Do I Even Want to Be a Leader?

Leadership

Why people accept being leaders? Is this something we dream about as kids? When we get the question: “Who you would like to be when you grow up?”, do we answer: “A middle manager in the huge, global organization”?

Is it a matter of a “natural talent” we have and show as children to lead or maybe a set of skills that every person can learn and then use quite successfully?

Why is that some people are great leaders for their teams and the others (statistically bigger representation) are making people miserable and in consequence: quitting?

Let’s unpack this subject today.

The Story of One Tech Leader…

I work a lot with First Time Managers. Those are people who are fresh in leadership positions, statistically up to 3 years in the role. Most of the time there were great SMEs (Subject Matter Experts) and a natural move for them to grow was to be offered with a Team Leader role of the team there work in.

I remember very well one story that relate to a Tech Leader I worked with in the mentoring process a couple years back.

He was a very skilled expert in one of the leading technologies that was used in the core product of the company. He started as a junior, but learned very quickly, constantly participating in trainings, conferences and projects, working on different implementations and most of the time building functionalities from scratch. When he grew to the expert position, he also got the task of teaching others, onboarding new team members and acting as a technical mentor to them. He was doing great.

Then, as an obvious offer for the organization he got a proposition to become a Team Lead of the team: the same one that he was an expert within. He took the job: the money wasn’t extremely bigger, but potentially more organizational and strategic impact was an argument that he was sold to. He thought: “I know everything about the scope of the team’s work, what else can there possibly be?”

A few weeks later in the role showed him otherwise. He started to be a completely different person: like he had some hidden personality that was there, waiting to be awaken for so long. He started to be mean to team members, getting angry and mad very quickly when he saw any mistakes or imperfections in what the team delivered. He even got constructive feedback, by name on team daily meetings: what was unacceptable and never happened before. The team engagement started to drop; first people made decisions about leaving the area that they loved working within.

That was the moment when he was redirected to me, so I support him in this situation.

Why People Accepting Leadership Roles?

This story shows us a few aspects of why we accept those roles connected to People Management when they are on the table. What I see from working with different cases and circumstances, there are 5 reasons that are the most common: I would say they cover 80% of all decision about choosing this career path:

1. The only way to grow. Sometimes people don’t see other options. They think that accepting leadership position is the only way they can be promoted or have possibilities to learn. Either is their strong belief that can have a root even in childhood (if it was a home conviction, being expressed loudly so we picked it up as children and we took it for life) or an experience from different organizations from the past. Sometimes it is true that organizations offer more, i.e. trainings, workshops, mentorship opportunities for leaders. It shouldn’t take place, so if you see if, I would advise to reach out your supervisor or HR person to take a closer look on that.

2. Fancy position name. Team Lead, Manager, Director, Head: the higher in the structure, the fancier it sounds. And the better it looks on LinkedIn or the resume. Potentially of course. The question is: do you want to grow in the leadership space in your current and different organizations on the market in the future? If yes, ok: the name of the positions matters, since recruitment process is marketing process (for both sides). If not: it doesn’t really matter. So, first: go and answer this question.

3. More potential influence / power. Sometimes we take leadership positions because we believe that’s the only way to make a real change. To get a seat at the table, to have opportunities to say things out loud, to be an advocate of what we say as a team. To have more positive influence or power to reshape a work environment, even if it’s just a small piece of it. The question is: is it a really a truth that by changing the role to be a leader, you will have this influence, more than you have as an expert?

4. Better visibility. I hear this one a lot. And it’s connected with the more influence and power element described above, sometimes treated as one thing. “If I’m a leader, I’ll be more visible = I’ll have more credibility to make a real change.” It also comes with the visibility on the market or in the specific part of the industry: when I’m a leader, I will be more reliable, my LinkedIn will blow out and I will have countless invites as an expert / speaker / podcast guest etc. Is it really a truth? Can’t you be all of these as a real expert in your area?

5. More money. Here comes a catch. The money part most of the time comes at the very beginning of the list of reasons on why to accept the leader role. And you know what? It’s not always the case. I saw multiple examples of extremely skilled, well-known experts that earned way more money than their supervisors. Because their skillset was super niched out, and there were literally few people in the area that could’ve done what they were skilled at.

So, the real question is: what are you passionate about? What you can do all day, in the flow state, sometimes even forgetting about going to the bathroom or eat properly because you’re so into the process? If it is being a leader, taking care of the team’s work environment, give feedback and recognition, organizing the work, solve conflicts and misunderstandings every single week? If yes, that’s great: you have a lifetime of learning ahead of you to be a leader that people don’t quit.

If you are passionate about something else: being a developer, analyst, accountant, employer branding or an expert in a chosen marketing area, the leadership job is not for you. You can’t have the cake and eat the cake.

Why?

What Are the Consequences of Hating Being a Leader?

When we take leadership position and we really don’t want to deal with people, there is a high probability that we are going to make ourselves and our people miserable.

1. You won’t want to learn. Leadership skillset is quite different that the SME skillset. Yes, you can use some of the skills that you’ve acquired over the years of being a specialist, but the truth is that there are a lot of things you’ll do as a leader that you’ve never done as a non-leader. And if you don’t have a heart to it, you will reject the opportunities to learn, you won’t be willing to get new knowledge and tools to put it into practice.

2. Your frustration will influence your people. The influence of a leader on a team is bigger than we think. If we are frustrated, angry, disappointed as leaders, our people will get there too. Even when the circumstances of those emotions or reactions are different than ours, they will behave in a parallel way. Our fixed mindset will become their fixed mindset. You won’t be an advocate of the organization if you are not in the right place: and you won’t’ help your team to thrive.

3. If you hate your job, your team will their too. It is quite visible when someone loves what they do professionally. We see the passion and energy when a person talks about it, we see how much time they spend on working on some tasks, learning about the field, participating in conferences, meetups, workshops etc. It’s inspiring: even if our area of expertise is different, those behaviors itself are making a positive impact. If it’s not there, the person whines all the time on how hard it is, how exhausted they are, how pointless is everything we do here… You see the difference.

So… What is the Conclusion Here?

The conclusion is simple: you need to decide if you want to be a leader. It’s one way or the other, there is no other option here. When you decide: yes, I want to be a leader, you go all in. You delegate SME tasks, and you learn how to be a real leader for your people.

When you decide: you know what Alex? I really don’t want to be a leader: I want to do my SME tasks and grow in this space. That’s great! You can expand in the current scope or learn new things to become a broader expert. Or pivot a little bit and learn something new, reskill yourself. That’s fine as well!

What if you’ve already made a decision about being a leader and you know now that it was a bad decision?

Quit.

It’s nothing wrong with it, it doesn’t mean that you are a weak person. It means that you are a brave person, who took time to really get to know yourself and is mindful about yourself and others. It means that you don’t want to be miserable for the 60% of your life (that’s approximately how much time we spend at work: doing and thinking about it). Don’t listen to other people who say that you should suck it up and just hang on there to get another promotion in 2 years. It’s not worth it.

But working on what you are passionate about every single day? I bet it’s quite the opposite.

PS 1. You want to know what happens with the manager from the story? After few mentoring sessions with me, he had decided to quit being a leader to come back to the SME role. And you know what? He’s never been happier in his life.

PS 2. If you want to expand more on the topic from this article, go check out my newest course “3 Ways to Be a Leader that People Don’t Quit”!

Udostępnij

Komentarze

0 0 votes

Article Rating

0 komentarzy

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Czytaj także

Leadership

Work Drama Triangle (and How to Escape It)

The Drama Triangle is a psychological and social model of human interaction that highlights dysfunctional dynamics often seen in relationships, workplaces, and personal lives. Created by Stephen Karpman in 1968, this model identifies three primary roles people unconsciously adopt: the Victim, the Persecutor, and the Rescuer. While these roles may feel familiar and even comforting in the moment, they often lead to unproductive behaviors and strained relationships. By understanding the Drama Triangle and replacing it with healthier patterns like the Winning Triangle, we can transform our interactions and create more positive outcomes. And strengthen our muscle of Communication Intelligence (CQ). Let’s dig deeper into the subject today so you can understand better your behavior patterns with a practical solutions on how to get out of it. The Story of the Drama Triangle Stephen Karpman, a student of transactional analysis, developed the Drama Triangle to illustrate how people can become trapped in unhealthy relational patterns. These roles are not fixed, and individuals may shift between them during a single interaction. The triangle often begins with one person adopting a role, which triggers complementary roles in others, creating a cycle of blame, helplessness, and over-involvement. Let’s explore these roles in detail: The Victim The Victim feels powerless, overwhelmed, and unable to take responsibility for their situation. This role is characterized by self-pity and an underlying belief that “I can’t do it” or “Life is unfair.” Behaviors: Avoidance of responsibility, learned helplessness, seeking sympathy. Typical Sentences: – “Why does this always happen to me?” – “I can’t handle this.” – “No one understands how hard this is for me.” Position in the OK-OK Matrix: The Victim operates from an “I’m not OK, you’re OK” position, perceiving themselves as inferior or incapable compared to others. The Persecutor The Persecutor blames and criticizes others to maintain control or assert dominance. They often feel justified in their actions but lack empathy for others. Behaviors: Aggression, fault-finding, micromanaging. Typical Sentences: – “This is all your fault.” – “You never do anything right.” – “If you had just listened to me, we wouldn’t be in this mess.” Position in the OK-OK Matrix: The Persecutor operates from an “I’m OK, you’re not OK” position, seeing themselves as superior while devaluing others. The Rescuer The Rescuer intervenes excessively to “save” others, often neglecting their own needs. While their actions may appear helpful, they can enable Victims to remain passive and dependent. Behaviors: Overhelping, unsolicited advice-giving, neglecting self-care. Typical Sentences: – “Let me fix this for you.” – “You can’t do this without me.” – “Don’t worry; I’ll handle everything.” Position in the OK-OK Matrix: The Rescuer operates from an “I’m OK, you’re not OK” position but masks it with seemingly altruistic behavior. What Is the Cost of the Drama Triangle at Work? When workplace interactions are led by the Drama Triangle, several negative outcomes emerge: – Decreased Productivity: Time and energy are wasted on blame-shifting or rescuing instead of solving problems collaboratively. – Eroded Trust: Dysfunctional dynamics create resentment and reduce psychological safety among team members. – Stagnation: Victims avoid growth opportunities, Persecutors stifle creativity through criticism, and Rescuers prevent others from developing autonomy. – Burnout: Rescuers often overextend themselves, while Victims feel perpetually overwhelmed and Persecutors experience frustration from unmet expectations. In essence, the Drama Triangle traps individuals in cycles of conflict and inefficiency, undermining both individual well-being and organizational success. The Winning Triangle: A Healthier Alternative To break free from the Drama Triangle, Acey Choy introduced the Winning Triangle as a model for healthier interactions. This framework replaces the dysfunctional roles of Victim, Persecutor, and Rescuer with three constructive counterparts: Vulnerable, Assertive, and Caring/Coaching. These roles empower individuals to take responsibility for themselves while keeping respect and collaboration with others. And to operate from OK-OK position that gives us a chance to use all of our skills and growth mindset. Vulnerable (Replacing the Victim) Vulnerability involves acknowledging one’s feelings and needs without going into the realm of helplessness. It requires self-awareness and a willingness to seek support constructively. What can you do? – Admit when you’re struggling but frame it as an opportunity for growth. – Ask for help without expecting others to solve everything for you. – Use “I” statements to express your needs clearly. How can you say it? – “I’m feeling overwhelmed; can we brainstorm solutions together?” – “I need some support with this task—could you guide me through it?” Vulnerability fosters authenticity and encourages open communication. It creates an environment where challenges are addressed collaboratively rather than avoided. It’s healthier, creating a space to grow, make mistakes and learn from them, as well as using the experience and wisdom of others’. Assertive (Replacing the Persecutor) Assertiveness involves expressing one’s thoughts and boundaries respectfully while considering others’ perspectives. It balances confidence with empathy. What can you do? – Provide constructive feedback rather than criticism. – Set boundaries clearly but kindly. – Focus on solutions instead of assigning blame. How can you say it? – “I noticed an issue with this report; let’s discuss how we can improve it.” – “I value your input, but I need some time to focus on my own tasks right now.” Assertiveness promotes accountability and problem-solving without alienating others. It helps create a culture of respect and mutual understanding, without treating people like worse or stupid. It’s creating a chance for everybody to take their own responsibility for what they do at work. Caring (Replacing the Rescuer) Caring involves offering support without overstepping boundaries or fostering dependency. It respects others’ autonomy while providing encouragement. What can you do? – Offer help only when it’s needed or requested. – Encourage others to take ownership of their responsibilities. – Practice active listening without immediately jumping in with solutions. How can you say it? – “How can I support you in resolving this issue?” – “You’ve got this—I’m here if you need guidance.” Caring builds trust and empowers

Czytaj dalej

16 March 2025 No Comments

Leadership

Mastering Problem Solving: How to Save Time and Adapt

As a leader, you’re no stranger to problem-solving. It’s the bread and butter of leadership, the skill that keeps the wheels turning and the team moving forward. But here’s the thing: not all problems are created equal, and neither are the people solving them. One-size-fits-all solutions? They’re a myth. To truly master problem-solving, you need to understand your team, their preferences, and how to flex your approach. Let’s dive into how tailoring problem-solving strategies can transform your leadership game and strengthen your Communication Intelligence (CQ) muscle. The PCM Lens: Why Preferences Matter in Problem Solving? The Process Communication Model (PCM) teaches us that people have different personality base types, and those types influence how they prefer to face challenges. Some thrive in solitude, needing quiet time to think through problems on their own. Others prefer the intimacy of a 1:1 discussion, where they can bounce ideas off one person. Then there are those who light up in group settings, energized by collaboration and collective brainstorming. Add in the variables of virtual versus in-person environments, and you’ve got a spectrum of preferences that can make or break your problem-solving efforts. As a leader, recognizing these differences isn’t just nice-to-have—it’s essential. For example, forcing an Imaginer into a high-energy group brainstorming session might literally kill them, and they remain silenced, while expecting a Rebel to solve a problem alone at their desk could leave them disengaged. Understanding these nuances is part of building your CQ muscle—the ability to adapt your communication style and approach based on the needs of others. The High Stakes of Ignoring Problems Before we explore tools and strategies, let’s talk about what happens when leaders don’t address problems effectively—or worse, when they ignore them altogether. Unresolved problems rarely solve themselves; instead, they keep getting bigger and bigger. Small issues snowball into larger ones, creating inefficiencies, damaging trust, and eroding team morale. The costs? Missed deadlines, killed relationships, lost revenue, and even high level of voluntary turnover. No to mention toxic atmosphere, people not talking to each other, not exchanging ideas or sharing knowledge. Sounds like a long list of different cost that’s not going to be easy to rebuild. On the flip side, a proactive and tailored approach to problem-solving not only resolves immediate issues but also builds a culture of trust and collaboration. When your team sees that you’re invested in solving problems in ways that work for them, they’re more likely to engage fully and bring their best selves to the table. Problem Solving as a CQ Superpower Problem-solving is more than just a technical skill; it’s a core component of Communication Intelligence (CQ). Leaders with high CQ don’t just focus on what needs to be solved—they think about how to solve it in ways that resonate with their team. This means asking questions like: – Who needs to be involved in this process? – What environment will help us tackle this effectively? Which tools and approaches will be the worst? – How can I adapt my approach to fit the preferences of my team members? What can I do to involve them in the process? By flexing your CQ muscle, you’re not just solving problems—you’re strengthening relationships, building trust, and create a culture where everyone feels heard. Tailoring Your Problem-Solving Approach So how do you put this into practice? Here are some tools and strategies for addressing problems in different setups: Solo Problem Solving For team members who prefer working alone, give them space and time to process independently. It’s not about them being weirdos, it’s just their preference. Provide clear instructions and context, then let them take ownership of the task. Tools like project management software (i.e. Trello or Asana) can help track progress without micromanaging. You can create an online wall (i.e. on MIRO) so people can work together asynchronously in their own time and space. Set some deadlines and time for check ins. 1:1 Problem Solving Some people thrive in 1:1 settings where they can discuss ideas openly without the pressure of a group. Use this time to ask open-ended questions and actively listen to their perspective. If their preference is for you to be more direct, set the sentences straight, clear and transparent so there’s no time wasted in the middle of the process to guess what you aim here for. You can also use tools like 5 (or 7) Why, Problem Framing, Ishikawa Diagram or any other Lean tools or techniques. Make sure that you’re solving the real problem that is a root cause of your current situation. Group Problem Solving Group settings work well for those who feed off collaboration and collective energy. Facilitate brainstorming sessions or workshops where everyone can contribute ideas. Tools like whiteboards (physical or digital) or platforms like MIRO can help visualize ideas in real time. You can also use the group problem-solving methods, like Action Learning to be as effective and efficient as possible. Action Learning is a method where the group of 4-8 people sit together (online or onsite) for 1,5-hour session where one person brings a problem to solve. The group is responsible for asking questions, share their insights and create potential solutions for the problem presenter. It’s a very intense yet extremely productive session where the group is completely focused on the process of solving the issue, without distractions or doing something else in the same time. The power of this method is that people are all involved in the process, they are learning on the way and support each other. So the pros and more than just problem solved; there’s also a positive influence on knowledge sharing practices, relationship building, trust, psychological safety, reliability within a group or organization, using the variety of points of views, experiences, perspectives and talents. Action Learning is one of the best group methods to solve problems that I know and practice. Groups that I work with within this method are

Czytaj dalej

28 February 2025 No Comments

Leadership

3 Leadership Lessons I Learned from Bad Recruitment Processes

Recruitment is often described as both an art and a science—a delicate balance of intuition, data, and strategy. But sometimes, even with the best intentions, things can go awry. I’ve learned this the hard way. Over the years, my experience in leadership have taught me that recruitment mistakes are not just costly in terms of money but also in terms of time, energy, and efficiency. Today, I want to share with you three of my biggest lessons from bad recruitment decisions that I hope will help you to not repeat those in your leadership practice. #1 The Rush: When Speed Wins With Strategy There was a time when I was desperate to fill a position on my team. Aren’t we really in constant situations like that? I remember that we had a critical project coming up, I was drowning under the amount of tasks I had on my list and I convinced myself that having “someone”—anyone—on board quickly was better than waiting for the better fit. I rushed through the process, skipping some of the deeper evaluations and settling for a candidate who seemed “good enough.” The result? It ended up costing me more than I ever anticipated. The person lacked the skills and mindset needed for the role, and within six months, we had to part ways. Not only did this mean starting the recruitment process all over again, but it also disrupted my work, again. According to research by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), the average cost per hire is around $4,700. However, if you make a bad hire, the costs skyrocket. Studies estimate that replacing an employee can cost anywhere from 8 to 12 months of their salary. For example, if you hire someone with an annual salary of $50,000, replacing them could cost you between $33,000 and $50,000. And that’s just the financial side—what about the lost productivity and influence on yourself? On the team? This experience taught me a crucial lesson: rushing to fill a position is like building a house on quicksand. It may seem like you’re saving time in the short term, but in reality, you’re setting yourself up for long-term instability. #2 The Bias Trap: Judging by Brands, Not Skills Another mistake I’ve made is being overly impressed by the organizations listed on a candidate’s CV. When someone came from a big-name company or a well-known brand, I found myself assuming they must be ready to do the job. After all, if they worked at such prestigious places, they must be highly capable, right? Wrong. One candidate I hired had an impressive resume filled with experience at top-tier organizations. I was so dazzled by their background that I overlooked some red flags during the interview process—things like their lack of enthusiasm for the role or their vague answers about past achievements. It turned out that their success in previous roles was largely due to the systems and teams already in place at those organizations. In my smaller, more dynamic team, they struggled to adapt and contribute effectively. This mistake taught me to focus on the specific person, not just their past affiliations. A brand name on a CV doesn’t guarantee a cultural, personality-based or skill set fit for your organization. Now, I dig deeper during interviews, asking specific questions about their contributions and how they handle challenges in different environments. #3 Ignoring the Personality Match As someone deeply invested in Communication Intelligence (CQ) and the Process Communication Model (PCM), I know how critical personality dynamics are in any working relationship. Yet, there have been times when I ignored this knowledge during recruitment—and paid the price for it. I once hired someone who looked perfect on paper: they had the right skills, experience, and even glowing references. But what I failed to assess was how well we would work together on a personal level. Our communication styles clashed almost immediately. Where I value directness and proactive problem-solving, they preferred a more passive approach and avoided conflict at all costs. Data vs emotions. Logic vs relationship care. Nothing wrong about that, don’t get me wrong! But it comes with a cost, especially when you work in a small setup. This mismatch didn’t just affect our one-on-one interactions; it also impacted the overall efficiency. When there isn’t alignment between a leader and their team members, it creates friction that slows down decision-making and execution. According to Gallup research, disengaged employees can cost organizations up to 18% of their annual salary in lost productivity. Imagine what happens when that disengagement spreads across an entire team! Now, I make personality assessments a non-negotiable part of my recruitment process. Tools like PCM are there to use: I’m not saying that you do a questionnaire for every single candidate since it’ll cost a lot (if you can afford it, go for it!). It’s about using the framework in practice. Listen, observe, connect the dots. Everything is there, you just need to know what you’re looking for. Moving Forward: How to Avoid These Pitfalls Here’s what I’ve learned to do differently: Prioritize Fit Over Speed: Take the time to find someone who aligns with your team’s needs and culture—even if it means extending your search timeline. Remember that fast recruitment can cost you so much more time in the future. Dig Deeper Into Experience: Don’t be swayed by big names on a CV; focus on understanding what the candidate actually contributed in their previous roles. Assess Personality Compatibility: Use tools like PCM or other personality assessments or knowledge from the framework to ensure alignment between you and your potential hire. Recruitment is never going to be an exact science, but by learning from past mistakes and implementing more thoughtful strategies, you can significantly improve your chances of finding the right person for your team—and avoiding costly missteps along the way. Final Thoughts As leaders, we often feel immense pressure to make quick decisions and keep

Czytaj dalej

16 February 2025 No Comments