Problems make us uncomfortable. We want to solve them as quickly as we can. As we build our path to reach our goals, we will regularly face obstacles or problems that are slowing us down towards success.
I want to focus on the leader-subordinate relationship and their approach to solving problems. Let’s work with this scenario: Alice is the leader and Bill is in her team. Bill gets stuck with a problem he can’t solve on his own so he goes to Alice to figure out the next steps. After Bill describes the problem, Alice has the choice of what leadership style to follow. Let’s look at her options.
The Problem-Solving Style
This style is the quickest one: Alice tells Bill what to do. Problem solved. For Alice, the advantages of being a problem-solving leader may include efficiency, control, clear direction, high productivity, respect, and recognition. For Bill, the advantages are very similar: clear and quick action plan, less stress, happy manager, and less conflict.
However, there is a price to pay for the problem-solving leadership style. Alice will soon find that her team cannot make progress without her, all stress falls on her, there are no new ideas, and eventually the team is demoralized. Oh, and she is constantly interrupted to put out emergency fires. For Bill, the disadvantages are: no growth, limited creativity, low personal added-value, limited career advancement, and eventually a low job satisfaction.
The Coaching Leadership Style
Alice has a better option: the Coaching leadership style. Think of an athletic coach or a personal trainer: their job is to assess where you are, discover what goals you want to reach, identify what capabilities you have, and then help you determine a progressive plan while supporting you, cheering you, and holding you accountable to make progress – but you are the one sweating and doing the work. If you apply this concept to a work environment, it’s the same thing!
To adopt a Coaching style approach, Alice must first assess the situation by seeking clarity: what is the desired goal and where are you now, Bill? This is done by asking insightful questions: What is the ultimate goal? How do you define success? What limitations do you have today? Here, Alice is the one that needs training, not Bill. Alice needs to learn to ask open-ended questions: those that are answered with a description. They usually start with “what, how, when” and sometimes “why” (“why” can sometimes sound judgmental). Closed-ended questions are answered with just one word and are not helpful to reach clarity.
The separation between the desired goal and the current situation is called the gap. Once the gap is clearly defined, the next item to identify is the plan to close that gap. Alice can then ask Bill what two or three alternatives are in front of him and to evaluate pros and cons of each one. Questions like “What options do you have?, What have you thought of so far?” would help a lot. At this point, no decision is being made yet, just like the early stage in a brainstorming session.
An action plan comes next: ask Bill to weigh all options and choose the best one with specific steps and dates. Bill is seeking Alice’s wisdom, but Alice must keep Bill on the driver’s seat. A quick scenario planning is important: what could go wrong, what concerns are present, and what additional resources are needed. Lastly, Bill will summarize and get confirmation along with an agreement on check-ins between Bill and Alice to track progress. Bill can now go execute his plan. Thank you, Alice.
Now, let’s think of the advantages of the Coaching style. For Alice: empowering the team to take ownership of their assigned tasks, encouraging creativity, promoting critical thinking, and training the team to make better decisions. For Bill: leadership skills are developed, building self-confidence, career advancement, and exposure to stand out with the leadership team. If this Coaching leadership style is used for several months, can you picture what will go through Bill’s mind before bringing an issue to Alice? Bill will very likely spend some time evaluating different options, weigh pros and cons, and be ready to make a well-thought recommendation. That future interaction between Alice and Bill will be shorter and more focused on getting buy-in on decisions instead of a lengthy explanation of the problem.
Moving from a Problem-Solving leader to a Coaching leader requires practice, mostly on behalf of Alice. The instant gratification of the quick response is no longer appealing. Alice will now choose bigger and better returns by developing the skills of her team. The fact that Alice is the supervisor and Bill the subordinate does NOT mean that only Bill needs training and development, so does Alice! Just like we want Bill to be an empowered critical thinker, we also want Alice to be an efficient leader.
