Tackling lazy leader syndrome

Dave Durand argues that lazy leaders have an obligation to motivate their team despite their own personal struggles. Similarly, doctors have an obligation to give their patients the best advice — even if they’re not following the advice themselves. Priests, too, have an obligation to rail against sin despite the fact that every priest sins . . .

There is no shortage of sports analogies in the workplace. They are effective because they conjure up appropriate images of hard work, strategy, team effort and last-minute victories.

A less common but practical analogy is that of families. This example is used less often for several reasons, including the fact that the analogy places the leader as a parent and the subordinate as a child. This is an obviously offensive picture to paint for sensitive followers, which is unfortunate because the example can be useful. The analogy works because great leaders, like great parents, should try to protect their respective cells. It’s also a powerful parallel because both children and subordinates expect the highest conduct from their respective leaders.

With this analogy as the backdrop I can remember a liberal parent once quipping to me, “Who am I to tell my kids not to be promiscuous or smoke pot? I did those things. Telling them to avoid them makes me feel like a hypocrite.” No doubt the audience reading this column sees the obvious weakness in this logic. Clearly parents have the duty to guide their children away from making mistakes regardless of their own misconduct. Then there are other parents who smoke cigarettes or marijuana but preach the evils of such vices to their children. These kids will probably fall into the same practice as their parents despite the warnings because, as you know, actions speak louder than words.

So, is it immoral to preach what you don’t practice — or just ineffective? In the case of an illegal substance, the answer is clear. But smoking cigarettes is not necessarily an intrinsically evil act as much as it is simply bad for you. In taking the analogy from the home into the workplace, what happens when a leader — who is not motivated and hides behind a big desk — asks his team to be motivated? Is it wrong? Is it unethical?

While it’s certainly an ineffective leadership position, I’d argue that the lazy leader has an obligation to motivate his team despite his own personal struggles. I’m not sure what emotions or thoughts this concept is triggering in you personally, but I’ve worked with many leaders who struggle with this sort of challenge. Some leaders find themselves privately muddling through their daily responsibilities — which causes them to take a similar position to the liberal parent. They basically tell themselves: “How can I ask my team to be motivated when I’m not motivated myself?” In a twisted way, both the parent and the leader are drawing upon the feeling of hypocrisy. For “ethical” reasons they want to avoid being hypocritical, so they become permissive leaders.

The easy advice here is to tell both the leader and the parent to get their act together and to preach the corresponding behaviors to their followers. This is effective and morally sound, but it is difficult to practice at times. So in the meantime, leaders must preach what is good, no matter what. Interestingly enough, a third analogy makes this point clear: You want your doctor to give you good advice regardless of what she practices in her own life. If she tells you to cut out saturated fat and to quit smoking because it’s causing heart disease, it doesn’t matter whether or not her next act is to order a cheeseburger at a fast food joint and then smoke a cigarette. Her obligation is to advise you appropriately regardless of her personal practices.

In the early fourth century, the heresy of “Donatism” taught that priests who where in the state of mortal sin could not validly administer the sacraments. The Church rebuked this teaching. We know today that the state of a priest’s soul has no effect on the validity of the sacraments he provides. When it comes to preaching, we all know that it’s his obligation to teach the truth of moral conduct regardless of his own practices. He has the duty to provide the whole message regardless of his own personal shortcomings. Obviously, he will be more influential when he acts in accordance with the teachings of the Church, but either way he must deliver the truth in its fullest form.

As a leader, you will be challenged by your own moral struggles, but you must still encourage those you lead to pursue the highest standards. We all struggle. The only true hypocrite is the person who stops trying to improve. Being assigned a position of leadership doesn’t mean that you have arrived at perfection. It’s more likely that you demonstrate the character to improve or to recommit after you fall short. Give your team the gift of full conviction in high standards regardless of your past or current struggles — and then work toward them on your own.

Being aware of your own struggles will empower you with sensitivities to help others overcome their shortcomings in the same way that a spiritual director who receives the sacrament of Reconciliation regularly has the grace to help you — one sinner to another.

Dave Durand is the best-selling author of “Perpetual Motivation” and “Win the World Without Losing Your Soul.” He is a business executive and trainer of well over 100,000 individuals in sales, marketing and business management.