Ben Norris

Finally sent out the first edition of my personal newsletter today, sharing some of my recent articles and thoughts. If you’re interested, join us here. 🚀

Our 2yo came in to sit with my wife as she was in my office while I wrapped up work. When I shut my laptop, he asked, “Are you done meeting-ing?”

Me: “Yes, I am bud.”

He turned to my wife and exclaimed, “He done meeting-ing!”

One of the most common benefits that I have heard identified through the pandemic and quarantine was additional free time. Every time I heard that, my blood temperature went up a little bit more. My experience has been the complete opposite.

We are coming up on three months since many of us have been forced to work from home. Throughout that time, I have heard often about the surfeit of discretionary time that we all theoretically have. This has been so far from my experience that I wanted to consider it a bit deeper.

Part of the reason for the difference in my experience is that my wife and I have seven children, ages fifteen down to ten months. Before all of this began, I did have to commute for an hour and a half to two hours every day, and so I expected to have more time at my disposal. And in some ways, I did.

The interesting thing about time is that we never truly have more or less of it. The perceived differences from day to day, or year to year, are just that—perceived. Every one of us has exactly the same amount of time in every day. The issue is how we choose to spend it.

I have found that the feeling of having free time is largely a function of how much time appears to be in your control, with no pressing obligations. Once you feel a responsibility to do something with a block of time, it no longer feels like free time. This is the case even if the responsibility is completely self-imposed.

This is why spending hours consuming media is so seductive. When you choose to engage in a passive activity such as consumption, there is no feeling of responsibility. You allow yourself to cater to your whims, and in so doing, pursue an escape. The irony of this course of action is that you are usually just falling into the control of the algorithm, instead of being in control yourself. Big media companies know and understand how valuable your time and attention are, and have invested heavily in understanding how to co-opt that.

Because of my choices to have a large family, when I am faced with “extra” time during the day, by default, that time goes to my wife or children. I have to work to make a conscious decision to do something different. And since we are all together even more than before, my sense of time to myself in which I get to choose what I do is more diminished than ever.

The nice thing about writing about this is getting more clarity about my own situation. In the course of this article, I have gone from feeling frustrated at missing out on a shared experience that seems to be all around me, to reclaiming my sense of agency in knowing that I get to choose how to spend my time.

The minutes of our lives are a precious commodity that can easily be spent mindlessly. Those minutes turn into hours and days and months and years in which we can accomplish and grow and change, or stagnate and coast. I hope that I can remember the lesson of COVID-19 for me—there never is more or less free time in my life, just how I choose to use my twenty-four hours in the day.

2yo: “Have to poop again.”

Me: “That’s ok. It happens.”

2yo: “Can I poop in this room?”

Me: “Sure, bud.”

2yo: “Oh, fanks Dad letting me poop in this room!”

Just to be clear, he was wearing a diaper the whole time.

😂

I have loved a new podcast I found, Checking In with Susan David. In the latest episode I heard, she started by talking about “sawubona,” which I found beautiful and moving.

Listen to the entire episode here

My wife folded the 8yo’s blanket and the edges were uneven.

8yo, as he saw the blanket: “Ohh… Can we just start over?”

Wife, tiny sigh: “Ok.”

8yo: “I’m not saying your work is bad. I’m just saying we do better together.”

😂

This is something I have been considering a long time and feel deeply about, and am also nervous about putting out.

“Beware positive stereotyping”

We have to be so careful anytime that we view individuals primarily through the lens of a group to which they belong. This can creep in to our lives even through a positive guise, such as appreciating health care workers.

One thought that I have been having through this global pandemic is that our group of societal heroes has expanded. Of course, not everyone feels this way, but the general view of society has evolved throughout my lifetime. I first saw that members of the military were seen as heroes. Following 9/11, first responders and firefighters joined in the hero category. And then with COVID-19, health care workers have become included as well.

In many ways, this is a wonderful thing. I am a huge fan of any increase in our care and compassion and tendency to view others positively. Many of us who view these groups in a favorable light do so because we consider that they are sacrificing some of their interests in the service of others, which is certainly laudable.

As I have thought more and more about this phenomenon, in addition to the gratitude and excitement that I have for an increase in positive sentiment, I have started to have grave concerns. One lesson I have learned through my experience with OCD and various forms of treatment is that our ways of thinking form patterns. The more we mentally traverse those patterns, the more instinctual they become. It is as if we are riding a bike on a dirt road through our mind, and as we ride the same path over and over, we form a rut which locks our tires into traveling the same exact line with little to no effort.

The implications of these two phenomena colliding are sobering and even damning. This is one way that we arrive in a situation of needing a movement like Black Lives Matter. I am not saying that everyone who celebrates those in the military, or first responders, or health care workers is doomed to become bigoted and racist. What I am saying is that if we are not aware and attentive, the same forces that pull on us to admire certain people solely because of their membership in a group we find admirable can also lead us to overlook others simply because they belong to certain groups.

At the heart of the issue, in my mind, is a lack of seeing people as people. No one deserves to be heroized for mere membership in a group, just as no one deserves to be vilified because of belonging to a group. Our individual identity is what distinguishes us as people, not the groups or groups to which we belong.

My sincere hope is not that we will celebrate people less, but rather that we will think more and learn to see people more. From first-hand experience, I know that not everyone who wears a uniform is actually a hero. People made poor choices even when they are ostensibly part of a noble profession. And heroic acts and people are to be found in all walks of life.

It is time for us all to sit up and think. We are flooded with information, but even more damaging, inundated with voices telling us what opinions we should have about that information. It is far too easy for us to surrender our wills and suspend our critical thinking skills until they atrophy to the point of impotence.

People are not a color. People are not a religion. People are not a uniform. People are not a profession. People are people. And they deserve to be treated as such.

Fantastic article by BJ Homer, Whose Lives Matter?:

If your response to #BlackLivesMatter is that “All Lives Matter”, I’m sure you mean well. Everyone’s life does matter. But you are implicitly suggesting that discrimination against blacks is not unique or worthy of note.

Had a great time hiking with my brother this morning through some stunning scenery to a beautiful waterfall.

I loved this article studying how the voices of women can be better fostered and heard: When Women Don’t Speak.

The bottom line, if you want to empower women, apply majority rule when women have the numbers and unanimous rule—or at the very least, an underlying principle of unanimous rule, hearing from everyone—when they don’t.

As a father of four girls, I find myself thinking a lot about gender roles and how to teach them, and my three boys, how to confront bias, whether conscious or not. As a manager of a software team that is 77% male, I spend a lot of time considering this as work as well. I was thrilled last week when my wife found and shared this article with me because she knew how much I care about this.

The answer to improving the gender gap is not necessarily always in raw numbers. The solution for my team is not to fire three of the men and hire women to have equal representation. I can’t change every department or every team at my company, or anywhere else.

But that doesn’t mean I am powerless.

There are subtle, and overt things that I can do to make sure that the voices of the women around me are encouraged and heard. I loved finding out in this article that one simple change—working in a unanimous instead of majority-based approach can have the effect of empowering everyone on the team to be heard, regardless of personality or biases.

Whether it is to address gender bias, or just to treat everyone as people that truly matter, I love that the effect of working for unanimous consensus is fewer negative interruptions, and more opportunity for everyone’s opinions to be heard.

I hope this is something I can implement on my team, and that it will make a difference. And I hope it doesn’t stop there.

I was thrilled to join with the rest of my product team at work to share a case study of our process operating within constraints.

In my day job, I am an engineering manager and get to work closely with my product team—our product manager, our UX designer, and me. We recently gave a joint presentation on working within constraints, and how we have approached things with our current project. I am extremely fortunate to work with talented and capable people, and it was delightful to prepare and deliver together.

My wife and our 2yo were reading a book and he found some new Burt’s Bees chapstick. My wife opened it for him and he put some on his lips and hers.

After she finished the book, he told her it was gone. She started looking around for it in the couch and asked him where it was.

Wife: “Is it on your face?”

He leaned in close and whispered, “I drinked it down.”

Our 6yo was sitting in one of our recliners and the 2yo was rocking her.

6yo: “Please stop rocking me.”

2yo: “No.”

Me: “Come rock me, bud.”

2yo: “Rock youself.”

My 2yo asked me for help before going to the van, “Dad, can you put my shoes on? Just on. Not off, on.”

Apparently this is something I have struggled with in the past… 😂

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.

What a special day. I got to celebrate my five year anniversary at O.C. Tanner and because it was over Zoom, my wife and kids got to watch. 🥰

2yo: “Mom! Mom! My eatmeal is fotten!”

Wife: “Oh, your oatmeal is rotten? I don’t think so–I just made it today. Did you taste it?”

2yo: “No, I looked at it. It fotten.”

😂

My wife was reading a book with the 2yo sitting on her lap and another child next to her. She was reading loud enough that the other child could hear, and the 2yo covered his ears and whispered, “Too loud, Mom!”

My wife would get quieter and kept reading. After a couple minutes, her voice would get louder until he would again cover his ears and whisper, “Too loud!”

This happened a few times before they finally finished the book and auditory balance was restored.

We celebrated Star Wars day by all watching a movie. The older kids watched episode III upstairs for their first time. As the 7yo and 6yo and I watched Star Wars IV for the first time, they both climbed on to my lap as they got scared. The 7yo crawled over from his chair onto my lap. “Is this part scary? Well, just in case…”

The 6yo turned to me during the movie and said, “I just don’t know why. But I feel like I could just reach into the TV and hug Darth Vader. I don’t know why!”

After the movie, the 6yo was walking out and said, “Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I can’t believe that actually happened.”

Me: “Yeah.”

6yo: “Wait. Did it!? Did that really happen!?”

📖 🎧 Ender’s Game Alive

By Orson Scott Card

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!

My friend Jo Schaeffer is participating in a podcast interview on creativity and posted the question, “What challenges do you have unleashing your inner creative?” I thought about this quite a bit, and decided I wanted to share my response.

The biggest thing that helps me unlock my creativity is similar to what helps me have compassion for myself—just think of how I would treat others. My favorite thing to see from an artist is not the polished final product. Much more interesting is the rough work in progress. So even when I feel like my final product looks like a work in progress, and especially when it really is, I try to remind myself this is what I love to see from others.

My favorite book from my favorite artist is the Calvin and Hobbes: Sunday Pages 1985-1995. Each page shows his original drawings, complete with pencil lines and white out. It’s a treasure.

So often, the final product is distant and unreachable. We see what someone else has done, and think, “I could never do that.” But to see someone’s unfinished work is to be beckoned into the inner sanctum—to be trusted with raw vulnerability. That invitation is irresistible and inspiring.

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.

📖 Watchmen

By Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons