OBJECTIVE VS SUBJECTIVE VS HOLISTIC LEADERSHIP

OBJECTIVE VS SUBJECTIVE VS HOLISTIC TRANSFORMATION LEADERS

{Foreword: In my previous corporate attachments, I took interest to observe the mindsets of corporate leaders responsible for laying corporate paths toward earmarked business destinations. I noted the details into a dossier for my learning curve. Except for the few borrowed quotes recited at the ending portion, the contents of this write-up are not extracted from any other printed material, book or platform speaker, but based on my observations. I hope my sharing now may help readers, who are key officers, to reflect on the contents and relate to their respective present work scenario in terms of practical relevance.} 

“Transformation” has become a popular buzzword in the modern business era. Many corporations resolve that making continual transformative changes is the only way forward to keep in potent competition. A common label given for handling such assignments is business strategy management. Another jargon called “disruptive innovation”  - i.e. creating entirely new initiatives targeted to displace established competitors in market share –  has become coveted trends.

It is a norm for large corporations to engage "specialists" in leading a team to identify shortcomings and strengths of the company structure, gaps needed to be filled up, potential areas for positive development, and recommend the right strategic action plans for propelling transformative changes. The team should function under the auspices of the chief executive, with the mandated blessings from the board of directors. Without the full support of the chief executive and the board to the transformation team, no forward thrusts could materialise.

From my observations, I can categorise three common mindsets of leaders involved in strategic or transformation endeavours: * Objective, ** Subjective, *** Holistic. Invariably, each mindset is underpinned by their respective previous work exposure and/or academic discipline. The success rate of a transformative endeavour rests very much on how it is massaged by the project team, with the guidance of the leader. To elaborate, see the trichotomy below.

*OBJECTIVE MINDSET LEADERS

Micro view span, looking only at hard figures and facts. Efforts are directed at drilling the hard figures and facts to drive goals/targets without recognising other related aspects. For instance, if upfront profit margin of a product is found to be below expectation, the leader would not hesitate to recommend hiking the product price to cater for higher profit margin without studying whether the move could dampen overall sales volume. Likely rigid in dealings, lacking fraternity, prefer not to deliberate with relevant counterparts on firm conclusions already formed. Point blame to other counterparts if assigned objectives fall behind. Will not decipher whether reasons given by related parties are valid for not meeting expectations. Will not recommend to lower set goals during rigid periodic review of progress against the objectives.

Example: Leaders with previous work involvement or academic discipline specialising on figures and facts, including documenting audit findings. May be regarded as fundamentalists. Mainly keen on identifying shortcomings measured against the objectives. Related ancillary elements surrounding the situation are normally ignored. Insistence on bringing in the figures and facts according to the company’s objectives regardless of everything else.

**SUBJECTIVE MINDSET LEADERS

The humane type. Prefer the broad/macro picture. Consider the work atmosphere, employee morale, causes/rationale having impact on figures and facts. Prefer focusing on recommendations to cater for improving these underlying factors than pounding on fulfillment of results. Amiable and amicable in interaction style. Believe in congenial work relationship via spirit of mutuality with peers. Have open dialogues in meetings. Show understanding to relevant counterparts who have plausible excuses for not meeting objectives. Advocate the philosophy of giving benefit of doubt as all parties deserve a second chance albeit unable to meet set objectives. The original objectives/goals become secondary priority after weighing the prevailing circumstances that have negative impact on results during periodic review.

Example: Those engaged in human behavioral science or psychology like counselors; macro analysts. May be regarded as generalists who have a broad understanding of other related aspects, rendering importance to the underlying circumstances that impact the business progress levels. Propound to manage the “macro source” (prevailing circumstances) instead of tackling the “micro end result” (hard figures and facts).

***HOLISTIC MINDSET

Adopt an all-encompassing view on both the hard figures/facts and prevailing circumstances (human factors and environment/atmosphere) before mapping out the directional approach for action plans. Strike a balance formula, with slightly heavier weightage given to the area manifesting wider gaps. Blend of micro and macro perspectives when tabling recommendations. Assess the situation first before deploying the contemplated communication mode befitting the issue. Stern to handle glaring negligence, amicable to help alleviate minor shortcomings, generous to accord recognition to achievers.

Example: Those with previous experience in cross-segment accountability who ultimately become corporate planners, management consultants or strategists. Regarded as intercessors – draw conclusions based on composition of figures/facts and underlying factors (human factors and environment/atmosphere). Also reflect themselves as pragmatists – guided more by practical considerations than by ideals. Balance between objective and subjective considerations – whether weighted more to the objective or subjective side, it will depend on the symptoms. This is the holistic approach. 

MY OVERVIEW:

Now, which do you think is the most workable? To me, logically it is the holistic mindset. The other two are one-sided extremes which pose risks to sustainability of wholesomeness in a corporation. Without wholesomeness, business cannot be as enigmatic as what the corporation covets to be; on the contrary, stifling hurdles may emerge.

Wholesomeness in any business corporation comes about by maintaining the right composition of three core elements – objective results, human factors and business/work environment. Depending on the overall situation, the balancing scale may tilt heavier to one element. Let me elaborate by citing a simulated case below……

A financial solutions service corporation, after having changed the entire technical systems, is now bogged by glaring mismatches in customer portfolio values, data updates and remuneration payments to its sales force. Obviously, the change process was erroneously executed besides suspecting the compatibility of the new technical engines. The sales force members face a deluge of complaints from their clients. Meanwhile, they feel frustrated for receiving incorrect remuneration payments. If the mismatches are not quickly resolved, they will become demoralised, which in turn will trigger downslide in sales performance. Instead of drumming hard on achieving the objective sales scores for now, the top management’s immediate concerted attention should be directed to tackle the underlying crux causing the debacle, i.e. rectifying the new technical flaws. At the same time, forward thinking leaders may introduce a customer loyalty initiative that accords a token of appreciation to complaining customers; and perhaps sales members may be granted an “inconvenience allowance” for representing the company to handle dissatisfied customers. Such initiatives are aimed to placate dissatisfied customers so that they do not exit, while also sustaining the morale of sales members for continual pursuit of new business.

The holistic direction relating to the above simulated case leans more to the environment (technical issues), yet with due consideration to the human factor (morale of sales team) and tries to maintain the objectives (sales figures) by recommending novel action plans to manage the situation with customer loyalty initiative and inconvenience allowance to the sales team. Holistic leaders tweak a situation and re-make it for turning negative vibes to positive. They know how to balance their attention between objective results, human factors and environment. They practise sustainable management by taking the encompassing, longer tenure view when proposing solutions. End result: Positive company image as a healthy entity to work in, that cares for the workforce in addition to pursuing progressive business growth.

In comparison, an objective-minded leader would continue to put dire pressure on the sales people – sales members and sales officers – to fulfill the targets at all costs. They do not take cognizance of the low morale and technical hiccups contributing to the adverse situation. I have had heard such leaders who said somewhat like this to their subordinates: “It (fulfilling the objectives) is your job. I don’t care how you do it, just make sure you do it. No ifs and no buts!” Sounds familiar? End result: Objectives may be attained for some while, however not for long. Exasperation and exhaustion in the present manpower – probably causing some good personnel to leave – may likely stall business growth in the longer run.

What about the subjective-minded leader? Probably, he may recommend to significantly reduce the original targets by attributing the human issue and poor system support as caustic causes drastically affecting the objective results. To him, priority should be veered to solving the human factor of low morale and environment of technical anomalies. They feel compassion overrides compulsion as the bastion for company survival.  End result: Business growth will be stifled as the drive for meeting original objectives takes a far hind seat. Unconsciously, complacency will slowly creep in due to the absence of compulsive push. Ambitious or assertive personnel may leave as they feel the work atmosphere is too mundane when there is no significant progressive growth.

Prudence is essential in order to mete out the right balancing act holistically for tweaking objective results, human factors and environment. A holistic leader treads prudently before drawing conclusive solutions to issues. In a way, he intercedes between the objective and subjective overviews. Holistic prudence is normally acquired via series of work experience in various segments. That is why revered transformation protagonists are those who have had been involved in fields like marketing/sales, operations, strategy, special initiatives, customer services etc.

CONCLUSION:

Objective-centric leaders who only want to see intended results achieved without considering the actual circumstances will drive subordinates to hapless anxiety. Subjective-centric leaders, being too amenable, will not be effective results achiever. The holistic ones are those who cater for lasting sustainable transformation directions, thus catering overall wholesomeness of the entities they serve. Only empowered holistic leaders can efficaciously drive a major change execution - whether innovative improvement, overhaul or transformation. 

HOLISTIC LEADERSHIP QUOTES:

·         “Management is doing the right thing; leadership is doing the right things.” (Peter F. Drucker)

·         “A leader is the one who can outline the broad vision and the direction, and say here’s where we are going to go, here’s why we need to go there, and here’s how we are going to get there.” (Mike Huckabee)

·         “True consistency, that of the prudent and the wise, is to act in conformity with circumstances and not to act always the same way under a change of circumstances (John. C. Calhoun)