I was getting breakfast with a colleague last week, and we were talking about leadership. Specifically we talked about polish. I told her that I preferred unpolished leaders; she disagreed.
For me, it’s examples like General Mattis that come to mind as an excellent and unpolished leader. I had the honor of serving under him and learned a great deal from him during my time in the Marine Corps. And I recall when he took some heat from the press for speaking from the heart. As I work through his book Call Sign Chaos, I think this quote sums up his leadership style:
When your Marines know you care about them, then you can speak bluntly when they disappoint you.
As my friend and I talked, it was obvious our definition of unpolished leadership wasn’t the same. Since then, I’ve been chewing on what to call it. Authentic leadership? Straightforwardness? Blunt and raw over verbose and fluffy? I’m sure many will tell me I’m describing servant leadership, but that term is so bloated that I prefer not to mention it. Maybe it would be easier if I just described what’s on my mind.
- Unpolished leaders have the ability to persuade those above of a difficult proposition but the unwillingness to use that skill to convince a subordinate that bullshit doesn’t stink.
- It’s leaders who use their position to protect their people not to control them.
- It’s a demeanor and sense of character that cleans up nicely for those above but who more enjoys rolling up their sleeves and getting some dirt under their nails.
- It’s doing the right thing simply because it’s the right thing to do.
- It’s the wisdom to recognize the right time to be blunt, to be gentle, and most importantly to be quiet. As my grandma taught me as a child:
You have two ears and one mouth. Do the math.
- If these unpolished leaders must submit to corporate BS, they use it to benefit their people and not themselves.
- It’s our leaders’ ability to be true to themselves but also adapt their style to fit the person or circumstance. Let’s call it elastic authenticity.
- It’s knowing when to act swiftly but also knowing when to be more thoughtful or strategic.
- It’s being radically transparent and candid but never sharing confidential or privileged information.
- These unpolished leaders are punctual. They exercise discipline and consistency in decision making. They’re dependable. When unavoidable, these leaders let down their superiors before they let down their subordinates.
- They lack ego. They freely admitting failure so others can learn from their mistakes.
- It’s stoking my passion but also telling me when I’m being a dummy.
- It’s resisting the tides of corporate stupidity realizing it could cost them their next promotion.
I feel like what I describe above is uncommon, and I want to call it unpolished leadership. Still, I’m certain that the name is ill-fitting so what should I call it instead? And I’m curious. What would you add, change, or remove?
Do you want to get notified when new posts are published? Leave your email below.
I’d almost call it authentic leadership. Authentic leaders have a core set of principles that guide them, at work and away and when they speak bluntly to anyone; they are being true to that core set of principles. We’ve all seen ‘leaders’ who play the game, who are fake, who are excessively obsequious to superiors and excessively fake to subordinates. Authentic leaders don’t play the game. That’s not to say that they are not thoughtful in the way they approach superiors or subordinates, but they are genuine in every iteration. It earns them respect.
Scrum masters have to be authentic leaders because their entire existence is to support their team. It can’t be about them and they must protect their team from the inevitable corporate waterfall thinking and administrative BS that comes with any large organization. They must speak plainly and bluntly both to their teams and to management and their can never be any doubt where they stand. Authentic.
Soldiers can tell an authentic leader from a poser pretty easily and I’ve found that’s true of people in the civilian work place as well.
I complete agree, John, but I worry. Think of a few of these unauthentic leaders that you’ve run into over the years. Do you think they think they’re purposefully being disingenuous? Have you ever heard the idea that if you tell yourself a lie for long enough that you begin to believe it yourself? For me, the ones that come to mind have either convinced themselves of this lie, lack the emotional intelligence to appreciate their behaviors, or have rationalized that it’s the only way to get ahead or get things done.
It’s part of the reason I stuck with “unpolished” even though I felt quite awkward in describing General Mattis as such. That’s especially true since many who know him well describe him as quite polished.
True today, and true 10,000 years ago.
I agree with what you said and as a Scrum Master I try to make sure that the team comes first before my own personal interests.
I have a concern with the comment:
“They exercise discipline and consistency in decision making. They’re dependable. When unavoidable, these leaders let down their superiors before they let down their subordinates.”
I try to treat all the stakeholders with the same level of respect whether that be internal or external to the team. I don’t feel like there is a preference for who gets let down. To me it boils down to what makes the most sense as we all know you can’t make everyone happy.
I agree with you that it is better to be blunt rather than to play the game as some people put it. I have noticed though that it comes with a risk where you have to make sure to keep your emotions in check because if you are used to being blunt and you make a comment more as an emotional response rather than rational thinking you put yourself at serious risk of losing credibility or worse. I guess this leads back to your comment about making decisions that are whats best for the team rather than yourself.
Great blog! Keep these ideas coming.
Thanks. I appreciate the kind words, Jason. 🙂
To your concern:
“I try to treat all the stakeholders with the same level of respect whether that be internal or external to the team. I don’t feel like there is a preference for who gets let down. To me it boils down to what makes the most sense as we all know you can’t make everyone happy.”
I agree with everything you mention above, but here’s the thought I have in my head. Have you seen managers who are always late to meetings with their people but always on time to meetings with their boss? What about managers who always can spare 5 minutes for their boss in the moment but puts off those same 5 minutes for one of their people until the next day? I like to believe I work for my teams. After all, it’s they who get the work done. My company can survive without me, and they can survive without my boss. However, the company can’t survive without all the brilliant minds building the product.
Having said that, I’ll do all I can to not let anyone down, but I make a point to have my priorities top of mind when I can’t avoid it. Still, there will always be times where context suggests that I should violate this heuristic, and that’s ok. What matters is I’ve considered the opportunity cost (even briefly) before making my decision.
I agree that unpolished doesn’t fit. It has an underlying tone of lacking key leadership skills. What you described though is someone who has truly mastered the skills required by a leader.
I’m leaning towards something like “Scrupulous” or “Principled”. Someone who is clear about their standards and communicate them the appropriate way for the situation at hand.
Principled. I’ve struggled to find the right word for it, and I think I like that one best. It’s definitely better than unpolished.
Thank you for sharing this, Tanner!