If you had to pick a place on the leadership continuum, where one end depicted leading from the front and the other end leading from behind, where would you choose?
The extremes on the spectrum are either entirely leading from the front, or entirely leading from behind. Most leaders would designate a place on the scale where they felt they spent most of their time. If you asked a handful of individuals what the main differences were about each end of the continuum, there would be a plethora of answers.
Leading from the Front
What does it mean to lead from the front?
Many would argue that leading from the front is a style where the leader shows how to get it done, sets the rules, and tells people what to do. In all of these scenarios, the leader steps up and is out front. This person sets the example, demonstrates the goals and initiatives, delegates who does what and when things are due, and points to the bottom line. This leader is out in front of the employees and the organization.
Some may think that leadership works best when the one in charge starts out front, stays out front, and always remains out front at all times. Be seen as much as possible because that looks like you’re working and leading.
But is this necessary, and does it equate to good leadership?
Leading from Behind
If leading from the front is demonstrating how and what to do, what is leading from behind?
Leading from behind can mean stepping aside and allowing individuals on the team to succeed or fail with trial and error, making adjustments, learning, and growing the organization from that point of view. This leader may still give direction, but then let go of the journey and meet their employees at the outcome.
The journey is up to the individual employees.
Some may think this type of leadership works best when the leaders completely stay out of the way and let the employees run their departments with no interference—allowing full freedom without micromanaging. See you at the finish line.
But is this necessary, and does it equate to good leadership?
Which one works better? Where would most leaders today be on the continuum? How do you know where you stand? Is one style better than the other?
As a coach, I have succeeded and failed at leadership. I’ve made good calls and calls that cost me my job. I have been effective in some situations and ineffective in others. I’ve been judged, criticized, praised, and complemented, depending on the circumstance that called for leadership, and of course, the outcome.
From that experience, I’ve learned two things:
- One style of leadership, by itself, does not work in all situations.
- Leadership that is stagnant on the continuum will not succeed long term.
There are thousands of books worldwide, both in print and online, that discuss and dissect leadership. One could read a leadership book a day and never get to the end of the list in a lifetime. The amount of written word committed to the subject confirms that there is no one book or one style that commands the “lead” in leadership.
The Risk of Stagnant Leadership
What is stagnant leadership and where does it come into play?
Stagnant leadership is not a positive term. It means leadership that is stuck in its ways and not flexible. It means the leader has one style, and he or she applies it to all situations, people, and circumstances.
Stagnant leadership has no problem finding the right spot on the continuum. It will always be the same spot and has always been the same spot.
This type of leadership is dangerous, and that’s why leading from the front or the back exclusively could also be risky. We live and work continually changing times that require constantly adjusting leadership methods and decision-making.
That brings me to the middle.
Leading from the Middle
What does it mean to lead from the middle?
Most of the time and with most of the written material on leadership, the term middle leadership refers to those folks in middle management having leadership responsibility. There are lots of books, periodicals, and blogs talking about middle leadership as middle management. This reference is not the middle leadership for which I’m referring.
Leading from the middle is when the leaders at the top come into the heart of the organization and foster, promote, encourage, mentor, and hand-pick leadership potential to help with the mission of the organization.
They find employees that have shown commitment, creative ideas, a committed work ethic, a caring attitude, and a desire to put the mission of the organization above their own agendas.
Top leadership finds, recruits, and maintains these potential employees for more leadership responsibilities.
Authentic and genuine leadership does not have a frontline and a backline. Real leadership moves along the continuum in a dynamic fashion, not a stagnant one. Different situations, diverse people, various projects, and unique circumstances require a leader who is on the move.
Sometimes he or she must be out front, as with a new employee who needs lots of direction. Sometimes the leader can perch in the middle, maybe when the circumstances allow for a creative mind to take on a project and handle several other employees or vendors where the outcome is crucial. Still, other times the leader can lead from behind, where a department is running so smoothly that top-down leadership would do more harm than good.
Successful organizations and teams require leadership that is fluid and moves with the situations and the people within the company. Leading with only one style of leadership attracts one type of follower. That means employees will eventually leave the organization because they find out the leadership style was not a fit.
Both employer and employee generally don’t realize the lack of fit until it’s too late, with either the employee getting fired or the employer.
Lift with Dynamic Leadership
What is dynamic leadership?
Dynamic leadership means leading from the front, middle, and from behind. It means continually moving and adjusting with the changing circumstances, people, projects, events, and longevity of the organization. Dynamic leadership never appears stagnant on the continuum.
Sometimes the situation calls for more front-line leadership, and other times it’s better to be in a leadership stance that’s behind the action. While other times the situation calls for leadership somewhere in the middle.
Dynamic leaders have the capacity to adjust to individual employees and situations. Dynamic leadership requires an immense amount of work and a great supporting cast. But when each employee feels like a valued member by top leadership, consistent buy-in and commitment take root and grow.
And when leaders mentor and lead through changing circumstances, employees feel more confident about the possible outcomes.
Commit to Move Along the Continuum
When people talk about good leadership, they talk about individuals who take the time to get to know their people, learn how best to work with them, and give them the tools and resources to do a great job. They talk about leaders who can think on their feet, act confidently, and be in the race with the team.
With this type of leadership, the flow chart still exists, but the top box moves around on a daily, weekly, and yearly basis.
Reaching your people will make a difference. Staying put in a stagnant leadership stance may work for a while, but eventually, you lose good people in the process, or worse, the organization may not survive.
Especially in the wake of COVID-19 and how much social isolation that we are enduring. Teams and employees need to feel productive and valued as members of the organization. A sense of flexibility can go a long way.
A genuine, true leader will recognize this and move along the leadership continuum as necessary. This is the power of dynamic leadership. This is how you lift an organization.
