The big carrot approach

I recieved some good feedback about my blog post concerning Leading from your heart.

Many agreed that the 'How can I help?' inverted model of leadership encourages the formation of a high performing team. Any leader on the team (including the Architect) not behaving in this manner casts a dark shadow on the team. A shadow under which strong teams don't flourish.

I thought the most interesting discussion surrounded how the 'big carrot approach' of influencing teams towards a shared goal or vision required just that.... a vision. And the sad truth about America was that we have become increasingly blinded by tactics. The evidence, as it was presented to me, was on the way in which the United States has been been led. From the failed vision of Iraq, to the inability to create strategy which prevented the current economic crisis. Ok, perhaps the feedback was from a liberal upset with the current administration... but politics aside, it raised an interesting point.

Our desire for instant results often makes us do some crazy tactical things. Influence using the carrot is problematic, as it takes more time, more energy, and may not even work. Quick results are had by simply beating the team into submission with a big stick. But by golly, the big stick approach works. And managers and architects alike use it to drive teams to implement products and create business value. In my heart though, I am not certain how sustainable an authoritarian style is. Team engagement would suffer, as top performers noticed instances of what would seem to them as illogical decision making and the discounting of sound advice.

Another interesting discussion I had was with someone who felt that the leader of the team was irrelevant. They cited instances of project managers who were incompetent, while a high performing team still was able to deliver successful projects. My thought here is that it stems from the difference between organizational and influential leadership. Organizational leaders are appointed to the position and are given authority over team member's paychecks and reviews, whereas influential leaders have no authority and obtain followers using the big carrot approach. The conclusion I came to was that while a strong team is critical to success, a team leader is equally critical. It is just a question on where the leader sits in the organization. It isn't a requirement that the leader have the team as direct reports, the leader could be the architect, or the tech lead, or a tester. Someone embedded in the team who has the courage to stand up and offer their opinions and vision for criticism. A vision that would define success and drive the team towards it.