#93: 8 Paradoxes of Leadership Agility (Notes)

Leaders grapple with the contradiction between the needs of the individual and the needs of the team. What is fair or equal? Is it fair to treat everyone the same way? Or since each person is different, shouldn’t each one be treated differently?

This paradox occurs when leaders need to make decisions concerning an individual in order to preserve the integrity and motivation of the team. One needs to manage tension by focusing on individuals and teams appropriately and with 'fairness'.

Leaders struggle to keep their individual identity separate from the system in which they work. The system feeds the identity of the leader, and conversely, the leader's personality and style also shapes the identity of the system, and the lines between the self and the system are blurred. The leader may feel pressured to conform to norms that compromise the sense of self and is troubled by these questions: Should I lose myself so I can blend in, or ignore others and just be me? How will I know if I'm overly self-focused?

To achieve a state of balance in this paradox, one needs to regain a sense of self and disentangle it from the system while maintaining a healthy attachment.

Most individuals become leaders through their initiative and natural leadership ability. Excellent learners, they become subject matter experts early in their careers, distinguish themselves as "having the best brains" and earn respect and support despite having no official title as leader.

To rise from being a follower to a leader, you have to lead. To experience success as a leader, you need to unlearn what you have learned. You need to expand your inventory of skills and not rely only on the methods that brought you to this point.

A top-down action approach is where direction and methods of implementation come from those in authority. Top-down initiatives can be effective or even necessary—for example, when management needs to roll out an unpopular initiative that could bring long-term gains that outweigh short-term pain.

However, there are situations where top-down initiatives fail, and employees feel perturbed by how decisions are made and implemented. They may feel frustrated that decisions and processes affecting them were carried out without adequate observation or prior consultation.

Does this mean we should always listen only to those on the ground or simply follow what the majority wants? When a leader leans too heavily on a top-down management style, they may find themselves clashing with the very people who are supposed to execute the plan. On the other hand, if they rely too much on consensus, they might be paralysed by indecision, caught between opposing camps.

Regardless of which management style is dominant or preferred, one needs to examine his or her approach when faced with fierce resistance or stalled plans.

In this paradox, leaders can become so focused on completing tasks that they forget to inspire the people they work with. To resolve this, two aspects must be balanced: purpose and preparedness.

First, help employees understand why the task matters—what makes the effort worthwhile. This purpose fuels motivation and helps people push through challenges.

Second, set employees up for success by equipping them with the right skills and tools, such as sound judgment, discernment, and problem-solving skills. When employees understand the objectives, they can make good decisions—even without direct guidance from their leaders.

People want to find meaning in their work. When an organisation helps its members see the value of what they do, it benefits from stronger engagement, talent retention, and overall performance. Most people don't mind working hard—they mind doing work that feels meaningless.

Leaders should regularly communicate:

1. Why the project was initiated

2. Where employees fit into the larger plan

3. How their contributions help fulfill the organisation’s vision

   
   

In addition, leaders must ensure employees have what they need to succeed:

• Teach them how to think and act when facing constraints

• Guide them to weigh options in line with organisational goals

• Provide the tools and training to build relevant skills

This paradox is about the leadership approach—how much control to give, and how assertive the leader should be.

Most people prefer to be empowered as empowerment is usually associated with trust and autonomy. Someone who feel empowered may say things like, "My boss trusts me to make the best decisions and gives me full autonomy to do my work in the way I think best." Or they may say, "I am allowed to be creative and resourceful, and when I am stuck, I can turn to my boss for support and guidance." Empowerment of staff is also positively associated with improved morale and commitment.

Does this mean all leaders should be empowering? While this has been advocated as a preferred leadership style, a leader might need to be more enforcing and prescriptive in some situations, such as when employees lack the maturity or readiness to take greater responsibility, or where protocols or standards must be strictly followed.

To navigate this paradox, a leader must recognise that different circumstances require different leadership styles.

This paradox describes the need for leaders to stay true to their principles, their "true north", and yet remain adaptable. To resolve this paradox, the leader needs to know when to remain unchanged and when to adapt. In this volatile world, the best decision is often not immediately apparent.

But one thing is clear, leaders must be decisive about whether to maintain the status quo or to adapt and evolve. Either way, a clear choice must be made so the resultant actions flow from a commitment to a plan and not from indecision or inaction.

Leaders face this paradox under various scenarios such as changes in leadership, team structure, or personal life. To navigate seasons like this, leaders need to know whether to stay constant or adapt and change.