TL; DR: Good leaders don’t decide whether to be hands-on or hands-off. They decide what the person in front of them needs today.
We spend a lot of time talking about whether leaders should be hands-on or hands-off. My concern is that labels like these narrow our thinking. They encourage consistency when leadership often demands adaptability. Ironic, I know. I’ve spent years preaching the value of consistency, but perhaps I’ve been talking about consistency of purpose, not consistency of approach.
So instead of deciding whether to be hands-on or hands-off, I think there’s a more important question to ask:
What are you trying to accomplish with your involvement—or your absence?
The same behavior can communicate completely different things depending on the circumstance.
Stepping in can say, “I’ve got your back,” or it can say, “I don’t trust you.” Stepping away can say, “I believe in you,” or it can say, “You’re on your own.” The action isn’t what matters most. What matters most is what you intend that action to accomplish.
Every decision to step in—or step away—teaches your people something. They may learn that you trust them, that you’re there to help, or that they’re on their own. The question is whether they’re learning what you intended.
Speaking of learning, the fastest way to finish the work is often to take over. However, the best way to develop someone could be to let them wrestle with it a little longer. The best decision for the work isn’t always the best decision for the person. Sometimes, that’s alright. But here’s where it can get tricky.
Manage your time, not your work. After all, work is infinite, and time is finite.
Every “yes” to one person is inevitably a “not right now” to someone else. That’s why leadership isn’t about being hands-on or hands-off. Instead, it requires deliberate choices about where to invest our limited attention.
Do you want to get notified when new posts are published? Leave your email below.
