Once upon a time, a hare named Ishi and a leader beaver named Honcho lived in the Enchanted Wood. One morning, the group was discussing gathering berries from the east and west groves, which have different processes for each, when Ishi mistakenly mixed them up when explaining the plan.
One of his peers noticed and called out the correct procedure for each orchard. Ishi thanked him and was about to proceed when Honcho bellowed, “You have erred!” and subjected him to a harsh lecture in front of the forest crew. Ishi’s ears drooped lower with each barb, while Honcho challenged his competence publicly, shaking his confidence. Unfairly. (SCARF, Rock 2018)
The hare later approached the leader and said, “I mean no disrespect, but I can’t tolerate being treated like that, especially so publicly. It wilts my spirit and undermines my confidence.” But Honcho was adamant. “I was doing you and everyone a favour, correcting your mistakes for all to learn! You can’t accept feedback; that’s the real issue.”
Honcho explained that it was his “authentic style”, and the Master Owl’s words immediately came to mind: “Authenticity without empathy is selfish. Authenticity without boundaries is careless” (A. Grant). Ishi apologised a couple of times for the mix-up (never executed, no harm was done). He raised how the situation was poorly handled, publicly, but Honcho was never there to listen; he was too busy defending his unquestionable authority. (Goleman’s Leadership Styles; DiSC).
In the weeks that followed, the tension hung thick in the air.
Ishi raised the issue with Honcho’s manager, only to hear “perhaps you should seek employment with one of our suppliers”. Defeated, he replayed the public rebuke over and over in his mind. He knew he needed a way to mend the situation. He takes a step back, reflects on the feedback and some behaviour patterns (LAB Profile®), and decides to adopt a new approach.
In the following meetings, his stand-up updates prioritised established processes over discussions. No more creative inputs, no questions asked. Honcho felt back in control, and the tension slowly passed. Eventually, harmony was back in the Enchanted Wood. The discussions disappeared, along with creative collaboration, idea sharing, and challenging directions.
The order was restored.
Then, Ishi left that neck of the woods for good! He couldn’t help but wonder, though:
- How can leaders balance authenticity and empathy when giving feedback?
- How can pack members communicate effectively with different leadership styles?
- How can forest chiefs encourage constructive feedback and creative collaboration?
- What role does clear process communication play in preventing misunderstandings?
- How can individuals develop resilience and adaptability in challenging work environments?
After further learning, some inconvenient truths… I mean, thoughts:
- Robert Greene, “The 48 Laws of Power” – Greene’s Law 1 suggests that a direct report should never outshine their leader. By immediately correcting the mistake, especially in public, the leader might claim they were reasserting their position and preventing any perceived dimming of their own “light.” This is a purely Machiavellian interpretation, focusing on power dynamics rather than effective leadership or team development.
- Dale Carnegie, “How to Win Friends and Influence People” – You Can’t Win an Argument; Avoid It. They could argue that by immediately “shutting down” the employee’s mistake, they were preventing a longer, potentially unproductive discussion or “argument” about the process error. Their “authentic style” could be framed as a blunt but efficient way to prevent prolonged debate. Of course, this completely misses Carnegie’s emphasis on tact, respect, and preserving the other person’s dignity.
- Kim Scott, “Radical Candor: Be a Kick-Ass Boss Without Losing Your Humanity”: The leader in this scenario challenged directly but utterly failed on the “caring personally” front. Scott would argue that public humiliation is the opposite of caring personally and leads to “obnoxious aggression” or even “manipulative insincerity.”
- Brene Brown, “Dare to Lead” (Vulnerability, Empathy, and Psychological Safety): The leader’s “authentic style” that leads to public shaming is antithetical to creating psychological safety. Brown would argue that such behaviour erodes trust and makes employees less likely to take risks, admit mistakes, or innovate.
- Adam Grant, “Give and Take” (Reciprocity and Psychological Safety): Grant’s research highlights the benefits of “givers” in the workplace and the importance of creating environments where people feel safe to contribute. A leader who publicly shames a direct report is acting as a “taker”, diminishing the employee’s psychological capital and willingness to engage.
Maintaining Standards and Accountability (Without Empathy):
From a rigid, results-oriented perspective, a leader might argue that their primary responsibility is to maintain high standards and ensure accountability. The public correction was a swift way to address a deviation from process, emphasising that errors, even if “no harm was done,” are unacceptable. This argument often prioritises process and outcome over human interaction and development.
#SCARF #labprofile #leadershipstyle #DiSC