Much research has been conducted over the years with respect to parenting. Most approaches can be categorized into one of three parenting approaches: Authoritarian, Permissive, and Authoritative.
Authoritarian parents are those that embrace the aphorism that children should be seen and not heard. They believe that it’s my way or the highway. Children and choice are incompatible. A parent’s role is to dictate to their children how the child should behave. It is seen as “old school,” strict, tough, and disciplinarian.
Permissive parenting evolved from the offspring of Authoritarian parents. Children held some resentment of their structured and oppressive upbringing and wanted to be kinder, gentler parents to their own children. They sought not a hierarchical relationship with their children but one of friendship. They wanted their children to like them as parents and not be intimidated by or resentful of them like they were with their authoritarian parents. Permissive parents cater to the child. What does the child want? It is important that the child feels good, happy, content, comfortable, and loved as often as possible. How can parents make the life of the child easier?
Permissive parenting is the mirror image of that of an authoritarian parent. Unfortunately, both approaches have their limitations. A third, middle-ground approach has evolved which research suggests as being effective. It’s known as authoritative parenting. It’s a blend of the two where parents set boundaries and demonstrate themselves as being in charge. Parents try to create an environment that is safe and clear for their children. The children are then given as much autonomy as possible to enjoy the environment within the constraints. Children learn that they aren’t the center of the world, and that the world isn’t there to accommodate their ambitions. Yet, they also learn that they have responsibility for doing things within the rules of society. They have much freedom to do and enjoy as they choose so long as they don’t disrupt the apple carts of others.
This framework can be applied from parenting to our work worlds. I’ve heard the three styles be expressed as Critics, Cheerleaders, and Coaches.
Critics are those that see themselves as having “the” answer. Others inevitably fall short of expectations and criticism is invited. It’s easy to be a critic. Some are quick to offer “constructive criticism” which comes across as caustic and cutting. No one likes to be cut to the core by the contributions of others. Prolific critics don’t spur effort, creativity, or contributions. The fear of criticism shuts us down. Critics lean to micro-managing. Since they know “the” answer, it’s up to them to dictate expectations to others. Compliance is the goal for critics to impose upon others. Scared and intimidated people aren’t their best at work.
Instead, most of us prefer a cheerleader. We want to feel good about ourselves. We want to be validated. We aim to be appreciated. We want others around us to tell us how wonderful we are. We’re taught that to be considered polite, compliment someone. Being polite isn’t about being right, it’s about being likeable. It’s about being nice. Being nice is helping someone feel good by telling them what they want to hear. However, as Adam Grant writes in Hidden Potential, “Striving for social approval comes with a cost: across 105 studies with over 70,000 people, valuing extrinsic goals like popularity and appearance over intrinsic goals like growth and connection predicted lower well-being. Seeking validation is a bottomless pit: the craving for status is never satisfied.” Grant goes on, “Ultimately, excellence is more than meeting other people’s expectations. It’s also about living up to your own standards.” If we’re constantly being patted on the back regardless of how minimal our effort has been, we’re not likely to work harder. Managers that care more about an employee’s feelings than the facts of their performance aren’t helping an organization. Happy people aren’t necessarily productive ones either.
To be truly kind, we’re doing more than helping someone feel good in the moment, we’re helping them find their footing and make progress moving forward. Being kind is about helping others get better at the things they care about. This is the role of a coach. It is much harder than just criticizing or complimenting. It’s about facing facts. It’s about embracing the truth. It’s about knowing both where someone is trying to go as well as where the organization is trying to go and helping an individual accomplish both. It’s work. It’s being willing to have hard conversations. It’s prioritizing honesty over comfort. It’s a recognition of the value of both the mission and the person.
Applying these three as management styles we see critics as more likely to be micro-managers. They have their way of doing things and expect others to fall in line with this singular approach. Critics aren’t interested in innovators. They don’t want to see their followers freestyling. It’s my way or the highway in the mind of a critic. Cheerleaders are the soft, fluffy, new-agey managers that are constantly seeking input from their team. What do you think? How do you feel about this? Coaches try to tread a line bridging toughness with tolerance. They seek to set a direction, define a high standard, and hold people accountable to their contribution to the cause while affording as much autonomy as possible. Coaches seek to help others help themselves and the organization without getting in their way and impeding progress. Cherish the coaches and authoritative parents and try to incorporate their styles into your leadership approach.
