Do You Need To Take A Step Back?

There can be a range of reasons for this preference. Perhaps the most typical is that we feel comfortable adding high relationship behaviour to highly directive behaviour. It just feels more appropriate to add a dose of "niceness".

Another reason for preferring this style is that we frequently find ourselves working with people who seem to need and respond well to this approach. The challenge, of course, is that a high relationship, high task style also requires high-involvement and is highly demanding on our time.

It's a style that's great for helping people develop - but not a great style for the ongoing management of people and situations. For at least three reasons:

1. The time and involvement demands of this style mean that you effectively have two people working on the same task. That's okay when you're developing someone's proficiency, but it's not okay as an ongoing arrangement.
2. Some people get really comfortable with clear direction and lots of support. It's not surprising, because it provides a sense of comfort and reassurance. But it also creates dependency and discourages responsibility if there's no clear process of disengagement and handing over of accountability for the task.
3. While some people enjoy the close attention and support of this style, plenty of others find it confusing, irritating and even suffocating. They can also interpet it as conveying a lack of trust in their ability or responsibility.

So, despite the fact a high relationship and high task leadership style offers great benefits, like all styles it also has its limitations and potential problems. Which is why, despite its popularity, it's not an "ideal" or "fall-back" style by any means.

The aim of effective leadership is to create the conditions for others' success. Part of this is to develop people's ability and confidence to the point of appropriate autonomy so that they can operate without close supervision.

One of the dangers of over using a high relationship, high task style is that it can limit this development because of the dependency it can breed.

If you find yourself over using this style, here are three ways in which you can adapt your leadership behaviour to ensure you aren't locking yourself or others into a limiting situation:

1. Assess the individual's (or team's) demonstrated performance. Do they still need the level of hands-on task and/or relationship behaviour you are providing? Need. Not want. Remember, it's their responsibility to do their job. It's your responsibility to equip them for the task.
2. If the answer to the question above is "yes", ask yourself what you need to do to develop them to the next stage - i.e., the stage where they don't need as high a level of engagement from you - especially on the task side. Is there some specific ability or knowledge that needs developing? Is there a standard that's not being met - and if so, what's the cause? Is there some aspect of the task that you are repeatedly having to do, re-do, explain or supervise? Why? Identify what is the highest value direction or skill or structure they need from you - and then deliver it with the expressed expectation that next time they'll be able to do it without you having to be a hands-on participant.

   This, of course, is "common sense", but we all fall prey to the temptation to just "do it ourselves because it's quicker". And sometimes it helps preserve a sense of control if others are dependent on our involvement. But if our aim is the sustained and autonomous success of others we need to work towards stepping back so they can step up.

3. If the answer to the question of whether you need to be as involved is "no", then plan to begin progressively reducing your level of hands-on involvement. Don't go cold turkey though, if people have come to expect - even depend on - high involvement from you, let them know that you have confidence in their ability to operate more autonomously and that you expect them to do so. Set new expectations for your own involvement, including establishing clear understanding about standards, procedures, reporting and authority. You're not abandoning them, just stepping back a pace so they can take more responsibility.

The keys are self-awareness and accurate assessment of the individual's or group's performance. We all have "default" styles that we are more comfortable with. The key is to know when these styles are helpful and when they are a hindrance.

And before we attempt to use any leadership style, it makes sense to try to identify what people's task needs are. How much direction and/or support do they need? What's the next stage of development we need to help them achieve? If the aim is for them to step up, when do we need to step in and when do we need to step back?

One way to think about this is to ask yourself what will be happening in a month / three months if nothing about your involvement changes? What do you need to change to ensure that you won't still be over-involved? That they won't still be over-dependent? That they are stepping up and taking responsibility?

When we set high but realistic expectations for people they tend to live up to those expectations - provided we deliver the appropriate levels of direction and support. It's ironic that, with the best of intentions, sometimes our preference for over-involvement can actually communicate low expectations and thus limit people's efforts to grow.

So if you're like many of us who have a preference (or at least a "default setting") for stepping in and getting too involved for too long, remember that "taking a step back is sometimes the best way to help someone else take a step up".

Author Credits