Skip to content
    May 19, 2025

    Leading vs. Enforcing: Getting Better Engagement

    During the Revolutionary War, General Washington was known to sleep in the snow with his men. He often went to the highest point on a battlefield, taking the most risk as he fought next to his soldiers. More recently, Ursula Burns, the first Black CEO of Xerox, was mission-driven in having a work culture that provided dedicated allies to support employees in achieving their goals. Ally Financial offers a minimum wage of $23 an hour, which is higher than the finance industry's average of $19. Micron Technology gives employees, on average, 62 hours of career training per team member annually. Each of these examples was a clear message by the leadership that they care about their employees.

    There continues to be the misguided view by some companies that burn and churn, or excessive overtime, is the best way to get more productivity and hit quarterly earnings goals. But the productivity data going back decades does not support that view. Too often, leaders end up being enforcers instead of leaders who get the most out of their teams.

    An enforcer may be viewed as an authoritarian manager. They typically don’t ask for team input. They prefer to stand separate from the team and keep as much control and power as they can. They may also be good at clear direction, but may not be good at fostering better creative problem solving. They also may be killing the morale of their team. They may believe they have the best knowledge base and experience to make decisions. However, being only one person, they miss out on hearing other solutions to problems or potentially a more efficient approach to workflow, based on someone else’s experience. They may be holding back the higher levels of productivity they would like to see.

    Back in 2015, Professor Beer, who was teaching at Harvard Business School at the time, gave a presentation on what type of leadership would be most productive in the 21st Century. His definition was head, heart, hands, and leaders. The head referred to leaders being lifelong learners, understanding that as change speeds up, it’s important as a leader to continually work to understand new ideas, new technologies, and new ways of addressing inefficiencies. He shared that when you have that mindset and link it to a sense of empathy, that can help a leader be more connected to his team. It also leads to being more open to listening to team members. The hands refer not to what a leader gives, but rather how they connect. An aware leader knows their strengths and knows how to strategically connect with others who have complementary strengths.  This allows the team to be stronger and more effective.

    From the employee perspective, reporting to managers who are more head, heart, and hands leaders helps them feel valued. They will be more open to discussing problems and barriers to productivity, sharing potential solutions, and are more likely to be loyal to the company they work for as well as their team. These types of leaders also empower employees, based on their experience, to act on their own judgment instead of having to get everything approved. Of course, there are some decisions that need leadership input. But the more trust managers give to key team members, the more they will be able to help the entire team be more productive.

    If the enforcing model has been ingrained in a company culture, helping leaders adjust to a different style of leadership can take time.  But the investment in making that happen can create a more engaged workforce and potentially increase productivity. Over time, it will attract more talent that wants to contribute and make the company a success.

    Related Blog Posts

    View All Blog Posts