Podcast Episode 28: Complementary Contradictions, pt. 1

This week’s episode builds on Monday’s article, part one in the series titled “Complementary Contradictions.” Here is the transcript of the podcast.

There are times when you get conflicting words of advice, one which is good and the other which is not, and it requires discernment to determine which is the right advice to follow. But often, you may hear conflicting counsel that seems to be contradictory to each other, but which is actually complementary and, when used appropriately and in the right way, can work together to help you make better decisions. It may be because they are two sides of the same coin, both of which are true depending on where or how you approach the situation. It may be because they are opposite but equally valid ideas that are intended to be applied in different circumstances. Or it may even be because they are parallel ideas that are intended to be used in unison. Regardless, they can be paired together, and both can be used in different ways, at different times, or side by side.

That’s what we are talking about in this series, in both the website articles and on the weekly podcast. We are looking at different leadership ideas or principles that seem to contradict, or at least differ from each other, and we are pairing them up to see how they actually complement each other, using them both to make you a better leader.

Today, in part 1, we are starting by introducing the overarching concept for the series.

Early in my leadership experience, it was emphasized to me that I needed to know my weaknesses so that I could work on them and develop them into strengths in order to become an effective leader. I wanted to lead well, so I set about trying to do just that.  However, I did not consider my personal nature and how that affected my leadership style.  You see, I am a very analytical introvert.  That means that I take time to think about things first. In fact, my first response is not going to be as good as my later response, so I would keep my first response to myself until after I had taken time to process my thoughts.  I did not want to assert myself aggressively into settings or conversations.  I did not enjoy conflict.  I liked to ensure an orderly process and procedure that made sense, and could be more focused on the procedure than on the people involved in the process.  The challenge this created for me was that I began trying to be someone I was not, rather than trying to learn to lead well according to my giftedness.  And therefore, I was becoming miserable.  Then I read a book that seemed to give the opposite advice.  The premise was that I needed to know my strengths and weaknesses so that I could focus on working within my strengths while letting other people whose strengths offset my weaknesses work within their strengths.  The end result would be that all the gaps would be filled, and I would be doing only what I did well.  I dove into this, in part because it let off the hook of improving things that I struggled with. The challenge that this new – and opposite – perspective created for me was that there were things I needed to take the lead on and address, even though they were hard for me, but I was leaving them for someone else which then was calling my leadership effectiveness into question.

So, after first trying to focus only on my weaknesses, which made me miserable, and then trying to focus only on my strengths, which made me ignore things I needed to address, I finally figured out that there was truth in both approaches and that they actually needed to be used together. I figured out that they were complementary contradictions. Yes, I need to emphasize my strengths to my advantage while also using the strengths of the team around me to offset my weaknesses, but I also need to grow as a leader by learning how to strengthen the areas in which I struggled, and still be myself.  For example, when I started as the head of school at a new school, I knew that my introversion made it hard for me to be gregarious at public events, like concerts and football games, and that I am not someone who can “work the crowd.” But at the same time, I knew that it was important to connect with people and that I am good at engaging with people one-on-one.  So, I would go to events and stand where people would pass by me and let opportunities for face-to-face conversations happen organically.  In doing that, I connected on a personal level with a lot of people, without having to do so in an extroverted manner that didn’t match my strengths.

The truth is, those two different approaches to leadership both had elements of truth.  On the one hand, when working with a team, it is important to have a variety of strengths within the team that work together well while filling in gaps.  But on the other hand, sometimes the team is not there (or the work you are doing is by yourself), and you don’t have that luxury, so you have to become competent at the things that are more difficult for you to do.  Or, on the one hand, It is important for you to focus on strengths so that they become even better, because a lack of exercise in those areas will lead to diminished strength.  But on the other hand, at the same time, you still need to identify the things that are challenging for you just because they are not in your wheelhouse or not things you enjoy, and work to strengthen those to a greater level of ability so that you can do them when necessary.  Failing to do that will likely cause important things to be neglected, which will have consequences.

This all serves as an example of the point we are making in this series that there are leadership principles and practices that may seem to be contradictory to each other, but which are  actually both true, depending on the need or the circumstance.  Before you choose one or the other, perhaps you should first think about the valuable lessons found in both and figure out how to apply them cooperatively. 

Coming back full circle, that’s what we will be doing in the next few weeks. One week, we’ll talk about “When a plan comes together,” and the next week, we’ll talk about “When a plan falls apart.” Or, one week, we’ll talk about “Do what works,” and the next week, we’ll talk about “If it doesn’t work, do something different.” You get the picture. We will be identifying and discussing complementary contradictions as pairs of principles that play well together so that you can become a better leader by incorporating both pieces of advice, not just one or the other.