There are many ways to be a good leader …
But there’s one non-negotiable element.
You need to provide, at a minimum, MASSIVE CLARITY on priorities.
This doesn’t mean that you give each person a rank-ordered list and spell it out – do this, then that, then this other thing. Ideally that’s rarely necessary, as you provide clarity at a higher level: organizational values, team goals, and how each person fits in. Of course, learning to connect those dots is a career-long learning exercise in itself, so in some cases you might be guiding the pen a bit more than others.
Still, it’s remarkable how few of us can do this well. Thinking about the managers and leaders I’ve observed over my career, I’d break it down into four maturity levels:
Level 1 managers (about 25%) provide absolutely no help when it comes to prioritization. Give them a list of 10 tasks and they’ll rank 9 of them as “high priority”. They and their teams play a never-ending game of whack-a-mole.
Level 2 (60%) provide what seems like a reasonable list of key objectives, but then undermine the whole process with frequent tire fires, and/or constant “reminders” / requests for “updates” on the low-priority stuff.
Level 3 (10-15%) provide massive clarity, and then get out of the way to let their team execute autonomously. I think just about everybody, on both sides of the equation, would be happy to get here on a regular basis.
Level 4 (1-2%) provide massive clarity, get out of the way, AND then actively sweep for potential obstacles, blockers, and other distractions that could impede the team’s ability to focus on key priorities. My non-Canadian readers may struggle with this analogy, but I think about it a little like driving behind a snowplow during a blizzard. There could be utter chaos ahead of you, but the plow brushes everything aside so your path is clear.
What causes most of us to get stuck at Level 2? I can think of several reasons, but I’ll give you my top two. The first is that many of us misunderstand the real purpose of having a team and the leverage that it provides. I’m no mathematician, but I figured out years ago that if the teams I’ve led (anywhere from 3-30 people) were fully productive, at the cost of one person (me) being utterly unproductive, that would shake out way better than the opposite. The second is an unwillingness to have some potentially awkward conversations with other leaders to align on priorities and set ground rules – since many if not most of the distractions will originate outside of your direct team, you’re only doing half the job if you don’t get on the same page as your colleagues.
Got any stories of leaders who were amazing at setting priorities, or completely failed to do so? I’d be interested to hear them.