A huge part of seeing and treating others as people, as well as increasing efficiency and productivity, involves understanding when to communicate asynchronously, and when to be synchronous.

We often default to ways of communicating that reduce others to objects and decrease their and our ability to work well. We are inundated with information, and yet spend little time considering different modes of communication and deliberately deciding which to employ.

tl;dr

Default to asynchronous communication to honor others as people, improve critical thinking, and increase productivity.

Asynchronous most of the time, synchronous when needed

Executive summary

Many different methods of communication exist, and we should be thoughtful about which one we choose to use for a given moment.

Synchronous, or real-time communication expects immediate responses. This includes forms such as meetings, drive-by interruptions, and chat pings. Benefits include speed, information density, and impacts on relationships. Costs include treating people as objects, less critical thinking, and productivity losses.

Asynchronous communication decouples the message and response. Forms include email, chat, and long-form writing. Costs include delays, possible misinterpretation, and additional required skills. Benefits include slowing down, respect, and productivity increases.

Organizations should find a balance in synchronicity. I recommend four concrete steps to improve communication. First, establish cultural norms explicitly. Second, hold fewer better meetings. Third, move more to asynchronous communication. And fourth, establish a single shared repository for information. As part of these recommendations, I strongly encourage that email is eliminated as an internal communication method.

Full thoughts

Synchronicity definitions

I want to start with the distinction between synchronous and asynchronous communication. Here are my own definitions:

Synchronous. Real-time communication where the delay between a message and response is expected to be next to nothing.

Asynchronous. Communication where the message and response are decoupled. The sender has no expectation that the receive will reply immediately.

Communication methods

As part of defining synchronicity, I think it is useful to identify some of the methods we use to communicate with others. Here is a possible hierarchy, from the most synchronous to the most asynchronous.

• Planned in-person conversation
• Shoulder-tapping
• Planned video call
• Planned audio call
• Unplanned call
• Personal text message
• Direct chat message
• Mention in group chat
• Request through workflow process
• Message in group chat
• Personal email
• Group email
• Mention in wiki¹
• Wiki post in monitored space
• Wiki post in unmonitored space

Where I have seen the most problems is in the emphasized middle section. This is due to a mismatch in expectations. One person may expect an immediate response and become frustrated at any delay, where the other person thought that they could respond when convenient.

Synchronous communication

In many organizations, the default method of communicating has become synchronous. We often talk about the work instead of doing the work.

Meetings

Meetings appear to be the most efficient way to gather information, or align a group. Meetings are held to get status updates, or communicate direction and vision for a project. We come together to brainstorm or to make decisions. We call groups together so that no one is left out or lacking important details about something that might affect them. In a meeting-addicted culture, we default to “getting the right people together” in order to solve something. As I will discuss later, there are many hidden costs to meetings that we rarely consider when scheduling or hosting them.

Drive-by interruptions

When people are colocated, there can be a temptation to walk over to someone and ask them a question directly. We often preface this interruption with a platitude, “Sorry to interrupt, but…” or “Quick question for you…” or “Do you have a minute?” This kind of interaction is insidious, because it appears to be efficient. The needed information or decision is received quickly, and then both people can move on with their work without being blocked. I will address some of the true costs in a minute.

Chat ping

Whether we are colocated or remote, the chat ping is one of the most frequently used forms of hidden synchronous communication. One person reaches out to another using some electronic tool with a question or request for a decision, and has the expectation of an immediate response. The expectation is not always made explicit, but is often made clear through repeated or impatient follow-up messages. Again, this interaction has the appearance of efficiency, with the true costs being hidden beneath the surface.

Synchronous benefits

Part of the reason that we engage in synchronous communication so often is that there are many benefits, both real and perceived. I want to explore three of those benefits.

Speed

When we come together and work through an issue or discuss a problem or brainstorm a solution, we are able to accomplish more in a shorter period of time. For emergency situations, this is vital. We do not have time to go back and forth and get everyone’s opinion or thoughts—we need to act.

Some of the situations that most benefit from being able to move forward more quickly are brainstorming and decision-making. When we are in a divergent phase of ideas where we want to explore more, coming together can facilitate this. People are inspired by others, and have ideas sparked by those that they hear, and we are able to generate many more ideas. When a decision needs to be made, it is often most efficient to finalize the discussion together and then have the person responsible make the final call.

Information density

Another benefit of synchronous communication is that we are able to take in more information at the same time. As humans, we are wired to process non-verbal cues alongside any explicit information that is being transferred. Having the opportunity to see and hear others as ideas are discussed or opinions are shared provides the ability to take in more information than would otherwise be possible.

Impact on relationships

We are social creatures. We connect to others through seeing and hearing each other, and even more so by being physically present. Whether we are on a phone call, a video call, or together in person, we have the chance to strengthen the bonds between us. Through active listening, we can demonstrate to the other person that they matter to us, and they can see in a literal sense that we care about them.

Synchronous costs

People as objects

The first cost of defaulting to synchronous communication is that we view others as objects. Instead of respecting their needs and priorities, we impose our will on them. We value our time and our efficiency over theirs. We reduce others to repositories of information, or decision-making vending machines.

Less critical thinking

Synchronous situations are more charged and potentially stressful. We require those present to think through the matter at hand immediately and be able to share their thoughts. Some people thrive in this environment. Many people do not. Nearly all of us benefit from having time to collect our thoughts and deeply review the information that is relevant to whatever we need to discuss.

Productivity losses

I mentioned before that defaulting to synchronous communication has the appearance of efficiency and productivity. This is an illusion.

When we gather a group together for a meeting, it can seem as if the meeting was a simple one hour event. But in reality, if ten people attend, it was a ten hour meeting. We fail to consider the opportunity cost of having those people stop whatever they were doing in order to participate.

Another major problem with a meeting is the limiting effect it has. Meetings give privileged access to the attendees that is not afforded to current or future team members that may be in need of that access.

Part of the productivity hit that comes from an interruption is the recovery time. Every employee can benefit from uninterrupted focus time to consider their work and how they might approach it better. Having dedicated blocks of uninterrupted time is even more vital for knowledge workers. Many people in provide the most value through creative problem solving. Having meetings or other interruptions destroys a person’s ability to focus deeply.

Asynchronous communication

Methods

There are different forms of asynchronous communication available to most workers. There are three that I want to mention separately.

Email

The most common form is email. This is the tool that many people naturally employ in order to reach someone else, either to provide or to request information. It is a simple, ubiquitous way to communicate with others.

Chat

Many organizations adopt some form of instant messaging software to allow employees to reach others more directly. This is a fantastic way to reach others when used properly and recognized as an asynchronous tool. It can also turn into an all-day meeting where attention and focus are constantly interrupted.

Long-form writing

Many organizations also have some kind of wiki or shared repository of information. In the best environments, everyone can access all content, except sensitive information that needs to be protected.

As compared to the previous two of email and chat, long-form writing has the effect of helping the creator solidify their thoughts more fully. When this writing is in a shared space, it also leads to greater access and can empower people to accomplish more on their own.

Asynchronous costs

Delays

One of the first problems that most people see with asynchronous communication is an increase in overall time. Because answers are not immediately provided, people are waiting more often. This can lead to decisions being held up, or people wasting their time waiting on others. As I will explore later, this is not all bad, but it is a very real cost and needs to be considered.

Possible misinterpretation

Many of us have had the experience of sending someone an email or a text, and having our intent completely misunderstood. Written communication can lack some of the nuance that is conveyed in facial expressions, body language, or tone of voice. If we are not careful, moving more to asynchronous communication can result in colder relationships or conflicts, whether perceived or real.

More skill required

Not everyone is a skilled writer. Many people struggle to be concise in writing, and are not practiced at sharing their thoughts in a coherent way. Taking the time to write out our thoughts can have the effect of crystallizing our thinking, which can help us deliver it more clearly, whether through writing or not. But a very real cost of moving to more asynchronous communication is that people will need to practice more and become more skilled at sharing their thoughts in written form. This can take time, and can be frustrating to some people.

Asynchronous benefits

Asynchronous communication is not always the best or the right fit, but it can have many advantages.

Slowing down

One of the first is that it is often slower. At first glance, this seems like more of a disadvantage, but in most cases, it leads to better outcomes. Take the example of an important decision. Our instinct may be to call a quick meeting of everyone involved or affected and come to a decision so that it can be implemented. In a true emergency situation, this is exactly what we should do. But most of the time, we benefit by slowing down the process and giving those involved time to consider the situation and the implications of different courses of action. This leads to a better decision in the end.

Respect

Another major advantage of defaulting to asynchronous communication is the respect it demonstrates to other people. In this way, we truly see and value others as people, and do not reduce them to objects. We recognize that they will have their own needs and priorities that may or may not align with ours. When we communicate in a way that allows others to process and address our message at a time that works best for them, we honor them and improve our relationships.

Productivity increase

A natural consequence of these first two advantages, and an advantage in its own right, is an overall increase in productivity. In the case of decision making, being able to make a better decision the first time means that there will be fewer negative consequences and time lost revisiting the issue down the road. In the case of information requests, an individual is able to find out information by themselves without having to ask anyone. This preserves the time and attention of the person who is the potential source of the information, as well as the person who needs the information. This empowers people to more easily solve problems by themselves.

Recommendations

Overall, my strong recommendation is that organizations and individuals find a healthy balance between synchronous and asynchronous communication. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, or magic formula that will work for everyone. As with most things, the best results often come from a middle path where we avoid extremes in either direction.

That being said, I believe that this general rule is helpful:

Asynchronous most of the time, synchronous when needed

I have a few concrete recommendations that build on each other, starting with the simplest and most immediate and moving to the most involved and potentially challenging.

Establish cultural norms

My first recommendation is the easiest to implement. I shared earlier a list of different communication methods. Individuals, teams, departments, and even the organization as a whole can create a list of the communication methods they choose to follow in. Additionally, this list can establish expected response times.

An example is as follows:

Establishing and publishing such a list can help build a culture that prioritizes meaningful work and creates space for people to do that work. This can also ensure that needed information flows throughout the organization and becomes increasingly available for everyone who might need it.

Fewer better meetings

My second recommendation is to improve the quality of our meetings. Too often, we get together just because of tradition, or because it seems to make sense that we should get a few people together. We lack purpose and clarity in why we are meeting, and we invite too many people.

We need to meet less often. And when we do meet, we need to have a clear purpose. One simple approach is to start the meeting with a question, and when that question is answered, stop the meeting.

We need to weigh the benefits and costs and consciously choose that a meeting is the best way to achieve our desired outcomes.

Move more to asynchronous

My third recommendation is that we start defaulting to asynchronous more of the time. A practical example of that would be to use chat tools more often, and to consider them as truly asynchronous tools. Instead of messaging people directly, ask your question in a space where multiple people could see it and answer, and then move on to other things that you need to do. Get in the habit of not expecting an immediate answer.

The necessary corollary to this is that we become more reliable at checking in on messages that we have received and responding in a timely manner. If we are in a role that needs to provide information to others to unblock them, we respect them by checking more regularly and responding more quickly. But we still honor ourselves and those we help by focusing on the deep, meaningful work we can do most of the time, and spend less of our time responding to interruptions.

Single shared repository

My next recommendation is to reduce the number of tools used for communication, and particularly the places where people need to look for information. The first and most pressing need is to eliminate email as a communication method as much as possible. Email is inherently limiting while also producing noise and distraction. When important information is communicated via email, it is available only to those who received the email. Because of this, often too many people are included in an email to mitigate the risk of excluding someone. This is a pernicious practice that perpetuates exclusion and pulls people away from their most important work.

In my previous recommendation, I stated that more communication should happen via chat. Here I want to go a step further and say that our most important communication should happen in a shared space such as a wiki. If we reach decisions in chat, they should be recorded in the wiki. Even better, longer discussions and decisions can be reached in the wiki itself. We can make use of commenting features to allow people to share their thoughts and ideas in the context of the necessary information. This encourages people to take the time to form their thoughts, and to share a complete thought rather than a line at a time.

One crucial aspect to this is standardizing on the repository for this important information. Too often, different departments each store their information in a way that is traditional for them, and so information is scattered across many different tools. An organization has to be willing to prioritize effective communication and invest the time and money in selecting, promoting, and using a shared tool.

Conclusion

Communication is central to all that we do as people, particularly in the workplace. The methods that we choose to employ, and the habits that we form will dictate the kind of work that we are able to perform. Synchronous communication has a valuable place, but when it is overused, drastic consequences can follow. Asynchronous communication as the default respects people as people, creates space for critical thinking, and increases productivity. Choose to value the people currently in your organization, and those that will join later by committing to communicating asynchronously more often.

My manager asked us to write up our thoughts on remote work, as we have all experienced a form of it in this pandemic. I decided I wanted to share my thoughts more broadly. With some edits for a more general audience, the text below is what I sent out.

I have worked remotely either full-time or part-time for the last eight years. Prior to O.C. Tanner, I worked for Balsamiq, a software company based out of Italy, which was entirely remote. I have strong feelings about this topic and the implications it has.

tl;dr

Supporting remote work well requires and demonstrates high trust and is one of the best ways to recognize and treat employees respectfully as people. We should allow it.

Executive summary

We need to take this moment to thoughtfully consider how we can work best. Remote work is not the only answer; it is a compelling option that fits large parts of our company well, both in terms of our people and the work they do.

Colocated work has many benefits, and also serious challenges. Those challenges include defaulting to synchronous communication, selfish demands of immediate answers, reducing people to objects, cheapening in-person interactions, and providing an illusion of control or involvement.

Remote work encourages and facilitates many of the most important aspects of successful work. Those include respecting people as people, valuing and protecting the time and attention of others, communicating asynchronously most of the time and moving to synchronous when needed, and making important information and knowledge easily accessible.

The daily emails coauthored by our C.E.O. and HR leader throughout the pandemic are a fantastic example of connecting people asynchronously. They could be even better if not locked in our emails, but published in a company-accessible space, such as Confluence or Basecamp.

My hope is that we would institute a company policy of allowed remote work for designated departments, and in I.T. at least two days a week where everyone who is able is encouraged to work from home.

Full thoughts

Requirements for remote work

Remote work is not a good solution for everyone. To be a good fit depends mostly on personality and slightly on style and type of work. In order for someone to be well-suited for remote work, it is often ideal for them to possess the following characteristics:

• Honest and mature—able to work effectively without direct supervision
• Intrinsically motivated
• Capable of independent thought and work
• Not completely dependent on work for social interaction
• Disciplined and able to stop working when needed

Often, people get concerned that employees who work from home will shirk work and spend more time watching TV or attending to personal matters or taking naps. In most cases, the real problem with employees' work/life balance is that work encroaches on all other areas of life which leads to burnout. Generally, if leaders cannot trust their people to work, it does not matter where they are doing that work. If that is a concern of ours, I think it is a much bigger issue.

Often the best fit for style and type of work include some or all of the following:

• Creativity or problem solving
• Deep thought and consideration
• Individual contribution
• Occasional collaboration
• Information sharing or data transfer

Problems with colocated work

Not everything about colocated work is bad—there are many positives, and many benefits that come from this kind of work better than in any other way. As humans, we are designed to be social creatures, and processing the rich input stream of emotional and nonverbal communication that comes from being in person with someone is huge.

However, in a professional sense, there are many potential challenges. One of the first is that being physically close establishes a default of synchronous communication. This encourages shoulder-tapping, and fosters a culture of ASAP, where people become accustomed to getting answers immediately. At first glance, this may appear to be positive—we can seem to be more efficient, and in some cases, we truly are in the short-term. The insidious truth about this environment is that it is inherently selfish. Instead of seeing others as people, we see them as objects that exist to provide us with information or to get us unstuck when we feel the need. Instead of sitting in our own discomfort of not knowing something immediately, or searching it out ourselves, or just waiting until it is convenient and productive for the other person to respond, we place our own needs above theirs. This can lead to an almost unconscious perspective of viewing others as objects instead of people.

Another major problem with primarily colocated work is the cheapening of in-person interactions. I think many of us have noticed the inverse of this through our experience with the current pandemic. Because we have been isolated, those instances where we are able to be in person with someone are truly valued. Many people experience this as well when living away from family or friends—we often see loved ones less, but value the experience more. When I worked for a fully-remote company, we found this to be extremely true. We had an annual company retreat where we all gathered together for a week and a half, and would have mini retreats once or twice a years as smaller teams. Those times were special to build and strengthen relationships and create memories, and greatly enhanced our ability to work remote effectively.

The final problem with colocated work that I have seen is the illusion of control or involvement. For much of human history, there has been something seductive about being able to see people in order to know that they were behaving as we expected. In the workplace, we can, sometimes unconsciously, associate someone being at their desk as them working or being productive. This is a horrible measure of productivity. Again, it reduces people to objects, and tells them that their worth to the company is not the value they provide, but the hours they spend in a certain location. When this illusion is removed, it requires leaders to step up and discern how to measure the value that employees provide, both to track their productivity, and to help them grow as individuals.

How successful remote work looks

In my experience, when everyone is colocated, we think less about how successful work looks, but when we consider remote work, it becomes top of mind. I think we should take advantage of the situation we are in to consider how we could be more successful in general. I want to share my opinions on how successful work looks. It so happens that working remotely encourages these behaviors and characteristics.

The first and most important point is that people are respected as people, and their time and attention is valued and carefully protected. We all recognize and appreciate the value that each person provides, and take the time to learn how others work, and how we can best interact with them to respect and empower them. In practice, this often looks like waiting more often. Instead of demanding that people stop what they are doing in order to deal with us and our needs, we carefully consider first whether we actually need to interrupt them. If we determine that it is necessary, we do so in a way that allows the person to continue what they are doing, and respond when it is convenient for them. Inversely, we respect the requests from other people, and respond as quickly as appropriate. If we are in a position or a role where we need to provide more time-sensitive information, we respect others by checking more regularly to see if there are requests to which we need to respond.

A related principle is that we communicate asynchronously most of the time, and move to synchronous when needed. There are situations, such as debates, or final decisions, that can be done more effectively and efficiently in a synchronous manner. Those are often best facilitated by prior asynchronous communication, where everyone involved was able to consume and process the relevant information on their own time, and were able to take the time to dive as deep as needed in order to understand it sufficiently to make a sound decision. In many cases, I have seen that the act of taking time to write out your thoughts on an issue helps to crystallize and distill those thoughts. All of this leads to better thought and better decisions.

That leads to my final point, which is that information needs to be recorded in a way that is easily findable. Often, this means in some kind of shared location that is organized well so that it is easily browsable and searchable. When conversations, or worse decisions, are scattered across many different mediums, or trapped in email or verbal conversations, we drastically reduce access to that information. This decision, whether made consciously or unconsciously, prevents transparency and excludes people. Those affected include current employees who are not involved, and especially all future employees. Making this wealth of knowledge and information available is another form of respect.

Conclusion

We will rarely have the opportunity that has been forced on us by this pandemic to re-evaluate the basic ways in which we operate and work together. It would be a tragedy if we did not leverage what we have seen and learned through this experience. One point that has been made repeatedly is that many parts of the company have actually become more productive during this time. I think it is easy for us to gloss over the significance of that fact. Our lives have been severely disrupted. The level of uncertainty we have all experienced is unprecedented in most of our lifetimes. We have not actually been working remotely—we have been surviving a crisis, and forced to cope in whatever way we can. For some people to have become more productive during this time speaks volumes to the potential of remote work, especially if it is approached thoughtfully and done deliberately. Not everyone will choose to work remotely, and I think it would be a mistake to force them to do so. It is not the best fit for everyone. But neither is colocated work. We should respect our people enough to be flexible and open to the way in which they can best work.

To succeed in working remotely, our leaders will have to step up. One of the most beautiful examples of that throughout this pandemic is the daily emails coauthored by our C.E.O. and HR leader. I have heard from so many people who have been encouraged and uplifted and have felt more connected to each other and to the company through those message. In some ways, it is sad that it took a crisis like this for us to start reaching out to the whole company in that way. It also seems unfair to me that one or two people seem to have carried so much of that burden. My one wish is that those touching messages were not trapped inside email. How helpful and inspiring it would be to have all of those messages preserved somewhere like Confluence or Basecamp where everyone could still be notified of them, but have them archived and available for reference and future employees. (Note: I realized nothing was stopping me from doing exactly that, so I have copied and pasted the emails in a Confluence page).

I strongly hope that we will take this opportunity to consider how best to work. I would love to be involved in exploring what that could look like, and thrilled to share my experience working remotely.

Recommendation

Based on all that we have seen, I suggest that we institute a policy of allowed work for designated departments. There are obviously some groups, such as Manufacturing, Security, Maintenance, and others who cannot work remotely. But for those groups who can, such as Client Success, Marketing, I.T., and others, I think we should just give everyone in those departments full permission to work remotely if they want. Individuals teams will naturally establish norms of communication and schedules of synchronous time, including in person if needed. We should demonstrate to those people, and to the company that we trust them. If there are problems, those should be dealt with individually, and others should not have their flexibility curtailed as punishment.

Further, in I.T. we have seen that synchronous communication when remote is most effective when most people are in the same situation. I think that we should encourage everyone who can in I.T. to work remotely on designated days, such as Tuesday and Thursday. It would be even better to designate one of those days as a no-meeting day and work to truly protect the quiet work time that is needed for I.T. success.

Leadership permeates our lives. Good leadership has the ability to uplift, just as poor leadership corrodes. We will consider the effects in terms of team makeup, team perspective, and team health.

Note: This is part of a series sharing my thoughts on leadership. Read the introduction here.

In this final article of my series on leadership, I want to tie everything together. So far, I have written about the importance of trust, a leader’s role to protect and provide which both require high trust, and the three stages of leadership, the highest of which, servant leader, is the only that actually fulfills the roles completely. I want to conclude with the consequences of all of this.

As I constantly try and help my seven young children understand, we are free to make our own choices, but we do not get to choose the consequences of those choices. Therefore, it is vitally important that we understand the natural results of different courses of action so that we have the ability to influence them.

There are a number of different effects of leadership that we could consider in evaluating the impacts of the stages of leadership. As a quick review of my last article, those stages are as follows:

1. Cruel tyrant. Punishes bad behavior.
2. Benevolent dictator. Rewards good behavior.
3. Servant leader. Unblocks and trusts.

I will explore just a few of the possible effects: team makeup, team perspective, and team health.

Team makeup

On a team that is led by a cruel tyrant, people are not focused on achieving together. They are just worried about their own necks. This type of leader creates a team comprised of scared, resentful individuals. The potential output of this team vastly exceeds their reality because most of their time and energy is being spent trying to ensure survival.

With a benevolent dictator, the overall tenor improves. People on the team are not operating as much out of fear. This leader creates a team of happy, complacent individuals. They have been robbed of their intrinsic motivation for their work, and now respond mainly to external motivators—rewards. The quality of their work usually falls to whatever level is required in order to be recognized, or to stand above their peers. Much of their time and energy is spent seeking advantage over others.

A servant leader creates a completely different kind of team. Instead of disparate individuals, a sense of esprit de corps prevails. This leader fosters a united, driven team. Because the efforts and energy of these people are dedicated to their common objective, much more is typically accomplished. Members of the team feel a sense of belonging to something bigger than themselves, and they are willing to make personal sacrifices to ensure the success of the group.

Team perspective

Cruel tyrant

A cruel tyrant views other people, especially those on their team, as disposable. The people themselves don’t matter—as long as they don’t create problems, they are largely ignored. In the parlance of Arbinger Institute, these leaders see others as objects, and more specifically, as irrelevancies.

This has a dramatic effect on the members of the teams led by cruel tyrant. Because they are living and working in fear, other people on the team or in the organization are enemies. Each one is a possible informant; someone watching for the slightest mistake in order to report and thus avoid personal punishment.

Benevolent dictator

Benevolent dictators have a similar, but slightly different view of others. The people still don’t matter, but the results do. Others are viewed as potential output. Again, in the Arbinger Institute language, other people are objects, specifically vehicles. The leader may be nice, and even act caring, but all in the service of achieving the desired results.

On teams with a benevolent dictator as the leader, people see each other as competitors. One person’s success means another person’s lost opportunity, so team members are constantly looking to one-up each other. They similarly see others as objects, in the Arbinger Institute sense, but now as blockers.

Servant leader

With a servant leader, all of the insecurities are removed. This doesn’t mean those leaders and those teams are perfect. But they all see each other as people. No one matters more, or less, than anyone else. This allows them to work together in a united way to accomplish whatever outcomes they have prioritized. As mistakes arise, people are understanding and forgiving of others, even when those mistakes are a failure to be understanding and forgiving. This is not only a nicer environment in which to work, but also the most logical and rational approach to business, and to life.

Team health

There are three areas in which the health of a team is affected by the leadership stage at work. If you think of the stages as a progression, these areas are all positively correlated, meaning that each increases with the stages. These are: psychological safety, conflict, and sustainability.

Psychological safety

As the leader moves from the cruel tyrant to the benevolent dictator to the servant leader, the prevailing emotions change on a team. They go from fear and distrust to hope and greed to love and trust. As these emotions become more positive, the environment in which people live and work becomes safer. With that increase in safety, the emotional temperature changes. People are more free to speak their mind. Their thoughts are seen as valuable, and considered without prejudice. Creativity flows more naturally because the mental energy the team is expending focuses on the work instead of personal protection.

All of us face challenges and stresses to our mental health. When work is a place of high stress, we become less able to cope with the normal ups and downs of life. But when our professional life is rewarding as well as safe, we can develop greater reserves with which to meet the challenges that we will inevitably face.

Conflict

Some people are surprised to learn that healthier teams often fight more. Now, the word “fight” may not be the perfect term to capture exactly what is happening, but it is often how the situation looks to anyone on the outside. Having a healthier environment means that there is more opportunity for differing opinions to be shared and discussed productively. In my experience, people often get extremely passionate about the projects they are building, and the way in which they are built. Some of the best, and most productive conversations I have been part of were scarcely indistinguishable from heated arguments. The key is that the passion and emotion is directed at solving problems together, and not directed in animosity at other people.

This kind of conflict that exists on healthy team is sometimes hard to distinguish from a toxic environment. But there is a huge difference. It does not necessarily mean that members of the team want to hang out together outside of work hours. One of the key indicators is the level of respect that people have for each other. When respect is high, people are more able to bring all of themselves to a situation or a problem, and feel free to point out shortcomings that they see in the solutions being discussed.

One of the reasons that I bring this up and feel so strongly about it is that I have seen many leaders become so conflict-averse that they quell any disagreement out of fear that it could lead to an argument. Whether these leaders realize it or not, they are acting as dictators or even tyrants. They need to be more comfortable themselves with the knowledge that they will not always have the best ideas or solutions, and that the only way to maximize the ability of their team is to foster everyone contributing as much as they are able.

Sustainability

I want to make one final point that feels intuitive to many of us, but also has a strong business or financial component. When people feel comfortable and respected, they are likely to do more and to do it better. They are also likely to want to keep doing it. These are the teams that are the longest lasting, as well as being the most productive.

As leaders, we are often seeking ways to unblock our teams, or to enable greater efficiency and greater productivity. The simplest answer is sometimes the easiest to overlook. The best thing we can do is not to set up extra programs or incentives or gamify work. Instead it is to become genuinely interested in the people that we lead and find ways to help them flourish and grow. Our job is to create an environment in which people can truly thrive, and then work carefully to maintain and enhance that.

Conclusion

When I wrote my series on what mental illness feels like last year, I commented that it was my best writing so far. I meant that in the context that it was the most impactful and meaningful writing I had done, not necessarily that it exhibited any special skill of mine as a writer.

I feel similarly about this series on leadership. These concepts are some of the most important to me. They have been floating around in my mind for a long time, and it was extremely helpful to be asked to present on them and to be forced to take some time to crystallize them. I feel so strongly about the importance of good leadership, and I have ideas and thoughts about what that means that are ultra-specific to a degree not surprising to anyone who knows me.

My sincere hope is that something in this series has been helpful for you. But my primary audience for this is future me. I know that I will need a reminder of these principles that burn so brightly in me right now. Time and life have a way of dulling us, and if we are not intentional, we can lose some of the things that matter most to us now through neglect. Here’s to better leaders everywhere!

Most people transition through three stages of leadership, whether consciously or not. These stages are the cruel tyrant, the benevolent dictator, and the servant leader.

Note: This is part of a series sharing my thoughts on leadership. Read the introduction here.

As I start this article, I want to begin with a disclaimer. While the concepts here are similar to many leadership theories that exist, the stages that I have identified are completely of my own making. I say this not to claim originality, but rather as an advisory to the reader to not consider these stages to be official or based on extensive research. Any shared terminology with other leadership theories is coincidental. These ideas have been useful for me as I consider how to grow as a leader, and I hope they can be helpful to others as well.

The stages of leadership that I have identified can also be thought of as leadership styles. I like using the word “stage” to describe them, because I think there is a natural progression through these stages. Ideally, we can skip the early stages, or pass through them as quickly as possible. At times, however, we may backslide into those early stages, and need to be aware of them and recognize when we have fallen into that mindset and intentionally move forward.

The three stages of leadership that I have come up with exist on a spectrum, from worst to best. In this article, I will explore each one in detail. The stages are the cruel tyrant, the benevolent dictator, and the servant leader.

Cruel tyrant

A defining characteristic of a leader who is a cruel tyrant is that they seek to influence others by punishing bad behavior. They resort to threats or wield positional authority to ensure that all of their demands are met. They focus not on people, but on the behavior of those people, and try to shape it into what they want to happen.

This first stage that many leaders go through is almost all based on fear. The leader both feels and inspires fear. They may be afraid of the responsibility and feel inadequate. That fear can manifest through an attempt to control the output of the team and even the individuals themselves.

In many ways, this fear is understandable. Often, a new leader is promoted because of excellence as an individual contributor. But now they are no longer responsible for performing great work, they are responsible for ensuring that others perform great work. They may see that what they are measured on is results, and so they focus completely on results. They might not know how to motivate or inspire others to achieve those results, and so they fall back on the only thing they know.

This leader often insists on people working in a certain way, at a certain location, during certain hours because without this certainty, they feel helpless and out of control. They create a culture of mistrust and breed resentment among individuals. They rule with an iron fist and demand compliance. They may feel that people respect them, but in reality they are merely feared.

Most of us know what it is like to work with a leader in this stage, and find the experience demoralizing, demotivating, and dehumanizing.

Benevolent dictator

The mark of a benevolent dictator is that they try to influence others by rewarding good behavior. Again, they focus not on people, but rather their actions and try to shape them into something more desirable. They seem to be offering a lollipop, but in fact hide the sword that is implied in failing to measure up.

This next stage that most leaders go through is really just a more positive twist on the same theme as the cruel tyrant. In this stage, the leader is still focused on behavior and results, but seeks to influence others through reward instead of punishment. Because this leader is using rewards, they often think that they are a more positive leader and having a better impact on others. This is probably true—behavior is modified better through positive rather than negative consequences.

But there are still many problems with this approach to leadership. Treating people as if they are only as important as the results they provide is demeaning and leads to objectification. Those who are led in this way begin to spend their time and energy finding ways to get ahead or to get credit for positive results. Whereas with a cruel tyrant, people tend to just look out for themselves and try to not stick out or be noticed, a benevolent dictator encourages people to put others down in an effort to raise themselves up.

Motivation plummets when people are led in this way. Instead of allowing intrinsic desire and satisfaction to drive someone to excel, work is turned into a transaction. The only effort that will be expended is that required to qualify for the reward.

Again, most of us know what it feels like to work with a leader in this stage. We become more concerned with credit than results and our soul seeps away in the race to be seen.

Servant leader

The quality that distinguishes a servant leader is that they unblock and trust people. They see others as people, and take the time to get to know them and understand their strengths and limitations, and work to shape the environment to foster success. Only when operating this way can a leader truly perform their role to protect and provide.

This final stage is one of the most elusive. Unfortunately, it is not a destination. By its very nature, it is constantly changing and requires continuous work and investment to maintain. It is so easy to slip back into one of the previous stages, and so we must be vigilant and learn what our own warning signs of regression look like.

To be a true servant leader requires someone to be comfortable with themselves enough to know how they can help and lift others, and also comfortable enough with others to get out of their way and let them work. This leader is focused on empowering people, and leads through trust.

When problems arise, such as performance issues, the servant leader first looks at themselves to question whether they have provided sufficient clarity and training. Often, the first step to resolving issues like this is to better understand the perspective of the person who appears to be struggling. If the leader has done everything necessary, often they will probe into the life of the individual and see if there are challenges or circumstances affecting the person’s ability to perform.

This does not mean that a leader ignores all problems or difficult conversations, or that they never have to work through formal discipline. This leader recognizes that they must protect the team as well as individuals, and sometimes protecting the team means ending a formal work relationship with an individual, and ideally assisting them to find a path that could be a better fit.

As a servant leader, we recognize that we do not matter any more, or any less, than anyone else on the team. We have a different role to perform, and we can best serve the team by fulfilling that role in the best way we know how. We don’t have to possess all the answers—usually the best solutions come from the team. We need to work to recognize and elevate the humanity and vulnerability of each member on the team so that together success can be achieved.

Conclusion

As leaders, we need to become acutely aware of the style of leadership that we exhibit. Almost all leaders move through the three stages of cruel tyrant, benevolent dictator, and servant leader. Sometimes the transition between stages is unconscious, but we can work to be more intentional about the kind of leader that we want to be.

In the final article in my series on leadership, I will be exploring the effects of the stages of leadership.

I believe that the most important roles a leader must serve are to protect and provide. I want to explore this further by considering how a leader can provide support, clarity, and results.

Note: This is part of a series sharing my thoughts on leadership. Read the introduction here.

In my last installment of my series on leadership, I explored the role of a leader to protect. In my opinion, this comprises half of what a leader must do in order to be successful, with the other half being to provide. This may be an oversimplification, but it has been helpful for me to think about leadership in simpler terms so that I can better understand how to work to improve.

Again, these thoughts are set to the backdrop of my favorite definition of leadership by Niel Nickolaisen, our CIO at O.C. Tanner:

A leader is someone others choose to follow

Provide

Another archetypal leader that comes to mind for me is a kind of trail guide. I picture someone who has experience with the terrain, knows how to prepare for success, and is out in front of a group, showing them the way. The guide leads the group through crowded forests, up mountain passes, past precarious cliffs to an end destination that is fulfilling and rewarding for all. Along the way, the guide gives encouragement, performs first aid, assists in gathering nourishment, and ultimately is responsible for the group arriving safely.

In business, and in life, the role of a leader is similar, although perhaps less rugged at times. There are many ways that a leader can provide, and I will focus on these three:

• Support
• Clarity
• Results

When I originally thought of these principles, I paired them together with those from the role to protect. So, a leader will protect individuals and provide them support. A leader will protect the team and provide them clarity. And a leader will protect the company and provide it results. After thinking about these more, I have realized that all of the concepts are more intertwined.

Support

One of the first things that a leader must provide is support. Thinking first of providing support to individuals, a leader can do that through scheduled time. If the leader is also the reporting manager for an individual, that scheduled time should take the form of a regular one-to-one meeting. It is the leader’s responsibility to carve out that time, but the time belongs to the individual. This should be a time where the leader can learn how more about the individual and how to better support them. These meetings work best when regularly scheduled in advance, and when both participants can contribute to the agenda beforehand.

For those situations when the leader is not the direct manager of an individual, having scheduled time might look a little different. It could still take the form of one-to-one meetings, but it could also look like regular time to review work or to ask questions. The key is that the individual knows that they have your attention for a certain time, preferably undivided.

This can feel both overwhelming and comforting at the same time. It can be overwhelming if you are a leader responsible for many people. You may be wondering how you will ever find the time to devote to each person individually. As a father of seven children, I am familiar with this particular form of overwhelm.

On the other hand, there is comfort in the fact that scheduling time for your people doesn’t require any special skills. You don’t actually have to be the best listener, or the most personable, or any superlative at all. You just have to be willing to put in the effort to show that you care. Just by scheduling the time, and muddling through as best as you can, you are clearly communicating to your people that they are valuable to you—valuable enough to displace other things that you could be doing.

Clarity

Clarity strikes me as a concept for which we all naturally yearn. As the book of Proverbs says, “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” I have learned, through my experiences with mental illness, that uncertainty is a major trigger for many people. It gets exaggerated in those who struggle with some form of mental illness, but it affects all of us. A leader can do a great deal to instill calm and assurance that we can deal with the uncertainty that must exist, while simultaneously removing whatever is unnecessary.

For a team in particular, one of the greatest ways that a leader can provide clarity is through defined work. When a team can come together around a shared mission that they all understand and can see a path to accomplish, or at least to begin, something magical seems to happen. No longer are people spending mental energy grappling with the unknown—instead they are able to apply themselves completely to implementing the vision. People are more engaged and excited to come to work. As a software engineer, the lack of defined work is perhaps one of the largest factors I have seen in people leaving an organization.

This clarity can come to individuals in ways that unlock their potential as well. When someone knows exactly what is expected of them, and is empowered to take steps to fulfill those expectations, they often thrive and excel. When we don’t really know what success looks like, the situation can become demoralizing because we never know if we are making progress, treading water, or backsliding.

Companies also benefit from a leader who is able to provide clarity. Sometimes, the greatest service one can do is to say no to the right things at the right time. If a leader can be clear on what is included in a particular endeavor, and what needs to wait for the future, a company can relax and trust that things are going to work out. Of course, this requires the leader to provide the final piece as well.

Results

A leader is most often judged on what the people they lead can deliver. As an individual contributor, you are evaluated based on your personal results, but as a leader, you are responsible for the results of others. This can be disorientating and intimidating to new leaders. Earlier in my career, I found the lack of personal delivery a challenge in my creative fulfillment. Over time, I found greater joy and satisfaction in seeking to unlock others in their potential, and to see what we can accomplish as a group.

One of the best tools that a leader has to influence the results that are delivered is process. This can be an unglamorous view, but it is the simple, almost unseen structures that a leader puts into place that can truly facilitate people’s achievement. As a leader becomes more comfortable with process, and understands better how to shape and mold it in such a way to empower and unblock others, that leader becomes capable of more influence than ever.

One of the ways in which process can influence the delivery of results is through the safety and stability that it can provide. As humans, we are not thrown by difficult circumstances nearly as much as we by unanticipated circumstances. If we have a plan to attack an obstacle, then it becomes an opportunity rather than a hinderance.

As we as leaders come to embrace our role in honing and tweaking the process, we become invaluable to our organizations for our ability to influence and drive results. Our team and others can look to us for guidance on how to approach a given situation, and we can find the small points of friction that slow a team down and adjust to make improvements.

Conclusion

Protecting and providing work seamlessly together to enable us as leaders to perform all of our necessary functions better. As we provide results, we are better able to protect our team, our people, and our company. We can serve as a beacon to follow as well as a shield to defend our people from distraction or outside pressure. Leadership is more important than ever, and I hope that it is helpful for you as it has been for me to distill the role of a leader down to simple terms.

In the next article in my series on leadership, I will be exploring the three stages of leadership.

In my opinion, the most important functions a leader fulfills is to protect and provide. There are many ways in which a leader can do those, and I will first explore how a leader can protect people, the team, and the company.

Note: This is part of a series sharing my thoughts on leadership. Read the introduction here.

As I mentioned in my article on trust, I enjoy attempting to distill a complicated topic to the simplest terms I feel still capture its essence. In considering all of the many important functions a leader performs, I settled on categorizing them in just two groups: protect and provide.

As a reminder, when I speak of a leader, I do not refer just to those with positional authority. Anyone can be a leader, as illustrated by this definition from Niel Nickolaisen, our CIO at O.C. Tanner:

A leader is someone others choose to follow

Protect

When I think of an archetypal leader, an images that jumps to mind comes from warfare. I think of the leader as the person who is out in front, inspiring the troops to follow and rally to a cause. In that sense, the leader is literally protecting people, whether those that immediately follow, or those who live in increased safety because of the leader’s actions.

Of course, leadership does not necessarily require conflict, and certainly does not require bloodshed. Protecting can take many forms. There are three that I want to consider:

• People
• Team
• Company

Protecting people

As with almost everything that is work-related, leadership is primarily a personal matter. When we seek to protect others, we need to first see them as people, and focus on their individual needs. There is great opportunity for us to learn about the people who have already chosen, or who we hope will choose, to follow us.

One way in which we protect people is to ensure safety for them. This can take many forms, especially in the workplace, one of which is psychological. Anxiety is a natural response to a fear stimulus. If coming to work, or attending a meeting, or submitting code, or engaging with a certain person has the likelihood or potential to result in danger, our stress response will kick in. When we live in a constant, or even frequent, state of heightened tension like this, our health and productivity will sharply decline.

We need to create environments where people feel safe and secure. When they are able to let go of that fear response, their mental energies can be put to better and more productive use. When people feel free to speak up and share their thoughts, or to take risks and try new things, we unlock potential that is not accessible in any other way.

Protecting a team

While I have made a point of emphasizing that a leader can be anyone, my current role is a manager of a small team of software engineers. Because of that, much of my focus around leadership is from the perspective of a manager. When I think about what a leader of a team can do to protect them, the first thing that comes to my mind is shielding them to be able to focus. Deep work is a concept that I consider crucial, particularly for individual contributors, such as the programmers on my team.

So much of what we can do for our teams is to protect them from distraction or from undue outside influence. My experience is in the realm of software, and I have seen that people outside of the team often want to step in and push for certain features to be built. As a leader, we need to help our teams resist the urge to chase the new and the shiny. Much of that work comes in preventing direct access to our team members. Most people, especially developers, have an innate desire to please others and solve problems, and presented with the opportunity, will jump at the chance.

Another area in which teams often face pressure is in timelines or deadlines. Part of the challenge here is that the people who apply this pressure are typically in positions of authority. If the culture of an organization is unhealthy, a manager may not have the ability to protect the team. Hopefully, as leaders we can find ways to shape the environment so that our team can work without fear that they will be forced to release before they feel ready.

Protecting the company

Especially as a manager, but also as any kind of leader, we have the responsibility to protect the interests of the organization in addition to protecting the people and the team. One of the main ways in which we seek to strike this balance is through discipline. As with some of the other topics we have explored, there are multiple facets to consider.

Naturally, one aspect of this is the disciplinary action or conversations that a manager is required to handle. For those leaders who are not in positions of people management, disciplinary action may not be of the official variety, but they still can exert influence in ways to help others grow and improve. This kind of discipline can be challenging to administer, and requires a willingness to hold difficult conversations. In this way, we protect the company from possible negative consequences of poor performance or other issues.

Additionally, we protect the company by defining and executing a process with discipline. This requires personal discipline, as well as the ability to lead and inspire others to stay focused in their execution as well. As we work to instill professionalism in others, and help them stay connected to the objectives of the organization, we protect the company’s interests and ensure that, at least in our area of influence, things will continue to move forward.

Conclusion

There are so many more things that could be said about the role of a leader to protect, but I am going to stop here. While this is not a comprehensive summary of everything that a leader needs to do, I feel that it is a helpful distillation of one half of the most important functions.

In my next article in my series on leadership, I will explore the other half of a leader’s role: to provide.

As a leader, your most important commodity is trust. Every action you take, every word you say, every success you notice or ignore affects the trust others have in you.

Note: This is part of a series sharing my thoughts on leadership. Read the introduction here.

One thing that I like to try and do is distill a complex topic down to a single salient point. As I thought and thought about leadership, I decided that the most important aspect is trust. I want to explore how I landed on that, and what the implications are.

Leadership and following

In order to simplify leadership down to a single idea, we must first describe what we mean by leadership. My favorite definition comes from Niel Nickolaisen, our CIO at O.C. Tanner:

A leader is someone others choose to follow

When we consider whom to follow, there are logical and also emotional reasons at play. Logically, we seek assurance that choosing to follow someone will lead to positive outcomes. Emotionally, if we fear that our choice might cause us harm or bring great uncertainty, we are unlikely to pursue that option.

As we seek to become a leader, we have to realize that every action we take either increases trust in us or erodes it. When we cause uncertainty, those who might follow us will lose trust and will choose someone else. As trust wanes in us as a leader, we can only lead through positional authority. The only people following us then are those forced.

Trusting others

One of the simplest ways to earn trust is by demonstrating it in others. Too often, when we are placed in leadership roles in the workplace, we become insecure in ourselves and our ability to lead and influence others. We recognize that a result of good leadership is good output from those who report to us, and we narrowly focus on the end while ignoring the means. Ironically, this often drives us to micromanage or even redo work done by others in our quest for perfect results. This kind of behavior on our part may deliver short-term improvements, but as we overly control our people, we undermine our future success.

It is worth considering the different ways we can show trust or a lack of it to those we seek to lead. We may think that we trust our people, and not even realize that our actions communicate the opposite.

In a professional setting, one of the most common ways that leaders demonstrate a lack of trust is by requiring that work is done in a certain way. This may look like excessive check-ins, or stringent guidelines that spell out exactly how something must be accomplished. Naturally, there are times when exactitude is required, but most of the time, we can provide clear guidance of the outcomes that are desired, and leave up to those who will implement to determine the outputs necessary to achieve those outcomes.

Another common form of communicating a lack of trust is requiring that work happen in a specific location at specific hours. It is true that some activities are best performed in a face-to-face synchronous form. However, many professional activities, particularly those performed by an individual contributor, can be accomplished anywhere and at anytime. When we require that all work happen in the office during designated work hours, we effective communicate to our people that the time they are at their desk matters more than the work they do. We don’t trust them to get done what is needed in the right way, and so we have to monitor them constantly.

Trusting others is the right thing to do. In this way we honor the humanity of others and their right to learn and grow. They matter like we matter. Trusting them, and communicating that trust, is crucial to our development as leaders. This is also one of the best ways to develop the trust of others.

Building trust

In addition to trusting others, there are a couple other key things we can do to help foster others’ trust in us: competence and care.

Competence

Most people yearn to follow someone who actually knows what they are doing and is good at it. As we develop competence as a leader, we become that person others choose to follow. In future articles, I will explore in more detail what competence as a leader looks like. For now, it is enough to say that focusing on improving in our job is a great way to help instill confidence in others that we are likely to succeed as a leader and help them succeed as they follow us.

Care

Unfortunately, there are many brilliant jerks in the world, and especially in the workplace. These are people who may be extremely hard-working and competent, but have a negative influence on people around them. They care much more about results than they do about people, and this ironically often leads to poorer results in the end.

A good leader builds trust by genuinely caring about other people. When we encounter someone who is skilled and competent, and also who clearly sees us as a person who matters like they do, we are much more likely to have confidence in what they might tell us. Our fears of ulterior motives dissipate, and we can trust that they are not putting their own interests above ours. This frees us up to follow without reserve and to accept direct, even harsh feedback at times, which can help us improve at an exponential rate.

Conclusion

Trust is the most precious coin a leader possesses. It must be careful cultivated and consciously spent. Almost every action contributes to an increase or a decrease in the trust others have in us. This makes the biggest difference in whether people will choose to follow us, or will reluctantly do what we ask out of obligation.

In the next article in my series on leadership, I will explore the role of a leader.

In my job as a software engineering manager, I was recently asked to speak about leadership. As I prepared the presentation, I realized that this topic is a passion of mine, even rivaling my passion for mental health awareness. I will share my thoughts over a series of articles.

Leadership is a complex idea that means different things to different people. Often, we are thrust into roles in which we are expected or required to lead others. Many of us find these situations uncomfortable and find ourselves unprepared to take up the mantle laid upon us.

At the same work event where I presented, Niel Nickolaisen, our CIO at O.C. Tanner, gave the most concise definition of a leader I’ve ever heard:

A leader is someone others choose to follow

One thing that I love about this definition is how it highlights that anyone can be a leader regardless of role. We often think that leadership equates to having a position of authority, but this is a limited view. All of us can be the type of person whom others want to and actually decide to follow. Because of this universal applicability, I feel that the idea of good leadership is important and worth exploring further.

As I worked on my presentation, I was helped immensely by my good friend Jessica DuHadway. She asked many clarifying questions and even agreed to rework some of the content and co-present with me. In this writing, I went back to the topics as I had developed them to make sure I wasn’t stealing her words or ideas.

Articles

(Each title will be a link when the article is published)

Leading through trust

As a leader, your most important commodity is trust. Every action you take, every word you say, every success you notice or ignore affects the trust others have in you.

A leader’s role: protect

In my opinion, the most important functions a leader fulfills is to protect and provide. There are many ways in which a leader can do those, and I will first explore how a leader can protect people, the team, and the company.

A leader’s role: provide

I believe that the most important roles a leader must serve are to protect and provide. I want to explore this further by considering how a leader can provide support, clarity, and results.

Stages of leadership

Most people transition through three stages of leadership, whether consciously or not. These stages are the cruel tyrant, the benevolent dictator, and the servant leader.

Effects of stages

Leadership permeates our lives. Good leadership has the ability to uplift, just as poor leadership corrodes. We will consider the effects in terms of team makeup, team perspective, and team health.