Introduction
This week’s Ask-A-Coach question comes from a leader who wants to know “how to be an empathetic leader and also ensure employees are delivering above expectations”. Their goal is to “understand where leaders draw the line between accommodating all of the employee requests vs delivering results”.
This is a very thought-provoking question, and one that many good leaders grapple with.
On the one hand, many of the best leaders transitioned to leadership because they wanted to support, develop and nurture people in their careers.
On the other is the unspoken reality that leaders face every day: that the primary objective of their job is to deliver results for the company.
So how do leaders find the balance between the two?
People First
Conscientious leaders who want to find the right balance between results and empathy need to start from the position of empathy.
By putting people first, leaders:
- Inspire through action,
- Acknowledge that the results are created by their people, and
- Challenge themselves to find creative win-win-win scenarios.
A Story of Balance
A powerful example of this emerged for me in the spring of 2020. The company I worked for had recently completed an acquisition, and I flew from Vancouver to Toronto to meet with an employee who was joining my team. During our initial meeting, he carefully brought up an upcoming month-long vacation to visit his mother in India–something they had planned for months.
I reassured him that wasn’t a problem, told him that others on the team also take long vacations, and thanked him for letting me know about his vacation as soon as he could. We came up with a general plan for his absence and neither of us thought much of it as I returned home and his family began their vacation.
And then the world shut down.
Since the first few weeks of shutdown corresponded with his planned time off, during that time we stayed in touch to ensure he and his family were safe. But as the end of his vacation approached, and there was no sure communication about his ability to return home, we had to come up with another plan. This one allowed him and a colleague in Toronto to collaborate during reasonably overlapping hours so he could resume working.
But as the work that could be done in partial isolation dwindled, and we still did not have any certainty on when he could come home, we needed to adjust again. Anticipating the work would run out, he approached me with a proposal: he would work Eastern Standard hours so that his availability was not an issue. He reassured me that although the hours would be difficult, he had worked out a plan with his family to make it work.
Under this arrangement, I still tried to limit his interaction to only our team so that we could control the flexibility. It worked well for all of us and gave us the added bonus that he built strong relationships with the people he worked with during that time. After he and his family were finally able to come home, we were able to reset his work to align with the original intent.
During his time in India, he had not been doing the work that we had planned. But there was work that needed to be done that he was perfectly skilled for, and the flexibility between us allowed me to retain my empathy for his situation while still delivering on our team’s overall objectives.
The Alternative
But what happens when managers start from the results first?
Empathy will fall to the wayside.
This is because their minds are framed not to answer the question “How do I achieve these results within this situation?”, but “How do I achieve these results in spite of this situation?”.
Despite all of the studies and use cases that prove time and time again that putting customers and employees first guarantee stronger and more consistent results, there continue to be managers who don’t put people first.
I would like to think that they don’t lack empathy, but overemphasise delivering on results because results are measurable and tangible.
In the example above, I could have easily put results first at multiple junctures:
- When he shared that he would be on vacation for a month at the same time we were starting to convert their business to our book of record;
- When he couldn’t return home; or
- When the work that could be done independently ran out.
But with a little bit of flexibility and a healthy dose of creativity, empathy and mutual trust, we were able to find solutions within the circumstance and still deliver on our joint goals.
Guidelines for Flexibility
While striking the balance is always going to be a delicate art depending on the specific situation, there are some instances where a leader should weigh more heavily on one side than the other.
Direct Opposition
If the needs or request of the employee are in direct opposition of the business objectives, this requires an honest conversation to determine if:
- The employee is unwilling or unable to meet their objectives; or
- The objectives set are unattainable within the given parameters.
Identifying when an employee is unwilling/unable to meet their objectives should be easy for any experienced leader.
But seeing when the objectives are impossible requires an open mind of the leadership team and complete trust all around.
For example, I once started at a new company where my first project had a seemingly simple objective: roll-out software X to the team to accomplish Y.
Only after doing all of the prep work, I found that the software was unable to accomplish Y.
My colleague suggested we try a terrible mish-mash of processes, workarounds and supplemental technology to make it work. But instead, I took the facts to my boss and asked her which was more important. Luckily she was a reasonable leader and picked one of the options instead of insisting we make it work. And as a result, we found and rolled-out a simpler and significantly more cost effective software alternative.
So as a leader, you must be open to the possibility that what you’re asking for is unreasonable and know when to adjust your plan rather than forcing it through.
Non-Acceptance of the Core Role
Then there is the challenge that some employees realize they aren’t, or are no longer, accepting of the core elements of their role. Putting aside the current discussion on working-from-home versus being in the office, we normally see some employees realize that part of their job doesn’t work for them.
For example, this is common with people moving into Project Management positions. Something would attract them to the role, and they would find themselves:
- Working inconsistent hours, with some long days during busy periods and other days with little to do;
- Taking early or late meetings to accommodate time zones; and
- Working planned weekends for releases or launches.
Some people would adjust well to the changes, but others find themselves trying to renegotiate the terms of their role. In situations like these, unless you have the desire and means to change the role itself, you will likely need to discuss with the employee whether they are really suited for that role.
Unforeseeable Circumstances
Of course, we also have unforeseeable personal circumstances where I would always advise to err on the side of empathy.
In my course of leadership, I’ve seen deaths of spouses, delays in homes being built, dissolved relationships and all sorts of other sorrows befall on individuals. I’ve also seen reasons for celebration that impacted “business as usual”, such as pregnancies and new jobs that took people outside of our team.
In those situations, I can’t imagine (but unfortunately have seen) anything other than focusing on the person and figuring out the rest. Your short-term results will almost always slip a little bit, but when putting people first, I have always seen the recovery to be swift. Either the individual returns when they are ready and able to focus on work, or their teammates rally around them and make up the difference with a sense of comradery to support them in their difficult or joyous time.
When the opposite happens and managers discard these individuals because they can’t contribute (either short term or long term), the lack of empathy has a negative and lasting effect on the psyche of the team.
Everyone becomes nervous about the security of their jobs, wondering what might happen to them in a similar situation. Their focus becomes on self-preservation, rather than on delivering results for a manager who lacks any ability to be empathetic.
In these circumstances, a manager’s instinct to deliver on results short-term will degrade overall performance over time.
“Underperformers”
It is also a common reaction to extend flexibility only to employees who are strong performers. Here, I would caution leaders to balance their objectivity and fairness in assessing whether an employee’s performance is based on ability or circumstance.
The assessment isn’t an easy one, but is quite crucial because there’s a very real possibility that someone is underperforming because of a personal situation that needs accomodation.
For example, one of my managers inherited someone who had been labeled as an underperformer. When she came to me to discuss our plan for the individual, she outlined her plan to be clear on expectations and monitor her work closely. When she probed a few accommodation requests, she discovered that the individual was also the sole caregiver for their parents.
Although the original accommodation requests were not something she would agree to, she did manage to work with the individual to come up with something that balanced their personal obligations and our team’s deliverables. In a few short weeks, we saw her performance return to normal and benefited from her prior years of experience to bolster our team’s knowledge.
So while it’s often tempting to withhold accommodation from people labeled as underperformers, there can often be more to the story. Accommodation should be considered, especially for long-term employees, because in the end it will cost more to replace them or allow them to languish than to create an environment in which they can succeed.
Conclusion
While there are some situations where delivering on results must come before employee requests, a leader is usually in a stronger position if they start with empathy first. They still must deliver on results, but are more likely to find a way there that is conscientious of the circumstances. In turn, their business objectives will be met while they reap the benefits of building trust and loyalty with their team.
