable way of working in order to have engaged groups that are contributing to the best of their ability using their, their unique, diverse talents. So that's probably why that leadership style has become a little bit discredited, not not the sharpness of the decision making, but the inflexibility of the style, perhaps. Well, I also think the reality of the of the factory operate in a very virtual world has contributed to that as well. So you know, the autocratic style I can go back when my early days in software tech companies that I worked for a managing director who was absolutely that autocratic, you know, he had need to delight in driving down from the north, come into the office shout at a lot of people order things around and demand meeting after meeting, and then head off back home again for the weekend. And that was that was his style. What I say is that work, because he could turn up in a room and shout at you face to face, so or whatever. But in the remote world, that's, that's harder to do. Certainly, and we know, you know, business has become, you know, certainly, so the whole world has become very global, extended resources connected around the world, working together, multiple cultures, all the rest of it. So I think, by that very nature, he kind of created that original style of management as as you know, something that was, you know, prehistoric and is hopefully is becoming significantly, you know, gone. Well, well, but also, don't you think that I mean, just listening to you describe that individual? I mean, that that's a shocking lack of respect, isn't it for you, the people who were shouted at I mean, irrespective of whether they're doing their jobs, well, or badly, you know, to shout at the employees is completely out of vogue. Now, for all the reasons it should be out of vogue. But there's a business component here, which isn't it, which is, do you remember that we used to talk about the war for talent, but actually the that actually, the workforce sort of won the war of talent in the sense that there's not enough talent to go around now. And therefore, this is sort of the modern age of work where employees rightly are demanding more from their employers than the money in development. It's about it's a whole series of things that that are that are sort of required, really. And then the different age groups have different requirements. And so I don't think an organization that had a leader that shouted at people would retain this staff and so you know, retention being a problem for lots of industries, that that would be the death knell of an organization that couldn't keep its talented people. So sort of feels that's another reason why that start just won't fly anymore. Because you've got well, you wouldn't be able to keep good staff. No, no, I mean, yeah, it'd be interesting to look at what the turnover was. I mean, I know it always depends on what the market was and the availability of other jobs, alternative jobs or that meant Tality of, you know, kind of job for life or significant periods of time, whether that had an impact or not, or whether it allowed it to be to be existence longer. But yeah, certainly now, you know, as you say, there the expectation the, the demand effectively is, well, no, that wouldn't be tolerated. It's not acceptable when it's not productive. That you stay, you know, why did you stay this was good. He kept promoting me and i Yes, sticking carrot was it? Well, to be honest, I, I got to understand him. And you know, yes, I got on with him. Okay. And you know, and I was delivering the most significant project the company have ever had at that time. So, you know, I was always a significant contributor to revenue. So maybe he was a little late. I experienced the wrong interview step break up a time. This was pre me, wasn't it? It was pre you. There was a live preview? Absolutely. So it's known as BD before dad's. Yeah, I forgot. I mean, I can remember I completely screwed up the delivery of a software to a client. And yeah, I think it was about 45 minutes of ranted, I experienced that as a result of that. Yeah, I made a mistake. But I think it was a bit extreme. It's so interesting. Is it that that's much less common now, isn't it than it used to be 10 years ago? Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. But the other thing about it, obviously, it's significantly fed the style of his sock managers in many ways. Yeah. Yeah. You know, more than one person standing in an office shouting at people across the office, because yeah, yeah, you just didn't know. Well, it's an interesting angle to balance, isn't it that you do see that in organizations where people can have a tendency to recruit people like themselves? The logic goes, you know, I'm successful. And therefore, I'm going to recruit you because you look like me, and you're going to be successful. But of course, that's a that's a very short sighted view. And, and we've talked before about the need to recruit teams that don't look like you so that you've got different perspectives on a common problem. So perhaps another definition of balance there that actually requires different personality types to be incorporated into the whole in order for the whole to be more successful. Yeah, no, I agree. Agree. I'm just for the record data has never shouted at me. You do, however, have a kind of side, which I've always considered is a bit like panitan stare. It seems a message. What the side does, yeah, the side does. Yeah. What like, like you're whistling sends a message. Like, I'm bored. Whistle on a single podcast yet, so I'm never bored. That's true. So there you have it. Peter balance. I was interested to talk to you about it in leadership and in life. Given that a bit of an earring and I think I summarized previously Well, I think it's a good thing. But without that sort of more stringent directive decision making when required, it can be a bit of a problem, because you actually do need to move on and make decisions sometimes. Wow. Okay. Absolutely. I tell you what, I went straight when you said pants, I'm really meant to tightrope walking. Yeah. So I can contribute a very, it's a bit like Qi now. Really, it's an interesting fact quite interesting. That the world record for tightrope walking was a French tightrope walker, who did 2200 meters, that's 1.4 miles off most of Michelle. In 2022. That's what I've got, anyway. Well, thank you for that. Leadership podcast. That's great. Variety. You said a variety. Yeah, yeah. That'd be relevant for it. It's not the slight variety. Relevant. Absolutely. No, no, leadership is like a tight rope. Sometimes I see that. Yeah, that was a big balance poll. All right, Peter. Well, there we go. That's number one in the can provide, it's recorded. But oh, wow. Watch you. So mean? It's definitely saying recorded at the moment. And if not to delete the recording. That will be good. But thank you. I've enjoyed it. Good. And I look forward to the next one, which I will also Yeah, yeah, I'll continue in my subservient role. Thank you, Peter. All right. Bye, guys. Bye. You've been listening to an unusual podcast from David ailing Smith and Peter Taylor. More information can be found at WWW dot squid of despair.com.