Three division heads, three leadership styles. One leads tightly, provides clear guidelines, and controls results. The second relies on autonomy, intervening only when absolutely necessary. The third is somewhere in between, situational, sometimes inconsistent. As a manager, you observe this. And you ask yourself: Is this a problem? Or a strength?
The answer is paradoxical: You must do both simultaneously. Demand uniformity and foster diversity. The secret lies in what the “uniformity” refers to: the goal, not the path. To values, not methods.
A manager I coached had tried to mold all his division heads into the same leadership style: weekly status meetings, uniform reporting formats, standardized employee reviews. After a year, the reports were uniform, but the results were worse. His best division head, who had previously stood out with unconventional methods and exceptional team commitment, suddenly only functioned “by the book.” He had created uniformity instead of alignment, thereby stifling the very strengths for which he had hired his managers.
Leading managers is fundamentally different from leading employees. You delegate areas of responsibility, not tasks. You manage through goals and values, not instructions. And you face a structural dilemma.
Too much uniformity stifles the strengths of your managers. You did not hire these people to copy you. You hired them because they bring different perspectives, different competencies, and different approaches to their teams. If everyone leads like you, everyone will have the same blind spots as you.
Too much individuality leads to inconsistency. If every manager does what they believe is right, no common culture emerges. Employees experience arbitrariness instead of guidance. The organization disintegrates into fiefdoms.
The solution lies in distinguishing between what is non-negotiable and what should be freely shaped.
Four areas form the common foundation upon which individual leadership styles stand.
Values and principles. How do we interact with each other? How do we make decisions? What do we not tolerate? These principles must apply to everyone, from the board to the team leader. Not as posters on the wall, but as lived practice.
Strategic direction. Where do we want to go? What are the priorities? Your managers can take different paths, but they must move in the same direction.
Decision-making framework. Which decisions do managers make autonomously? Where is coordination required? Where is escalation needed? Unclear decision-making frameworks lead to paralysis or chaos.
Dealing with people. Respect, fairness, non-discrimination, compliance with labor law. There is no room for “individual leadership styles” here.
Within this framework, diversity should not only be tolerated but encouraged. Your teams are not identical; a sales team needs different leadership than a development team, seniors different from juniors. And authenticity trumps methodology: a manager who practices an imposed style will fail because people sense when someone is playing a role. Patrick Lencioni’s work on leadership teams has shown that the highest-performing teams are not those with the most uniform style, but those with the highest level of trust and the clearest shared mission.
| What is Non-Negotiable | Where Freedom Should Reign |
|---|---|
| Values and principles | Communication style (meetings, formats, frequency) |
| Strategic direction | Decision-making processes (consensus-based or directive) |
| Decision-making framework | Team organization (specialists or generalists) |
| Dealing with people | Feedback culture (formal or continuous) |
A common mistake: managers are treated as individual players, each responsible for their own area, with exchanges only bilaterally with you. The result: silos, duplicated work, political games.
A leadership team is more than the sum of its parts. It needs shared responsibility for the whole, not just for its own area. Conflicts must be resolved within the team, not through you as an arbiter. Managers challenge each other, not just upwards. Transparency across departmental boundaries replaces information hoarding as a power tool. And external loyalty applies even in internal disagreements.
You recognize a true leadership team when division heads can criticize each other without you, the boss, having to moderate. If every conflict lands on your desk, you don’t have a leadership team. You have a collection of individual players who need you as a referee.
Autonomy does not mean laissez-faire. Five situations require your intervention: when values are violated (immediately, with no tolerance for “individual styles”), when strategic goals are systematically missed (not one missed quarter, but a recognizable pattern), when teams suffer (high turnover, declining engagement scores, frequent complaints), when silos emerge (isolation, withholding information), and when decisions are lacking (everything is escalated, problems are ignored).
How you intervene is just as important as whether you intervene. A one-on-one conversation first, never in front of the team. Share observations, don’t judge: “I noticed that…” instead of “You’re doing that wrong.” Criticize the outcome, not the style: “The turnover in your team is 25 percent, that’s not sustainable” instead of “Your leadership style is too authoritarian.” Feedback that focuses on results is measurable and understandable. Style criticism leads to endless subjective discussions. Clarify expectations, offer support, state consequences.
The most valuable investment in your leadership team is development. Not as an HR program, but as part of your daily leadership work.
Regular sparring does not mean status reports, but genuine conversations about leadership challenges. “How are you handling the situation? What have you tried? What would you do differently?” Feedback that encourages reflection goes beyond praise and criticism: “I noticed you were very dominant in the last meeting. Was that intentional?” Room for error is a prerequisite for development: managers who are never allowed to fail do not develop. And being a role model is the most effective lever: your managers observe you more closely than you might like. How you handle pressure, how you make decisions, how you deal with your own mistakes – this shapes them more than any leadership seminar.
Leading managers does not mean doing their work. It means enabling them to do their work excellently, in their own way.
Many C-level managers spend their time solving operational problems that their division heads should be solving. They step in, fix things, compensate for weaknesses. This feels like leadership. In reality, it is the opposite.
The best leadership teams are not those with the most uniform style. They are those with the clearest alignment and the greatest respect for diversity.
Tomorrow, when you next feel the urge to intervene in an operational problem of your manager, ask yourself: Do I have to do this, or am I taking away my manager’s chance to grow? The answer will be uncomfortable. But it will show you whether you are leading or compensating.
Feedback that lands – Leading managers also means giving managers honest feedback.
Under Pressure – Those who lead managers must also recognize when they are reaching their limits.
Proven tools and models for self-application are available under Solutions.
If you want to take these thoughts further for your company, a no-obligation initial conversation is worthwhile.
