Everything's Negotiable (or Is It?)

Last time I discussed how the YES! Leader needs to demonstrate flexing behaviors in order to be effective in her interpersonal interactions. I also pointed out how flexing lies at the core of many different leadership models – specifically, Situational Leadership, Emotional Intelligence, and the Five Practices of Exemplary Leaders (as described in the book The Leadership Challenge). These and many other models emphasize the importance of the YES! Leader’s shifting her behaviors with different people in order to appeal to each person’s unique set of needs and internal motivators.

I was discussing this concept with two different audiences lately and was struck by an interesting question that arose in both sessions. In essence, the question was:

Rather than acting differently around different people, shouldn’t a leader be consistent in his behaviors?

Implied in the question, I think, is the sense that a leader who’s continually shifting his behavior to achieve a certain outcome is being inauthentic at best, manipulative at worst. I think it also reflects a feeling that a leader needs to be grounded in certain core values that he (and others) can always rely on and that don’t change with the weather.

As I consider this question, it occurs to me that we have another example of a (seeming) contradiction between two different points of view. And as I’ve mentioned before, rather than make an “either-or” choice, we might look for a “both-and” path instead.

To start down this path (and I emphasize the word “start”), I’ll observe that there isn’t necessarily a contradiction between holding core beliefs and values and flexing your behavior in order to reach a principled outcome with another person. A principled outcome is much like a Win-Win result, in which both parties work together to seek a mutually positive outcome rather than engage in a game of “King of the Hill” in which the most powerful party (or the best arguer) prevails over the other. To achieve a Win-Win, each party needs to let go of entrenched positions and open himself to the viewpoints, interests, and needs of the other.

Certainly, engaging in a collaborative search for a positive outcome doesn’t render a person inauthentic or manipulative. And holding to an entrenched position in the name of consistency wouldn’t be a particular virtue in such a joint endeavor.

But does this mean that everything’s negotiable? That the leader should never draw a line in the sand and say “Do not pass”? No – and this is where the leader’s core values and beliefs come into play. There is virtue in a leader’s knowing when to make a stand, when to insist on having her way, when to be influential and not influenceable. 

For example, if the other party is advocating something unethical or illegal, the leader shouldn’t just treat the other’s view as an interesting idea worthy of further development. She should just say “No.” This is where consistency has its place – to show that the leader is principled, dependable, and guided by bedrock values upon which others can rely no matter what.

REFLECTIONS FOR THE YES! LEADER

·         What are your “non-negotiables” - the core values that guide you?

·         Do you know your non-negotiables well enough so that you can instantly determine when to draw a line in the sand?

·         Do your non-negotiables extend so far that they make you rigid and unbending rather than dependable and principled?

·         Do you leave yourself enough room for flexing so you can adapt your behaviors to the needs of the moment – or do you continually fall back on legalistic rules of conduct that you uniformly apply in the name of consistency?