From Conflict to Cooperation: Navigating Leader-Employee Compatibility

Have you ever taken a moment to think about the sheer number of books out there on leadership? If you were to hop onto Amazon right now, you’d find over 57,000 titles featuring “Leadership” in their name. It’s pretty wild!

There are a bunch of reasons for this explosion of literature. For one, many people have strong opinions about leadership. Plus, readers are all over the place regarding what they like in a leadership book. Anyone can publish a book these days, which definitely adds to the mix. Then there’s the fact that leadership practices are constantly changing, and let’s not forget that there are countless ways to define leadership.

In 2024, one poll noted the Top 15 leadership books in no particular order.

• Sinek: Start with Why
• Bennis: On Becoming a Leader
• Rath & Conchie: Strengths-Based Leader
• Collins: Good to Great
• Pink: Drive
• Seppala: The Happiness Track
• Cloud: When to Say Yes, How to Say No
• Maxwell: 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership
• Lencioni: The 5 Dysfunctions of a Team
• Covey: 7 Habits of Highly Effective People
• Willink: Extreme Ownership
• Brown: Daring Greatly
• Scott: Radical Candor
• Carnegie: How to Win Friends & Influence People
• Patterson: Crucial Conversations

Anyone who has a profile on LinkedIn and even only periodically visits the site can find that they are bombarded by quotes telling them what a great leader is, what a great leader does, what a great leader says, who the best leader they have ever worked for is, and how leaders have overcome adversity to become the leaders they are today.

As an experiment, I jumped on LinkedIn. I visit the site 3-4 times weekly, so I am a moderate user. Recently, I went there on a mission to see how many leadership quotes or mentions I would find by scrolling through my feed. Here’s what I found in order of when I found it:

1. A quote that says “Leaders display grit. They overcome the challenges they face.”
2. A matrix of 10 leadership styles that many people believe make up the traits of a great leader.
3. A tutorial on how leaders promote psychological safety and display emotional intelligence.
4. A TED Talk for leaders recommending 2 hours a day of exercise to improve focus and attention.
5. A reminder that leaders should “Lead with Character” and “Serve Others.”
6. A post stating that the “Leadership of the Past” is not the “Leadership of the Future.”
7. A post providing the opportunity for a leadership retreat to learn from other leaders.
8. A post advising on how to spot a toxic leader and assess your leadership skills.
9. A TED Talk explaining the differences between introverts and extroverts in leadership.
10. Finally, a discussion on how some of us have allowed our leader’s biased and inaccurate feedback to influence our self-perception.

In just a 15-minute scroll through 41 posts, I found that 25% of them focused on leadership. My constant interest in leadership topics likely influences my feed, but that’s not the main point.

If I summarize my 15-minute scroll, it will look like this: Great leaders display grit and can be visionary, transactional, and transformational. They are servant leaders who can make autocratic or democratic decisions as needed and adjust their leadership style according to the situation. They are charismatic and act as coaches to others, possessing high emotional intelligence and ensuring a psychologically safe environment for their team. They also find time to exercise for at least two hours to enhance their focus. Moreover, they lead with character and prioritize the needs of others.

Additionally, while great leaders have embodied these qualities in the past, their future relevance may change. You might be encouraged to attend a leadership retreat to learn what works and what doesn’t from other leaders. However, whether this will benefit you if you’re an introvert is unclear. And don’t forget, your LinkedIn feed will shape your self-perception!

However, this discussion isn’t solely about LinkedIn or the posts I viewed then. Each of those posts holds some value. If, for example, you’re discussing your challenges with a peer and they share a story about a successful leader’s grit and perseverance, that story deserves to be told.

Let me put it another way: Have you ever scrolled through Facebook and felt surrounded by people showcasing their beach vacations after their start-up took off, complete with a perfect sunset photo? Then, you see a post celebrating their child’s straight “A’s” and their captaincy of the varsity team?

You don’t wish them any harm; you’re happy for their achievements, but you might feel that’s not the journey you’re on. Yet, you compare your situation, wondering if you can successfully lead a start-up and enjoy that beach vacation, too.

That is what LinkedIn has become: a steady stream of expectations placed on business leaders. Expectations are placed upon you from others who believe Lencioni has it right, or Maxwell, Covey, Collins, Carnegie, or Brown. And you don’t measure up.

Unless you have read my bio, and you’d be excused if you didn’t, you would see that I hold a doctorate in Business Administration with an emphasis in Operations. Before I left to start my own thing, I was the EVP of Global Supply Chain Operations for a company with over $2bn in revenue in recent years. Our supply chain was large and complex. My team and I made many improvements within my scope, and I constantly believed that I wasn’t measuring up as a leader.

Would you like to be a great leader of people? The question requires no answer. No one strives to be seen as a poor leader.

As humans, if we have a goal, most want to figure out how to achieve it. Many of us go to college to learn new skills. We read leadership books (or listen to audio). We check out what our peers are doing on LinkedIn or other sites. We try to discover what made historical leaders great in the hopes of achieving what they have achieved. We hire professional leadership coaches and mentors. We attend conferences.

Yet, many of us still fall short of the elusive expectation we developed when we saw the start-up CEO and her husband on the beach in Cabo.

Why doesn’t it work?

How can we read books, watch our peers, discover what made historical leaders great, hire a coach, attend a conference, build our great leader persona, and still feel like we are substandard leaders?

This is the focus of our blog post today.

The debate on effective leadership will persist. Many argue that this discussion is essential for establishing checks and balances that reduce the likelihood of poor leadership practices being tolerated in the workplace. No one wants to work for self-absorbed, vindictive, or even just unaware leaders who care nothing about the success of the organization or group they lead. For this reason, the discussion of effective leadership must continue.

But, what if?

What happens when a list of leadership traits based on a specific leadership philosophy becomes a requirement for leaders in a workplace or within a group? And you don’t check all the boxes.

What happens when employees within that organization or subgroup have their thoughts on the leadership traits that resonate with them? And your leadership style doesn’t “motivate” them.

What happens when unconscious beliefs regarding the expected leadership traits exhibited by gender, race, orientation, and other factors exist? And you are being judged by those factors.

What happens when an organization requires a leader to execute a strategy that negatively impacts those who work for that leader? And you have to adjust your leadership to meet organizational needs.

Then, what happens?

Everyone, including the leader and the employees who work for them, is disillusioned and unhappy.

When disillusionment and unhappiness become prevalent, the risk to the organization’s well-being increases, and the company must address any of the “what ifs” noted above.

In extreme instances, People teams (HR) are challenged to determine the intentions of the leader and the employees and to determine who is “right” and who is “wrong.”

But what if no one is wrong?

Who is responsible for bridging the gap between the leader’s prominent leadership style and the employees’ expectations of their leader? Does the leader adjust? Do the affected employees adjust? It’s a tough call when everyone believes their philosophy is the best way to lead or when other factors require a change in leadership style.

When you consider all the factors that affect a leader’s decision-making and behavior and all the factors that influence an individual employee’s perception of effective leaders, the probability of a perfect match between a leader and his or her employee is very slim.

Instead, developing leader and employee compatibility is the next best option for achieving effective leadership outcomes.

Leader and Employee Philosophy Compatibility

The complexity of a leader and employee compatibility mismatch can overwhelm organizations. First, extremes are unacceptable and must be addressed. Unethical, immoral, or unlawful leaders should be removed from an organization. And, of course, leader underperformance to clear company expectations must be addressed appropriately.

The same applies to employees reporting to company leaders. The extremes must be addressed. Underperformance to expectations, if clearly defined and reasonable based on the company’s goals, must also be addressed appropriately. Unethical, immoral, or unlawful employees should be removed.

The circumstances require more than a traditional HR or People Team “investigation” of employee complaints.

What if this is simply a case of a mismatch between the philosophies of a leader and an employee(s)?

What if half the employees see the leader as an example of leadership excellence while half threaten to quit if a change is not made?

What if the leader sees half of the employees as invaluable, dependable, and an asset to the team while the other half only provides limited benefit to the organization?

How do you address these concerns to achieve the best outcome for the organization, the employees, and the leader?

Compatibility requires a deeper dive, a structured conversation, and a move toward understanding the individual before determining who is right and who is wrong and definitely before discipline or termination action.

I want to introduce a model that displays the factors that impact leader and employee compatibility. This model is not intended to be used as a checklist for investigation; rather, it’s intended to guide a discussion when leader and employee conflict arises.

Factors that Impact Leader & Employee Compatibility – Individual Traits

Leadership Philosophy and Employee Expectations of Leadership

Several leadership theories have been developed to explain and understand leadership styles and behaviors. Here are some of the prominent leadership theories:

1. Situational Theory
2. Contingency Theory
3. Transformational Leadership
4. Transactional Leadership
5. Authentic Leadership
6. Servant Leadership

Additionally, many thought leaders have adopted or generated leadership models that define a leadership style. Here are a few:

1. Maxwell
2. Covey
3. Collins
4. Carnegie
5. Brown
6. Lencioni

Leader-employee incompatibility can arise from differing expectations of the employee’s and the leader’s traits. This type of incompatibility is challenging to resolve because it requires the employee to take risks and the leader to show vulnerability. Discussing expectations for the leader and for the employee is necessary to begin resolving incompatibility.

Previous Workplace Experiences

1. Positive
2. Negative

An individual’s previous work experience can significantly influence the expectations of leaders and employees regarding their interactions in the workplace. Questions to consider include: Did the employee have positive experiences with past leaders? Were those experiences negative? How effectively did the leader interact with employees at their previous organization? Which leadership styles were successful, and which were not?

Awareness of these past workplace experiences is crucial. When a mismatch or conflict arises from these experiences, it should be openly discussed to assess its impact on the current working relationship.

Human Lived Experience and Journey

A significant body of knowledge exists around leadership and gender-based traits. Gender bias theory, gender trait theory, glass ceiling theory, and many other theories have been extensively researched. From that research, female and male leaders have more information than ever about reducing gender disparity in the workplace and creating an environment of equality. Yet, data indicates that progress is slow, and only incremental improvement has been achieved.

During my research for my Doctorate in Business Administration, I examined a gap in knowledge concerning the societal impact on the journey of female executives. Ten executives, five male and five female, participated in the research study. Four were from the North American region, three from the LATAM region, and three from the APAC region. Each participant individually participated in a one-hour interview and was observed in three workplace meetings.

The findings were enlightening. The participants’ birthplace, societal norms, family structures during childhood and adulthood, religious influences, mentors or coaches, and workplace experiences clearly impacted their leadership journeys. These experiences shaped the participants into the leaders they are today.

From these findings, we uncovered indicators of the impact of societal influence on individual leadership behavior. Although this research is not generalizable due to a small sample size, it does signal a need for further research. The biggest takeaway from this study is that each participant’s journey is so unique that sharing their story with others would be as definitive as a fingerprint or a DNA profile. Because of this, using a one-size-fits-all approach to defining a leadership style is ineffective due to the complex differences within individuals. With this complexity comes elements that cannot be placed in a black-and-white “do this, not that” program that launches men and women into leadership roles. The study proposes more questions, knowledge, and insight to address leader-employee incompatibility.

Individual Values

There are infinite combinations of individual value systems. Of particular interest, though, when considering leader and employee compatibility, are the values an individual has prioritized based on their journey. For example, friction can arise if a leader has a high affinity for data-driven decisions while the employee expects relationship-building and collaborative decision-making. While this seems minor, the interaction can become complicated if this misalignment occurs in multiple instances.

Factors that Impact Leader & Employee Compatibility – Organizational Traits

Organizational Values

Just like individual values, organizational value systems can be infinitely combined. Because of all the possibilities, expecting every employee and leader to align with those values isn’t easy. While alignment is not required, organizational values can be seen as a differentiator when leader–employee incompatibility requires intervention with the HR or People Team.

Organizational Economic Status

A significant source of pressure on leaders and employees can be the organization’s economic status. Four described conditions in an economic cycle include:

1. Expansion: growth, production increases, strong employment and wages, & profitability
2. Peak: growth stabilization, indicators that budgets and spending need to be evaluated
3. Contraction: growth slows, employment falls & prices stagnate, inventory increases
4. Trough: supply & demand bottoms, an opportunity for businesses to reconfigure finances

When the economic conditions are good, there is less organizational stress on leaders and employees. When economic conditions require inventory and labor reductions, rigid cost control, and potential layoffs or furloughs, added emotional responses by leaders and employees exacerbate existing leader-employee incompatibility. This is demonstrated by leaders in rigid decision-making and sometimes less communication with the team while making financial decisions. Employees can demonstrate stress in decreased productivity, frustration with their leaders, and, in some cases, abnormal responses to minor issues in the workplace.

Workplace Mental Health

Modern organizations understand the importance of workplace mental health initiatives. Although many definitions exist of effective workplace mental health programs, there are typically six factors common to a company that its employees recognize as effective:

1. Protect all employees from harm
2. Create connection and community
3. Ensure worklife harmony
4. Establish that all employees matter at work
5. Provide opportunities for growth

Leaders are often cited as the primary contributors to a decline in workplace mental health. While this can be true in many instances, it is not a leader–employee compatibility issue. Unfortunately, abusive, immoral, unethical, and self-absorbed leadership does exist. Appropriate action should be taken with those leaders.

However, suppose the organization does not recognize the value of workplace mental health programs. In that case, leader-employee incompatibility issues can go unaddressed, leading to poor employee retention and higher recruitment and training costs. It is essential to understand that both the leader’s and the employee’s issues should be considered as both are equally important when assessing compatibility.

Workplace Psychological Safety

While workplace mental health initiatives focus on the whole of employee mental health, workplace psychological safety is focused on three key areas for employees:

1. Inclusion Safety: Feeling accepted and valued for who you are, regardless of background or perspective.
2. Learning Safety: Feeling comfortable asking questions, making mistakes, and learning from feedback.
3. Contribution Safety: Feeling empowered to share ideas and contribute actively to discussions.
4. Challenger Safety: Feeling confident to challenge the status quo and express dissenting opinions.

Indeed, leaders are responsible for workplace psychological safety. Employees count on their leaders to provide an environment where they feel accepted and comfortable asking questions. The employee also wants to know that they can contribute to discussions and challenge the status quo if they need to.

Organizations must understand that leaders are also employees. It is unrealistic to believe leaders will foster psychological safety for their team while having different experiences in the same organization. While some leaders can overcome an organization’s weaknesses to create their microculture within their department, many find that difficult.

Figure 1: Leader-Employee Compatibility Model 

How do I use this model?

How does a People Team (HR) rep, mediator, mentor, or coach, address leader-employee incompatibility and ensure well-intentioned leaders and employees remain within the organization?

When a leader and an employee are incompatible, and the employee cannot address the issue without intervention from a third party, that party typically decides whether the leader or the employee must change their behavior to restore a satisfactory working relationship.

This model does not aim to assign responsibility for leader-employee incompatibility that causes conflict. Instead, it seeks to highlight the complexity of the leader-employee relationship stemming from misaligned individual traits while also recognizing that organizational traits can be influential. This model is not designed to serve as documentation for disciplinary action or, in extreme cases, termination. Its purpose is to identify the root cause of incompatibility and to create a viable action plan acceptable to all affected parties.

While some organizations may use a “mediation” process to resolve workplace conflict, others might “investigate” an employee complaint by soliciting feedback and data from other employees to inform leadership about their perceptions of management. In some cases, the organization may use the findings from the investigation to terminate the leader, citing a “poor fit” for the company and their team.

The takeaway for those who follow leadership trends and aspire to be “great” leaders is that the traditional view of leadership, which categorizes leaders by a preferred standard such as a “Maxwell” leader, a “Covey” leader, or any other derived set of behaviors cannot be the only path to compatibility. Seek to understand the perspectives of both the leader and the employee using the leader-employee compatibility model. Identify where misalignment exists and outline the action plan needed to restore a successful working relationship. And if necessary, appropriate action must be taken when incompatibility cannot be addressed due to unethical, immoral, or illegal behavior by the leader or the employee.

This topic will continue to be discussed in future blog posts. Part II will explore the questions that can be used to assess individual and organizational traits when addressing leader-employee incompatibility.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Would you like to speak with a consultant about Leader-Employee compatibility? Contact Michelle Shinn, our Leadership Consultancy Leader at Shinn Consulting Group. Book an initial consultation call or contact her directly at 801-428-7622.

Learn more about our company at www.shinnconsultinggroup.com