When I was 6, I had my parents paint my walls crimson to match my team, the Alabama Crimson Tide. In 3rd grade, their legendary football coach Paul “Bear” Bryant came to our little town in lower Alabama to sign his book. I got to leave school to get it signed. I touched HIM. And I swear he shimmered just a little with the glow of the deity he definitely was.
Needless to say, during the college football national championship (Alabama vs Clemson), I was up until midnight gnawing my nails like every other one of the football faithful until order was restored, and we won the national championship (again). The game was impressive and exciting, but another element of this was the character of Clemson. More specifically, their coach Dabo Swinney.
Because I was sick prior to the game, I had curled up on the couch with my hot lemon tea and infinite supply of tissues to watch the parade of pregame biopics. The one on Dabo Swinney (Clemson’s coach) and Nick Saban (Alabama’s coach, for those of you who don’t live on this planet) were most impressive, particularly when you map that onto the topic of leadership style.
Both of these men emphasized repeatedly how they genuinely care for the players, and they’re not shy about saying it. But I also know that these two coaches are exceptionally demanding, pushing the performance envelope to its edge and back. During the biopics of the players, this same duality was echoed: high levels of care coupled with high levels of expectation.
In other words, in addition to strategically mapping out X’s and O’s, play by play, they have created a culture that goes beyond mere execution and talent. This is a quality that any corporate leader would envy.
Why This Is An Ideal Leadership Style
In The Prince, Machiavelli said it is better to be feared than loved. As a leadership style, I’m not so sure. It’s definitely easier to be feared than loved. But how can you get a group of people – such as within your company or from your direct reports – to be motivated to perform well? Is it better for them to feel like they have to perform or they’ll lose their jobs? Or is it better for them to be so invested in the leadership and its vision that the motivation comes from inside, not outside.
This is really the crux; creating an internal motivation versus an external motivation.
The external version is a fear-based, survival of the fittest, perform or get fired motivation. This totally works to motivate people, as long as you have that external threat hanging over your head. On average, people will tend to perform right up until they don’t. In organizations that deploy this strategy, they just reload with another body to sit at that desk.
But once the fear is gone, so is the motivation.
The other strategy of creating internal motivation (in the case of Swinney and Saban, is by creating vision and loyalty). Psychologically this is the more stable motivator because a person carries it with them where ever they go. Once they absorb the vision of the leadership as their own — and this is set into the context of a common cause and supportive climate — they’ll give 110% for you, not despite you … on their own … even when you’re not looking.
Does this leadership style mean that you don’t demand excellence and effort? Of course not. Does it mean that you have to balance love-and-support with accountability-and-consequences? Absolutely. That’s why I said (above) that it is far easier to create a climate of fear than one of love.
But once in place, it creates its own inertia.
So the bottom line is that the leadership style that creates internal motivation through common purpose and caring will always produce more consistent production more often. These college teams performing at the very top of their game is a case-in-point. If nothing else, the excellence shown in both of these teams makes their strategy definitely worth emulating. Moreover, when you see teams that win, their coaches typically share this kind of approach.
Oh, and Roll Tide.
