Demotion > Promotion
This past week, I made my third unsuccessful attempt to get myself demoted. The team I lead is highly skilled and experienced, and together we’re about to embark on two major new initiatives in 2025. Both ventures will be built from scratch and run largely on volunteer labor, which adds to their emotional and purposeful impact. I’ve really enjoyed the process of casting vision and strategically planning how to build and launch these teams.
However, after attending a training session last week, I returned feeling emotionally overwhelmed at the scope of the project. I began to map out all the tasks, training, and structures that need to be established within the next four months. From a stewardship perspective, I don’t believe hiring new staff is the right solution. The kind of leader needed to build and launch these initiatives is very different from the type who would be best suited to manage them long-term. I told my boss that, while I’m confident no one would be better at starting and building these ventures than me, I know I’ll only bring them to about 80% of their full potential. At that point, the best move would be to hand leadership over to someone who excels at maintaining systems, processes, and routines, while I return to finding new opportunities and solving problems.
One of the things I’ve come to appreciate through my study of leadership is the importance of letting go of the notion that leaders must have all the answers and be good at everything. I wrote in a previous blog about the value of knowing yourself, and as I reflect on this, I’m reassured that I’m the right person to build these ventures. But I’m also completely okay with passing the torch when the time comes for someone else to lead them into the next phase of growth and development.
Daniel Goleman wrote an article for the Harvard Business Review over two decades ago, explaining that leaders who can employ multiple leadership styles tend to achieve better results than those who rely on just one. In his later book, Primal Leadership, Goleman expanded on these styles, describing their impact and when they’re most effective. The styles he outlined include:
Visionary: Moves people toward a shared dream. Most effective during times of change or when clear direction is needed.
Coaching: Connects a person’s desires to the larger organizational goals. Effective for long-term results, though it can sometimes decrease short-term effectiveness.
Affiliative: Creates harmony by fostering connections among people. Useful for healing rifts and motivating teams during stressful periods.
Democratic: Values input and encourages participation. Builds buy-in and consensus.
Pacesetting: Sets high performance standards. Best for achieving excellent results with a motivated and capable team.
Commanding: Provides clear direction in a crisis. Most effective in emergencies.
I found comfort in Goleman’s research, affirming that adjusting my leadership style for this moment is the right decision. I also appreciated my boss’s use of an affiliative approach in redistributing some of my responsibilities and those of my team, allowing us to move toward new opportunities without letting me take the easy way out by stepping down 😊.
Leaders, how often do you adapt your leadership style based on the current season and the opportunities facing you and your team?