From guru to guide - How to prevent the 19th century from hindering your success as a leader

Being a modern leader can be a contradictory role. While we are aware that our task is to help our employees thrive and shine, many of us still carry the belief that it is fundamentally our role as leaders to know best. Even though we go to great lengths to make room for our employees, allowing them to "grow with the task" and experiment (read: make mistakes), giving them autonomy and authority.

If you dig deep, you might also sense that the underlying belief is still there: You need to be ready in case an employee fails, and you should be able to save the day – preferably even intervene just before it happens. Despite all good intentions, we know very well where the ultimate blame falls, should a catastrophe occur and the top management needs to assign responsibility. In practice, responsibility cannot be delegated.

The good news is that there is an explanation for why you feel like you should both delegate decisions to your employees and know best. And the even better news is that it is possible to reconcile these two ambitions and unlock tremendous potential for better well-being for both you and your employees.

Best bird gets the worm

That's not exactly how the proverb goes, but with a little goodwill, this paraphrase captures the point: The most skilled specialists get promoted. And that has been the case since the Industrial Revolution gained momentum in the late 19th century.

When 'modern leadership' was invented, the need for leadership stemmed from a lack of skills and knowledge. People from rural areas with relatively few years of schooling flocked to the cities to work in factories, and they needed to be led, meaning someone had to explain to them precisely what to do and when. The workers were meant to do, and the leaders were meant to think and decide. This setup naturally led to hiring the most skilled specialists as leaders because the leader's specialist skills would directly impact the factory's productivity: the better the leader is at the task, the better the workers are likely to become.

At this point, an astute reader might interject enthusiastically, "But what about the leader's ability to teach and impart knowledge? That must have also influenced the workers' productivity!" I agree with you, and I can only state that it is likely that a leader who was both skilled in their field and pedagogically inclined would undoubtedly have achieved even better results.

Where do you stand on the 19CL Index?

Fast forward 150 years, and we find ourselves in the present day. You may be thinking that the reality of the 19th century has nothing to do with you and your situation, and that is certainly a possibility. However, if you're still curious about your own 19th-Century Leadership Index - the 19CLI © - then stick around a little longer.

It's not unthinkable that you're currently pondering what the 19CL Index is all about, so let's clarify. The 19th-Century Leadership Index is a completely unscientific index, invented by Syndicate, ranging from 0 to 19:

• 0 is "I only know leaders with people management responsibilities who got their positions because they are good with people and organizations."
• 19 is "I only know leaders with people management responsibilities who got their positions because they know the most about their field and can make the best decisions."

Now, with that in mind, ask yourself the following two control questions:

• Were you promoted to a leadership position because you were an exceptional specialist?
• Do you have examples from your circle of acquaintances where the career ladder in the specialist track reached its limit, and the next natural step was a position with people management responsibilities, as otherwise the expectation of advancement and better pay couldn't be fulfilled?

There are two possible outcomes of the 19CL Index test:

a) If you score higher than 0 on the 19C Index, you now have an explanation for why you sometimes confuse your idea of the "competent leader" with a guru. That's how we, influenced by 19th-century organizational theory, have been taught to perceive that role: the leader is the best among us, the one who has all the answers.

b) If you score 0, you are somewhat of a unicorn - a rare example that leadership is about the ability to organize and manage people, where the "good leader" is a guide. That's what the future calls for, and you can read more about it below: the leader sets the framework and goals, leaving it to the employees to act in the best possible way within those guidelines.

One should respect the older generations, but...

I have all the respect in the world for my ancestors, including those who were wise in the b80s, and there's nothing wrong with giving leaders guru status. In practice, however, it's a bit challenging to fulfill that role convincingly. The challenge lies in the fact that employees, for various reasons, don't particularly like the role distribution in the classical factory management regime. Therefore, I cannot recommend that you try to assume the role of a guru, and I will try to outline why:

Your employees are not 19th-century rural workers (and for the record, if they are, I believe you need to consult a completely different set of experts than Syndicate). They are Generation X, Y, Z, which means they have many deep competencies, a desire to make a difference, and a reluctance to be "instructed." Instead, they want information so they can navigate the complex reality they find themselves in.

Let's conduct another test to determine where your employees fall on the 19th-Century Employee Index - 19CEI ©.

Like the 19CLI, the 19CEI is equally unscientific and invented by Syndicate. It also ranges from 0 to 19:

• 0 is "as an employee, I absolutely refuse to be dictated on how to do my job."
• 19 is "I naturally do what is said because the Great Leader knows best."

Place your employees on the 19CEI by asking yourself the following control question:

• What happens when you tell your employees what and, especially, how to do something?

There are three types of outcomes on the 19CEI, which makes it a bit more challenging to work with than the 19CLI:

a) If they become angry, it indicates a low 19CEI. It shows that they refuse to accept you assuming the role of a guru.

b) If they do what you say, it indicates a high score. You can contact your procurement department and have them purchase a pedestal for you to install under your office chair.

c) If they neither become angry nor do what you say, it may resemble a low score, but it's actually a high score. In these cases, you may be extremely challenged because you may have bought a pedestal but only realize too late that you are in a difficult situation with a group of employees who don't meet your expectations.

It is rational to resist the guru

If you find that your employees have a low 19CEI score, meaning they truly don't recognize you as a guru, it's understandable to feel frustrated and annoyed when you're not being listened to and obeyed.

As a leader, you have privileged knowledge, such as "if we don't succeed with this, our budget will be cut" or "we need to restructure in the next quarter, so we have to hold back on new initiatives now." With the knowledge you possess, you can clearly see how your employees should act. Therefore, it can almost seem selfish, narrow-minded, and even irrational when they don't buy into your perspective.

However, most of the time, your employees have rational and legitimate reasons for not following orders. They have knowledge that you don't possess. They are often much better equipped to estimate and plan than you are, and even if they are not asked, they have a qualified opinion on whether plans are realistic or not. There is nothing more demotivating than unrealistic plans, and you need truly persuasive skills to convince them to wholeheartedly embrace a premise they consider unrealistic.

What about yourself?

But you know it well from your own experience, don't you? You also have a boss, so let's try to take our own medicine by conducting the following thought experiments:

Is your boss trying to play the guru role with you? And do you accept it? Let's take the example where you're told that your department needs to deliver a 25% higher profit in the next quarter than originally agreed upon, in order for the entire company to meet the board's expectations. At the same time, you're dealing with a project that has failed, and you know that you won't even be able to deliver the percentages you initially promised. However, you also know that the top management will never accept a "no" as an answer. What do you do?

You faithfully work towards the unrealistic goal, knowing it's unattainable (indicating a high 19CEI score). You become obstructive and yell at your boss, telling them to stick that plan somewhere (indicating a low 19CEI score). You become obstructive, but you don't express it to anyone, and your boss will have to learn the hard way later (indicating a hidden low 19CEI score).

What you should take away from this exercise is that few people succeed in being gurus because employees can see through the fact that the Truth is not the truth. Conversely, you might also realize that there is plenty of potential in this realization: most of us want to be shown the way and the guiding star, as long as we are involved in shaping the solutions.

Think back to the previous exercise. You probably have 100 ideas on how the company can achieve its ambitious goal without depending on your department to deliver something utopian. That's what we should remember: involvement promotes understanding, and the best solutions arise when everyone is involved in designing them.

So, letting go of the guru role accomplishes three things:

The quality of what we do improves because the collective brainpower of you and your employees is greater than yours alone. We reduce frustrations in the organization by acknowledging different perspectives. We create broad ownership of products and problems by involving everyone.

How to adopt a new guide identity

You may have now decided that the guru needs to die – but what do you do then? You can start by making some changes to your morning routine. Just before you start brushing your teeth, from now on, remember to look at yourself in the mirror and say, "I shouldn't be the one who knows best because I can't be the one who knows best – it has nothing to do with me, it's just how the world is designed, and I am still more than good enough."

Over time, your shoulders should hopefully lower by 1-3 centimeters, and you can try it now: Lower your shoulders!

Isn't that a liberating feeling?

If not, don't panic. It's probably because you feel that this exercise is taking away part of your identity, and that's a completely natural reaction.

Naturally, the question arises: if you are no longer a leader because you are the best, then why are you a leader? Who are you then? Let's look at what you gain with a new leadership role.

First and foremost, let's give it a name: Let's call you a guide instead of a guru. In this new identity, you have two tasks:

To make it crystal clear where we are going, and To define the framework for how we get there. It's the classic "you draw the football field, give the employees the ball, tell them which goal to score in, and guide them to play well together."

Challenges in the guide role

The guide role comes with its own challenges:

• Being a guide as a leader doesn't mean giving 100% autonomy to your employees. Instead, it's about making it clear what is expected so that employees can prioritize using their skills and energy to serve the common purpose. It's about showing employees the resources available to them and potentially acquiring more if necessary.
• Setting good, clear boundaries is difficult. It requires a lot of energy and communication. And when you think you've communicated enough, you definitely need to communicate some more.
• The more turbulence there is in the organization, the harder it is to be a guide. Something that can make the task even more challenging for you is if you find yourself in a highly volatile organization, where there is a lot of change, and it's difficult for you to clarify your boundaries and goals. Unfortunately, it's common for priorities and demands from above to change rapidly, making it difficult for you as a leader to promise anything to your employees, including setting reliable boundaries and direction. But what is the alternative? You can't control or "guru" your way to success, so you have to try a different approach, give "guiding" a chance.

How to Create Results as a Guide

The prerequisite for stepping out of the guru role and into the guide role is trust. You need to have trust that your employees will accomplish the task and inform you in a timely manner about challenges. Here, we encounter another obstacle. Most of us have plenty of experiences that confirm our lack of trust in others. For example, how many times have you been informed too late that a task would not be completed satisfactorily? How often has an employee or a team been struggling with a challenge without letting you know? How many times have you emphasized that all you want is information so that you can help, but they haven't informed you?

I feel tempted to create another index for you to measure your Trust score, but I believe it would be counterproductive. We don't need to indulge in disappointment and frustration—we need to move forward and start building trust.

Trust is a fluffy concept that is difficult to put into a formula, so let's start somewhere else, something more tangible and mechanical: transparency. When there is full openness, there are very few surprises, little wishful thinking, and constant opportunities to make decisions about adjusting our approach. If we also put effort into having respectful and constructive dialogue, we quickly start building trust because we have created a safe space for it.

Does something ring a bell? It's probably the three pillars of Scrum: Transparency, Inspection & Adaptation. If there's something you should take with you from Scrum in your role as a guide leader, it's these three elements. Hold onto them rigorously along with a commitment to building psychological safety, and you will see the results pouring in.

Hold onto Transparency, Inspection & Adaptation rigorously along with a commitment to building psychological safety, and you will see the results pouring in.

Hold onto Transparency, Inspection & Adaptation rigorously along with a commitment to building psychological safety, and you will see the results pouring in.

Let's get specific and look at what we need to create transparency around. Firstly, you are a source of information from the top and other privileged circles, and you should share it. As much as you can—and for heaven's sake, make it a dialogue so that employees can "translate" what you tell them into their own context.

Secondly, your employees possess a lot of information about the state of affairs (or they have the ability to obtain that information). It can be all sorts of technical details, progress data, forecasts, knowledge of specific challenges, and their possible solutions, etc. You should also work on making that knowledge and facts widely accessible.

It may sound like a lot of graphs and dashboards—and it can certainly be that. But first and foremost, you need to work on your communication through conversation. In this regard, remember the Agile Manifesto's principle of "Individuals and interactions over processes and tools." In the coaching environment, there is an equivalent of IT Support's famous statement "Have you tried turning it off and on again?" and that is "Have you tried talking to them?" Interaction can be a miracle cure.

As a parting gift

I will conclude with a gift for you—a guarantee, if you will: if you succeed in creating greater transparency and more trust, I guarantee that both you and your employees will experience fewer frustrations, gain more energy, and become more innovative and solution-oriented.

If you embark on the journey from guru to guide, it will significantly improve motivation and job satisfaction.

Disprove my claim, and you'll get your money back!

‍