Leader or cheerleader — have we lost our way?

The terms “leading from the front” and “leading from behind” are two styles of leadership characterized by different but equally essential sets of behaviors. Leading from the front involves setting a direction for the team, establishing priorities and plans, clarifying roles, setting expectations for staff, monitoring results and holding them accountable for performance. By contrast, leading from behind involves connecting with staff on a personal level, communicating effectively, soliciting input, providing support, establishing trust, empowerment and sometimes letting staff members take the lead. Rather than leveraging the benefits of both styles, the pendulum typically swings from one extreme to the other depending upon social and economic values of the times, often with troublesome results.

The term “leading from behind” can be traced back to the 1950s Ohio State University leadership studies, but has become increasingly popular over the past few decades. In his 1994 autobiography, Nelson Mandela compared a successful leader to a shepherd: “He stays behind the flock, letting the most nimble go out ahead, whereupon the others follow, not realizing that all along they are being directed from behind.” 

More recently, we have also become more aware of the importance of inclusivity, cultural awareness and giving all people a voice. Add to that the complexities of a worldwide pandemic crisis and a concerning flood of headlines about “the Great Resignation.”

It is not surprising that the corporate world has responded to these external forces by introducing a gentler culture — one that offers kindness during times of crisis like the pandemic and encourages humility, empathy, trust-building, as well as whatever is necessary to keep workers motivated to return to work and combat turnover. What isn’t being taken into consideration is:

• The information in the headlines about the Great Resignation is misleading.
• Excess focus on “leading from behind” creates work productivity problems.

Upon first blush, the Great Resignation seems to refer to employees across the board having spent the pandemic reevaluating their priorities and values, leading them to leave their workplaces or demand more from their employers. Digging deeper, however, experts remind us that this prediction — made by Texas A&M Professor Anthony Klotz in 2020 — may have been exaggerated.

There may not be as many resignations as we think, and perhaps not for the reasons we believe. Instead, maybe we should be looking at the sweeping generalizations about the Great Resignation with a degree of moderation before reacting out of panic. Derek Thompson of The Atlantic describes it more as a “free agency” period for lower-income workers switching jobs to make more money, plus a “moderate surge of early retirements.” There’s also an observable uptick in resignations in some specific industries, the highest being food services and retail. But resignations are up from 3 percent to 6.8 percent and 4.7percent in these sectors — not 30 percent!

In other words, the pandemic was largely a high demand time for lower-income workers (such as restaurant or service industry employees) who were competing for better jobs, and for older workers to retire in greater numbers. Research shows that the actual labor-force participation rate increased for most groups — men and women, white and nonwhite in the primarily white-collar, and knowledge industries. But the growing stir about a potential “mass exodus” of skilled workers has, in turn, caused leaders to rotate so heavily toward “leading from behind” that they have effectively become cheerleaders for their employees. For example, the first five results in a recent LinkedIn search on “What is effective leadership?” returned: 

• Taking care of your team.
• One who sits together with his/her people.
• Apologizing, deferring to others, volunteering to take the short straw.
• Being authentic.
• Being inspiring.

We found it interesting — and concerning — that there wasn’t a single reference to getting results or leading high-performing teams to achieve critical business outcomes in the top five. We are not suggesting that empathy, humility, inclusivity, psychological safety or other behaviors associated with “leading from behind” are not important. Not at all.  What we are advocating is that leadership today actually requires carefully balancing both leading “from the front” and “leading from behind.”

An article by The Wall Street Journal about Pfizer and BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine being developed in record time under CEO Albert Bourla’s so-called “demanding” leadership style demonstrates the confusion felt over what it means to “lead from the front.” WSJ called this, “a story of urgency, innovation, creative problem-solving, agile global collaboration, calculated risk in the face of great uncertainty and performance beyond expectations,” which caused readers to wonder if we had lost our way in an era of “empathy, compassion and inclusion.”

This critical view of Bourla’s results-driven culture of innovation and accountability was viewed in line with the prevalent “leading from-behind” support philosophy. Despite impressive results, Bourla’s style may largely have been excused only because it came on the heels of the pandemic — a crisis. Aligned with his original manifest, Mandela stated that it is, in fact, appropriate for the shepherd to step forward during times of danger. But is it true that “leading from the front” is only necessary during times of crisis, change and uncertainty?

Labeling Bourla’s noteworthy “leading from the front” actions as “a demanding leadership style” loses sight of the leader’s critical role in driving an accountable culture. In a 2020 article, psychologist Rob Kaiser pointed to a growing, global “accountability crisis.” This comprehensive study showed that two out of three leaders were viewed as failing to hold employees appropriately accountable largely because of the fear of being unpopular. Too many leaders tolerate poor performance in favor of being perceived as empathetic, inclusive, empowering and authentic to further their career prospects. Unsurprisingly, over-emphasizing leading from behind is significantly related to decrements in productivity, and employees in less accountable cultures also tend to be less engaged.

Returning to the Pfizer success story, what readers glossed over was Bourla’s history of inclusive relationships, trust and resilience-building behaviors exhibited regularly before the crisis. Viewing his leadership style in a vacuum during the pandemic fails to account for the bigger picture of how he balanced both the “leading from the front” and “leading from behind” leadership behaviors depending on what (and how much) the situation called for. 

A company understanding this critical balanced approach is Sysco Corporation. “We are in the midst of executing a change agenda in Sysco that is driving growth, innovation and improving the customer and associate experience, and we’re doing this in an environment of serious speed, volatility and uncertainty,” says Sysco Vice President of Global Talent Management Michael Fischer. “Our enhanced performance management process is helping to enable this by setting a culture of accountability through frequent feedback and coaching. The focus is both on achieving results and creating a supportive and inclusive environment.”

What is the lesson here? It is certainly not to give up the leaders’ focus globally on cultural inclusion, gaining input, and building strong relationships through humility, listening and creating trust. Based on the results of the Kaiser study, we believe leaders can create an accountability culture (setting goals, holding employees accountable through ongoing feedback, coaching and support) while simultaneously  demonstrating respect, inclusivity and building strong relationships. That is, “leading from the front” does not mean “a demanding culture,” nor does “leading from behind” imply focusing on support to the exclusion of results.

The data are in: Employees are more engaged when they are part of an accountability culture! It’s time to stop cheering, to re-examine the meaning of leadership…and lead from all sides.