I'm Right Here! Don't Email Me!

You cannot lead through email. You may be able to manage electronically, but you cannot lead. Leaders empower employees, share their vision and help others feel engaged. To do that takes more that a hastily written email. Effective leaders communicate in-person, not behind an @ sign.

Unfortunately, as email has become entrenched in most organizations, the temptation to use written words instead of face-to-face leadership is greater than ever. According to InformationWeek, business users in the United States send and receive, on average, over 300 e-mails a day. This pervasive use of email has made it the default means of communicating, even when the employees are right outside your office!

Let me be clear; I am not suggesting you stop using email. Used properly, it is an efficient means of communicating when you need to attach documents, create a written record or communicate the same message to a large number of people. But those are managerial functions, not leadership. More importantly, just because something is efficient, such as email, doesn’t mean it is also effective (a Subtlety of Leadership). Instead, I am suggesting that when you lead, do not use email.

As a leadership tool email is ineffective for a number of reasons. First, it is virtually impossible to incorporate your ‘tone’ in an email. Conveying tone in a written document is a skill most leaders sorely lack. Writing in their book Send, Schwalbe & Shipley caution that “a message written without regard to tone becomes a blank screen onto which the reader projects his own fears, prejudices, and anxieties.” Without the proper tone, your words can be easily misconstrued or misunderstood.

Another reason email (or any written communication) is ineffective for exerting leadership is that you cannot receive important non-verbal clues about your message. Nathaniel Lewis explained it this way

“When you take away the visual cues, facial expressions, sighs and pauses that are noticeable in a face to face conversation something is lost in the translation and understanding of the thing being said. The ability to adjust or change the course of a discussion or conversation is only possible when you have facial expressions that either show acceptance or doubt.”

As a leader you need to be able to adjust your delivery to your audience based on feedback; both what is heard and what is seen. Richard Garlikov described it like this: “In spoken conversations there is normally more proximity in time and/or space between the participants than there is in written communications. This allows more immediate, helpful feedback and audio or visual cues about what needs to be said next.” By communicating in-person you will know if your employee ‘gets it’.

There is an easy way to decide between the efficiency of email and the effectiveness of verbal communication. Before clicking ‘New Email’ ask yourself three simple questions:
1. Do I ‘need’ (not want) a written record of the message?
2. Is the message for more than two people?
3. Is another document essential to my message?
If you can answer ‘yes’ to any of the above, an email may be an appropriate tool.

If you answered no, get out of your chair and be a leader!

Your Desk – Your Barrier

Your desk is a barrier to effective leadership. Yes, that hunk of furniture holding all those papers, pictures, and your computer is a barrier…if you try to lead from behind it.

Where you place your desk in your office is truly a Subtlety of Leadership. In fact, it is so subtle that most corporate leaders never think about the impact it may have on employees entering your office.

Your office is a direct reflection of you. It reflects your likes and dislikes. It shows your style and it tells your story. In fact, salesmen are taught to form an early bond with customers by quickly surveying a client’s office to find clues about things the customer likes.

Since your office is a reflection of you, what does it say to employees when you place a large, solid object between you and them? As Hunt & Weintraub wrote in their book, The Coaching Manager,

“It takes more than open-door management. It takes an awareness of the fact that as a leader, you’re always sending signals. Does your behavior signal that you’re interested in the employee, or not?”

Like it or not, when you sit across a desk from an employee, the physical structure creates a barrier that you must overcome to effectively lead. Good communication is already difficult. Creating artificial barriers makes it even more so. When there is a desk between you and another person, the desk may imply that you are "above" them. The discomfort that arises can impede the communication process and erode your ability to lead.

Sitting across a desk from your employee also shows a general lack of decorum. That’s not just my opinion. Read what Cynthia Grosso, the Founder of the Charleston School of Protocol and Etiquette wrote:

“I suggest that you do not sit across the desk from your guest, but rather put him/her next to you on the same side of the desk. This means your office needs to be set up with two chairs on the same side of the desk. This positioning eliminates the desk as a barrier between you and your guest.”

The topic of a desk-as-a-barrier is nothing new. In fact, clinical studies conducted almost sixty years ago demonstrated that positioning a desk between a doctor and a patient increased the patient’s anxiety five-fold! The 1953 study at Mount Sinai Hospital measured how cardiac patients reacted when they were seated across from a physician with and without a desk between them. The results were staggering: 55.4% were judged ‘at ease’ when no desk was present versus only 10.8% when a desk was between them.

A good leader doesn’t lead from behind a desk. She knows that she will look at emails or start glancing at whatever is on her desk. Don’t kid yourself. People know when you aren’t focused on them or what they are saying. M. Scott Peck said it best "You cannot truly listen to anyone and do anything else at the same time."

Good leaders strive to create a sense of commonality or common ground. If your desk is situated correctly, there will be open space between you and your employee when he enters your office. This puts you in a powerful position in which you can turn to face them. This subtle act of moving ‘toward’ the person indicates an openness and willingness to communicate. On top of that, researchers at University of Northern Iowa determined that individuals using open body positions are perceived more positively and are considered more persuasive than those with closed body positions.

To know whether your desk is situated properly, stand in your office doorway. Can you walk directly from your door to your chair without going around your desk? If not, it is likely that anyone walking into your office will be forced to communicate across the barrier you created with your desk.

There is one caveat to this rule; don’t place your desk so your back is to the door or entrance. This is less welcoming, could be misinterpreted as disinterest and may make you appear unapproachable.

While the method described above is ideal, there are plenty of situations in which the desk as a barrier cannot be overcome. A prime example is a cubicle or office in which the furniture is attached. Office size may also restrict your ability to situate the desk properly. In addition, desk placement is not usually an issue in home offices or offices in which you don’t have visitors.

If you cannot avoid a “barrier desk”, try one of these options to minimize its impact on your ability to communicate your message:
- place a chair at the end of your desk
- always move around and sit next to your employee
- ensure that all meetings and extended discussions are conducted over a round table (rectangular tables always have a ‘head’)

To Lead or To Manage?

What is the difference between Leadership and Management? Recently a colleague wrote me that she had never really thought about it until she read a quote from Bob Lewis in his book Keep the Joint Running, A Manifesto for 21st Century Information Technology.

“If people are following then you’re leading. Otherwise you aren’t. That’s what leadership is about – setting direction, and getting others to head in that direction without your having to drag them along. Management, in contrast, is about getting things done – about defining good processes and producing quality results efficiently. If you accept this segregation of responsibilities then make sure you master management before you master leadership.”

Grasping the subtle differences between leading and managing is crucial for anyone with employees. Most definitions are similar to Lewis’ above. Management is typically about processes, procedures and control, whereas leadership is often comprised of much more intangible skills. Mastering management is easier. If you make sure people follow the processes and procedures, you are managing. Learning and using the nuances of leadership is much more difficult. If management is a science, leadership is definitely an art.

Interestingly, many of today’s writers, including Lewis, tend to separate the two disciplines as if they are distinct and unique skills. Jack Welch, retired CEO of General Electric often said that he wants his top people to lead not manage. In an interview with a San Francisco newspaper, Welch said “Managers control, they don't facilitate. Managers complicate things, they don't simplify them.” He uses the analogy that managers tend to keep their feet on the brakes rather than on the gas.

While I have great respect for the wisdom of Jack Welch, I disagree with his “either/or” approach. I believe management is part of Leadership, not a separate discipline.

In my experience, effective leaders exhibit advanced skills such as communicating, empathizing, coaching, and adapting to change. Management should be viewed as another skill of a good leader. Generally speaking, you cannot be an effective leader without also being a good manager.

So, while Lewis’ suggestion that we “master management before you master leadership,” may be correct, it is also a bit misleading. It would be more accurate to say “master management as part of mastering leadership” because you cannot be a great leader without also knowing how to manage. Mark Shead said it another way: “A leader is someone who knows where to go. Management skills are how they actually get there.”

While the differences may be subtle, they are significant. Effective leadership is important because it is impacts your employees and the success of your organization. Studies have shown that most employees, regardless of their role, responsibilities or position will produce more, and the results will be of higher quality, when they feel empowered and engaged in their job. If you are “managing” your employees to get things done, you will achieve much more by “leading” them.

To know whether you are leading or just managing, consider this perspective from David Straker at ChangingMinds.org:

“The biggest difference between managers and leaders is the way they motivate the people who work or follow them. By definition, managers have subordinates. Leaders do not have subordinates - at least not when they are leading. Many organizational leaders do have subordinates, but only because they are also managers. But when they want to lead, they have to give up formal authoritarian control, because to lead is to have followers, and following is always a voluntary activity.”

The answer to whether you are leading or managing is whether your employees are followers or subordinates. If you depend on processes and procedures to accomplish your objectives, you are managing. If you are sharing your vision and empowering your people, you are leading.

Leadership Subtlety: Before leaving your desk for an interaction with employees, try substituting the word Leader or Leadership in your title in place of supervisor, manager or vice-president. Now decide; are you going to “manage” or “lead”?