My Manager, Interview Example

Introduction

In the process of interviewing my manager, Mr. Shady, I gained insight into leadership I was not expecting, just as my respect for Mr. Shady became greater.  My personal experience with him has always been positive.  He holds the position of manager for ——-, and I work under him as a ———–, and have for ——–.  In all this time, I have been aware of certain qualities he demonstrates, as I and other employees have benefited from them.  At the same time, and mainly because Mr. Shady’s leadership is so in tune with the workforce, I did not think there was actual effort on his part.  His role as a leader seemed so connected to who he is as a person, I assumed it was a role he simply took on naturally.  I believe now that this is still true to an extent, but my experience in the interview process revealed other sides to what Mr. Shady sees as his responsibility.  As the following will discuss, Mr. Shady’s leadership relies on both his natural instincts and his constant awareness of what is expected from him.  Both of these elements connect to his own ideas of effective leadership, and seem to enable him to develop a style all his own, based on mutual respect, mutual trust, the power of positive encouragement, and a sense of the “big picture.” This reflects strongly the qualities of servant leadership, and because that model is so inherently personal. Ultimately, this interview, in allowing me to better understand the leadership processes and values of my manager, Mr. Shady, has also given me a more clear understanding of the complex nature of leadership itself.

Results and Interpretation of the Interview

To begin with, Mr. Shady was very willing to engage in the leadership interview, and I see this in itself as an indication of real leadership quality.  More exactly, I knew he was not looking to use the opportunity as a means of promoting himself or creating any kind of image; he responded in a way far more eager to be of service, and this expresses real confidence to me. I have had some experience with leaders who are not so agreeable when anything not directly related to their job is suggested. They often reveal suspicion, as though they think they are being tested in some way. Mr. Shady had no such concerns at all, as far as I could see. I even had the impression, and from the start, that he believed that his being completely open was necessary. Put another way, I had the sense that, in his eyes, not being completely open and honest would waste everybody’s time and also disrespect both of us.  I stress this here because, even though it is my interpretation, I felt it strongly, and I believe it goes to the leadership character Mr. Shady revealed once the interview was underway.

From the start, I found Mr. Shady surprising, in that he never presented himself during the interview as a typical “leader.” That is, there was no feeling that he was granting me a favor or that we were not equals, and this was reinforced by how he responded to my question of what he thinks make himself a good leader.  Mr. Shady actually laughed, telling me he would answer that when he was one.  This was clearly not a case of false modesty; it was obvious that he did not really think of himself as a leader, and I discovered why when we pursued the subject and I asked for his definition of leadership.  Mr. Shady then revealed that for him, and likely for many, the leader is known as the “boss,” or the one who gives orders and must be followed. The reasons behind such thinking do not interest him. It seemed more a matter of how he himself had come to see leadership based on how it is traditionally presented, and all he knew is that he cannot relate to such a model.  Mr. Shady did say that he can understand why such a model exists and is followed, in that many people seem to actually like a leader who takes full command and does not invite interaction. This type of leader, he feels, gives people a sense of security because it translates to the leader taking full responsibility for anything bad that may happen. Nonetheless, and after a little reflection, Mr. Shady emphasized that he could not lead in such a way, even if he tried.

This being his response, I felt the need to pursue the matter. It was not enough to say what a leader should not be, and I inquired to generate a more thoughtful or positive reaction.  It was here that Mr. Shady first revealed what I perceive as qualities of servant leadership, or at least of the transformational kind.  The first point he made, and one to be stressed in everything he related, was the importance of interaction.  No leader, he feels, can perform the role correctly without as full as possible an understanding of who the followers are.  This goes to their abilities as well as their personalities and characters because so many different elements combine to make one individual.  If there is any kind of goal to be met, then, the leader is not doing their job if they are not taking in all the available information about the group members.  Mr. Shady made it clear that this is not a secretive or unethical strategy; it is not about “finding out” the truth of the followers and then exploiting it.  Instead, it merely means that knowing the others more completely means that it is easier to determine who is best for what role, and this very much includes how they feel about the role.  Mr. Shady stressed here that everything is important if there is a job to be done, and the leader who does not take into account the personal perceptions of the individuals in their group is not doing the job.

This viewpoint may seem pragmatic and unrelated to servant leadership, but the reality is that it is a vital part of the style. Even in servant leadership, the leader must have a stronger focus on the objectives, and if only because the goal will serve the interests of all. This is the “bottom line” element, and Mr. Shady seems to fully appreciate its importance. There must be a shared belief in the value of the work which unites everybody, and in an equal sense. At the same time, what separates the leader is the obligation to always keep the big picture in sight, and the only way to maintain this is to also have a full awareness of how each individual plays into the scenario. To ignore the abilities or feelings of even one of the group is to damage the objective of all.  Mr. Shady did indicate here that he is not accustomed to analyzing leadership in this way – or at all – but this was the general meaning of his reflection.

As to how a leader then gains this information from the followers, Mr. Shady’s ideas here go to what he refers to as relationships. To begin with – and also greatly reflecting core values of servant leadership – mutual exchanges of trust and respect must be in place. This does not happen in a way easy to define, as the qualities exist from their own development in the leader-follower relationship.  For Mr. Shady, there was an incident wherein a member of his team was resisting instruction, and he could not perceive any reason for this.  The woman in question was not dissatisfied with her job, as far as could be known, and all of Mr. Shady’s attempts to discover the reason for the resistance met with failure.  However, once he stopped directly inquiring, the woman expressed why she had been difficult; it turned out that she simply thought she knew a better way to get the job in question done. What Mr. Shady discovered here was that she did not feel respected when confronted only by specific questioning.  She felt it was not right that she should make the initiative to offer her ideas, particularly when, as she felt, she was being treated like a disobedient subordinate.  When the questioning ended, she took this as a sign of some level of trust, and then felt empowered to be forthcoming.  In other words, by offering trust, trust was then returned, and this is vital to forming the relationships in the workplace scenario.  Also, and very much based on Mr. Shady’s ideas, trust and respect go hand in hand, and both are absolutely essential in creating a solid and contented team.

I must note at this point that Mr. Shady never referred to servant leadership, or any other theory or model, in our interview.  I feel in fact that this emphasizes all the more his demonstration of the theory’s principles.  For Mr. Shady, leadership is in no way about power or authority.  Control or rank does not interests him. Instead, it is an innate sense of responsibility, and one reflecting a responsibility to the team as much as one to the managerial position or company goals.  He comprehends how the latter cannot be effectively realized without the former, and his core values of mutual trust and respect underlie this personal ideology. Servant leadership is in fact about a kind of equality, or even an inversion of traditional models.  It goes to how the best situations occur when the leader sees himself or herself as in place to serve the others, because everything is served in such a commitment.  If, again, Mr. Shady does not point to a refined theory, his entire character as a leader reinforces the ideals of Greenleaf’s theory, and I can  testify as to the authenticity of it in practice.

It is in fact in practice, as much as in Mr. Shady’s responses, that his ethics and style of leadership are consistently evident as supporting servant leadership. This is seen in how he addresses mistakes made by those in his supervision. No matter the nature of the error, and as I have myself witnessed, he approaches the situation from a non-judging stance. There is never any frustration or anger directed at the employe, and I believe this is due to Mr. Shady’s conviction that all are together in whatever happens on the job, leader or follower rank aside. In a very real sense, the mistake belongs to everyone, including himself, so the mistake loses power as a source for blame.  Instead, it exists as an unfortunate development everyone should help to address, and this in turn emphasizes  the reality that absolutely anyone can make an error from time to time.  It is an approach that equalizes all, which then empowers all.  It also generates a stronger motivation for everyone to loom out for the interests of others, effectively translating servant leadership into a model that, to an extent, makes leaders out of followers.

Servant leadership is about a totality of the group experience, so the leader maintains above anything else the awareness mentioned before. For Mr. Shady, this awareness extends to an interests in his team members beyond the parameters of the job, or even how their personalities are expressed within it.  I have known of many occasions when he takes time alone with an employee to discuss a personal issue affecting the individual, as I have been in such a situation with him myself.  He never intrudes or pushes for personal information; instead, his manner as genuinely interested creates a willingness to open up, and this is enhanced by the employee’s absolute confidence that whatever is said will be respected.  As this occurs, what evolves is that the worker’s state of mind – and performance – improve, because simple understanding is so important to anyone’s self-esteem.  Mr. Shady literally “serves” the employee by being interested and caring, and it is difficult to measure the value of this.  It is known that there is no motive to punish poor performance, but only a real desire to help.  This forges a deeper relationship at the workplace, yet one still completely in keeping with professionalism, and because the approach comprehends how the totality of the individual is always present, no matter the role or rank.  When these individual totalities are acknowledged honestly and decently, the group as a whole is enhanced, so the leadership is leading in the most effective and humane way.  All of this was evident in my interview with Mr. Shady, his lack of technical leadership terminology aside.  What matters is that he embodies the principles of servant leadership, and this as almost a natural instinct in him, as I believe it to be, in no way lessens the real value of the leadership.

Conclusion

I mentioned at the start that this process has given me a better understanding of how complex leadership is.  However, in further reflecting on Mr. Shady’s leadership, I would alter that to say that leadership is more complex when it is at its best. That is, once hierarchy models of authority are set aside, there is an enormous range of perceptions and behaviors that go to fine leadership.  It is about engaging with followers, rather than commanding them; it is about understanding how leader and followers essentially exist for one another, if they are to be a real team.  It is in the end about the leader serving the group in order to serve the interests of all, and this is very much how Mr. Shady intuitively leads.  Whether he is consciously aware of it or not, he is a true servant leader because he is always committed to the welfare of his people, in promoting relationships based on mutual levels of respect and trust, in being uninterested in assigning blame when mistakes are made, and in expressing genuine concern as to what lies behind the mistakes.  This interview with Mr. Shady, as well as my own experiences with him as my manager, have enabled me to better understand the leadership processes, and they have also given me a more clear understanding of the complex nature of superior leadership itself.