The Mission or the Member
Leading teams is not binary — you must learn to operate where appropriate.
Photo by Nick Fewings on Unsplash
What comes first — the mission or the member?
What if I told you that leadership isn’t binary and that there’s a significant gray area leaders must navigate to make the right decisions? Would you agree? Would you disagree? Would you, like so many others, say, “Sure, but it depends?”
I would choose the latter, and here’s why: the factors that determine where a leader should stand are limitless.
But the truth is that all of the above are true. As most successful leaders will tell you, leadership is not simply about reducing it to one side or the other. While there are great leaders on both sides — those who focus intently on the mission and those who heavily prioritize the members — the best leaders can operate in the middle, because that’s where the real leadership results are produced, no matter how you define them.
Leadership doesn’t have to be a tale of two worlds, and in today’s climate, that’s more evident than ever. It’s perfectly fine to focus on the mission, and similarly, it’s just as acceptable to pay attention to the members. But what happens when you too often concentrate on one and neglect the other? What occurs when you fail to recognize the signs that you’re leaning too heavily on one side of the equation? In short, the outcome is likely not what you’re seeking when you inherit a new team because focusing too intently on one side or the other can be costly.
Some teams want to focus on their mission, which can vary widely based on industry, sector, organizational culture, personalities, and more. However, in many cases, teams strive to achieve the mission’s objectives while also feeling valued, cared for, and appreciated. Team dynamics are complex; some teams consist of more A+ go-getters than others, while others include strong role players who aren’t seeking advancement or much visibility. Both are essential for leadership success, but first, you must understand who you’re leading before determining where on the mission-member spectrum your decision-making will fall.
So, where do you start in that process? First, begin by determining who you (a) want to be as a leader and (b) need to be as a leader. Perhaps you’re naturally more of a mission-focused leader, but after taking over a team or organization, you realize that the mission is taking care of itself, and the dynamics require you to focus more on the members. The key here is that you won’t really know what you’re getting into until you actually get into it. Once that happens, you must have the resources to learn about the team and organization so that you can find your appropriate place on the mission-member spectrum. And of course, before you can do any of that, you really need to know yourself. Because if you don’t truly understand yourself, you won’t be able to position yourself appropriately on the leadership spectrum and maintain the authenticity required for a leader to succeed.
The people being led seek authenticity from their leaders, and good leaders want their teams to understand that their idiosyncrasies reflect who they are, not who they aren’t. So, what’s the best way to share your idiosyncrasies with your team? Publish a leadership philosophy, which can range from a few words to an entire page. What does it take to create a leadership philosophy? It requires a genuine understanding of who you are and how you wish to lead. Starting from this foundation will better equip you to maintain your authenticity and position yourself effectively on the mission-member leadership spectrum. Once you know who you are, you can focus on who you’re leading, which requires emotional intelligence, assessments, relationship-building skills, and more.
Once you know yourself and your team, you can stake your claim on the mission-member continuum and pivot when necessary to meet the team’s objectives as expected. Ultimately, there’s a difference between meeting objectives the desired way and the undesired way.