Creating a culture of continuous improvement in the workplace is a goal for many leaders, but achieving it can be challenging.
Anyone who follows any of the numerous leadership “experts” on LinkedIn will be forgiven for thinking that to be a great leader, you must create a nice environment where everyone feels comfortable being themselves.
They’re the type of posts that get lots of engagement because anyone can nod along to themselves saying, in the fullest of pomposity (yes, I’ve been guilty of it in the past too!) doing their best Churchill the dog impression, saying, “Oh yes.”
While conventional leadership wisdom emphasises creating a comfortable environment, sometimes unconventional tactics are necessary to drive real change.
In this blog post, we’ll explore how adopting a firm and direct leadership style (sometimes known as being a “d*ck”) can be the best way to foster a culture of continuous improvement.
The Challenges of Real Leadership
Real leadership is complex and requires a versatile approach.
Despite what experts say, there are numerous tactics available to leaders, and the challenge often lies in choosing the right one for the right person at the right time. Here’s why:
- Individual Responses: Different people respond to different approaches. Some may need a tough push, while others may need encouragement and support.
- Situational Urgency: The same person may require different leadership styles depending on the situation’s urgency.
The truth is, leadership, not strategic leadership where your focus is on the needs of the business; I’m talking real day-to-day leadership where you’re balancing so many conflicting priorities to motivate, inspire, and encourage the people to meet their targets and get the results, is tough.
Experts talk about so many “types” of leaders, which, when you dig into the definitions and benefits, all amount to the same thing!
There is only one type of leader to be, and that is who you naturally are.
Everything else is tactical. Transformational leadership, empowering leadership, transactional leadership, etc, are all tactics.
They can all be as effective as each other when used in the right way, at the right time, and with the right person. The difficulty is knowing what tactic to use and when.
Managing vs. Leading
“Leadership” and “management” are terms that are often used interchangeably, but they are fundamentally different. Leadership is about inspiring and motivating people, while management relies on authority and incentives.
- Management focuses on compliance and meeting minimum standards, often leading to stress and low morale.
- Leadership creates a sense of urgency, innovation, and followership. Followers choose leaders they believe will help them achieve their visions, resulting in higher morale, better performance, and improved collaboration.
The truth is, you don’t need people to like you to be a good leader.
This realisation struck me during my first day as a newly promoted Flight Sergeant.
My First Day as a Flight Sergeant
On June 13, 2016, I stepped into my new role as a Flight Sergeant on a unit at RAF Scampton. Morale was low, performance was poor, and communication was virtually non-existent. My boss asked me to “get in among the troops” to address these issues.
Guess what? My first action pissed everyone off!
I wasn’t trying to be a good or bad leader; I was just trying to be honest. Because of the dynamics of the unit and its longstanding operational commitments, getting everyone together for a fireside chat was impossible.
I sent an email to everyone in my chain of command saying exactly what I thought and the standards I now expected. I reasoned that I’d catch up with everyone in person, but at least this gave everyone the same information in the same way.
I’ll admit, the uproar it caused was huge! However, I wasn’t disheartened by this, because it was a deliberate move to identify those willing to engage with me.
Over the next week, I observed the unit’s dynamics and identified the root causes of the issues.
Observations revealed three factions led by three corporals who disliked each other. This tension affected peer-to-peer interactions and overall teamwork.
Additionally, management made a misguided effort to boost morale by making people happy rather than engaged and fulfilled.
Misconceptions About Workplace Morale
Very few people are actually willing to talk about the hard work required to be a good leader.
You see, the truth about morale is that it’s got nothing to do with happiness. You don’t get morale by making people happy. Another unfortunate truth that gives reason for this is that you can’t please everyone.
So the more effort you put into trying to please everyone, the easier it is to have the opposite effect. This lowers morale and therefore, output.
Improving morale isn’t about making people happy. It’s about:
- Engagement: regular interaction and feedback from management, so that the whole team understands what’s going well, what needs improving, and how improvements can be made.
- Fulfillment: providing meaningful work that allows employees to feel like they contribute.
Focusing on these aspects improves morale, output, efficiency, and ultimately happiness.
Tackling Toxic Cliques
To address the toxic factors I had identified, I took an unconventional approach: I became a ‘d*ck.’
By creating a common adversary, I united those three different factions against me. This unconventional tactic improved cooperation, communication, and productivity.
This approach led to a few positive outcomes:
- Improved cooperation
- Better communication
- Increased productivity
- Higher morale
However, it also strained personal relationships and changed workplace dynamics for me. In this situation, it was a sacrifice worth making, as it did fix a lot of the issues my unit faced.
However, a valuable lesson I learned around a year later when I was asked to take over as Flight Sergeant of the Training Squadron, which had problems of its own, is that just because a tactic worked once doesn’t mean it always will.
I used a similar approach with this squadron and learned very quickly that it was the wrong decision. It took me some time to rectify that mistake.
This highlighted the importance of selecting the right tactic and made me realise that this is exactly why conventional leadership training often does not produce good leaders who can create a culture of continuous improvement.
Training teaches people what they need to know and why this information is important, but the ‘how’ behind becoming a great leader? That really does differ for every person, team, department, business, and situation.
However, I’m happy to say that there are two fundamental things that leaders at every level can do to become even better leaders:
- Knowing Your Staff: Understand your employees beyond surface-level information. We need to understand how they like to communicate and be communicated with, what motivates them, what inspires them, what puts them into conflict, and how they behave under stress.
- Understanding Root Causes: Identify and address the underlying issues affecting performance and morale. On the training squadron, the mistake I made was assuming I knew what was happening. I was wrong. I didn’t take the time to speak to people, ask the right questions, and assess the situation. This meant I chose the wrong tactic.
Conclusion
Creating a culture of continuous improvement requires a nuanced approach.
While conventional wisdom emphasises a supportive environment, sometimes unconventional tactics are necessary to drive real change. Remember, leadership isn’t about being liked; it’s about creating the conditions for your team to thrive.
Are you ready to transform your workplace? Learn more about how to improve workplace morale and
