Beyond first impressions: What real leaders really do

But in our modern society, our initial impressions fraught with unconscious ancient evolutionary biases do not adequately inform us of a leader’s suitability.

We often change our minds about a new boss and their seeming impressiveness once we watch them more closely over time. A manager can speak with confidence, sprint around the office quickly, tell convincing stories, and look every bit the part with their designer professional clothes.

However, when push comes to shove and all the staff leave a meeting room, eventually everyone gets confused if they ponder that the leader did not actually do anything to help them, guide them, or solve issues.

If nothing really transpired, then what was it that initially impressed them about the leader? The eye contact? The firmness of speech? The timing? Inspiring words? Name dropping other well-known leaders as connections?

Interestingly, leadership scholars have spent decades and decades trying to research the specific behaviours that cause staff to follow workplace leaders. But two distinct lenses used by social scientists often do not get fully reconciled.

One lens focuses on the broader meaning of what leaders actually do in that whether a leaders comes across to his or her staff as task-oriented, relational, change-oriented, or morally ethical.

The other lens tends to zoom in on a specific concrete behaviour itself such as specific buzz words or queues, gestures, timing, decisions, interaction patterns, posture and other physical signals.

A newly published study by Thomas Fischer, George Banks, and Leah Bourque investigates reconciling the two different lenses that may on the surface seem trivial, but in a real sense are very meaningful.

As an example, think of a principal at a national Kenyan secondary school who calls a teacher into their office and suggests a different way to handle a particular classroom issue.

A casual observer may see the principal and think that they are problem solving while a different viewer may see support and yet another may see innovation.

But a fourth observer may quietly whisper the word micromanagement. You see, the same behaviour by the principal can carry several different meanings depending on who is watching, the viewer’s own context, the perceived situation and assumed backstory, and what history already exists between the viewer and either the principal or the teacher.

The research makes an important point that many of us in managerial roles often forget. Leadership does not only live and thrive in broad strokes with big labels such as transformational, servant, empowering, ethical, transactional, or authentic leadership and so on. In reality, leadership lives in numerous very small observable acts that happen every single day.

Which words did the boss choose to admonish a subordinate? How long did the leader speak at the meeting? Did the manager interrupt a new employee in a presentation? Was the executive’s work suggestion delivered to a staff member privately or in front of the whole team causing embarrassment?

Researchers in the newer stream of leadership research pay close attention to such specific details because they help to explain what leaders actually do rather than what we later imagine they meant. Social scientists try to strip away the perceived interpretation and look at what actually transpires.

Firms often promote workers because of the nebulous opinions that they “look like leaders” or because staff describe them with flattering but very vague descriptions. But boards of directors like presence.

Executive committees love polished professionals. Managers like confidence. However, such impressions can hide serious problems in that the day-to-day actions that good leaders need to do and therefore a newly promoted supervisor may be unable to build trust, improve coordination and efficiency, and cannot manage teams to perform.

Also, the flip side can happen. A would-be great manager fails to get promoted who has all these great task and action abilities and track records, but human resources and executives fail to track or notice because they only look for general surface-level impressions.

Instead, human resources departments should come up with templates, tools, and checklists to assist them and heads of department to observe actual conduct and actions first and then tie in meaning to those actions.

They must not confuse the behaviour with the evaluation because context matters. A direct instruction from a leader, for instance, may feel helpful in a crisis, controlling in a stable environment, or disrespectful if a worker already feels mistrusted. We all must remember that context shapes meaning.

Remember that one’s relationship history with colleagues and observers also shapes meaning too. Even outcomes shape meaning, such as because once a team succeeds, people often reinterpret the leader’s past behaviour more generously than before. Do not give credit or assign blame when it is not deserved.

In short, move beyond leadership jargon. Instead focus on careful feedback on observable conduct to decide on managerial promotions. How often does the manager interrupt? How clearly does the manager explain?

How does the manager time their praise or correction of their teams? Does the manager create space for others to speak or dominate meetings inappropriately? Does the manager adjust behaviour according to context or merely just repeat one style over and over again everywhere and hope for the best?

Leadership fails because we too often praise impressions while ignoring behaviour.

**********
Have a management or leadership issue, question, or challenge? Reach out to Dr. Scott through @ScottProfessor on Twitter or on email [email protected]