Leading the Way: Leadership should be substance over style

A few weeks ago, I heard from a reader who shared a story about hiring an internal candidate for a job he had been struggling to fill.

The hiring manager discovered the applicant was a single mother whose misplaced reputation was for irregular attendance during “normal” work hours. Otherwise, her production and results were good and reliable.

He hired her based on her skills and experience, and then modified a schedule to accommodate her needs.

She turned out to be one of the best employees he's ever had.

His story reinforces a “substance over style” approach to decision-making and leadership. Substance and results are measurable where style and opinions are difficult to quantify.

Outcomes are substance that can sustain relevance where trends can fall out of favor. If a leader is suspected of pandering for perceptions (style), his or her integrity risks compromise as well as that of the organization.

In “Authentic Leadership Theory and Practice,” William Gardner, Bruce Avolio and Fred Walumbwa make this point: “With today's pressures to pursue style over substance, keep up with latest fads, assume superficial and disposable identities (personas), and compromise one's values to ‘make the numbers,' the challenge to know, show and remain true to one's real self has never been greater.” I concur.

Popularity

At one point, I worked for a very effective leader who was an experienced strategist with intuitive operational insight. He had a natural ability to organize, systematize and articulate vision, purpose and desired outcomes, and he was recognized by his peers as the best practitioner in his industry.

Unfortunately his popularity suffered during a time of crisis because he was not charismatic or energetically flashy in anyway. The stakeholders wanted style over substance, and pushed him out for a more colorful leader who could debonairly “work” the media and “sell” to mainstream “consumers.”

The results:

• Several loyal and talented employees became disenfranchised and left to pursue other opportunities.
• The organization experienced setbacks and fell short on desired outcomes, which led to public backlash.
• And the once-popular manager lost credibility because, despite his wonderful persona, he failed to lead, deliver and/or sustain tangible results. He struggled with employee commitment, cost containment and maintain positive organizational momentum.

Leading, articulating and motivating organizations toward substantive and quantifiable goals, results and outcomes will produce greater value for employees, stakeholders and “customers.”

The substantive “products” of an individual and organization are what helps drive value, integrity, purpose and credibility.

In his books about leadership, “Good to Great” author Jim Collins implies that style is “feel good,” while substance is credible. He cites many examples of top-performing organizations with productive employees led by thoughtful, deliberate and collaborative people.

Employees will work for leaders who share clear and identifiable outcomes. Stakeholders will invest in predictable and sustainable results. And customers will pay for reliable products.

And while a little window dressing has some attraction, it has no value if there is no substance.

This thought is not new. In fact, 25 years ago Joseph Badaracco and Richard Ellsworth wrote in “Leadership and the Quest for Integrity” that “Ideas, well-conceived and clearly articulated, have power in directing the behavior and commitment of people toward issues of substance. The best ideas ultimately shape the motivations of employees, the quality of company decisions and consequently, its performance.”

So I think it's fair to suggest that a commitment to substance over style is tantamount to quality leadership. And the slippery slope of substantive leadership creates value and gets results we can all stand behind.