Authority and Leadership

I have always struggled to accept authority for authority’s sake.

I can perhaps attribute this attitude to my father, who frequently attempted to instill in me the advice to “question everything” and to “always consider the source.” It never made sense to me that I should reject my own logical understanding or suppress my reasonable concerns simply because someone else was in charge. Nothing was more likely to foment open rebellion from me than the hated response to a valid question of kids everywhere, “because I said so.”

As I’ve grown older and (hopefully) matured, I’ve come to appreciate the need for hierarchy and structure. One of the few things as frustrating as arbitrary authority is no clear authority at all, where there is no chain of command or process for decision making. After a spirited debate on the right direction or path forward, at the end of the day there needs to be one clear directive for an organization, team, or family to function.

How do I make sense of the need for authority on the one hand and my aversion to having authority wielded over me on the other? When and where is it reasonable for a leader to expect their authority to be obeyed while also fostering the psychological safety needed for employees to be able to voice concerns and dissenting opinions?

Having recently become a father, I’m also wondering how I can manage this tension in my parenting. How can I emphasize the importance of some of my deepest values -- critical thinking, rigorous and respectful debate, and authentic self-expression – while also providing the structure and discipline my son needs?

The longer, shorter way to answering these questions requires an exploration of the concept of deference.

Deference is commonly mistaken for blind loyalty or subservience to authority. To defer to someone implies yielding or submitting to that person not because they have power over you (that is coercion), but because of the respect you have for that person, their wisdom, or their experience. Deference is the result of a relationship with a person, not their position.

Deference, like trust or respect, must be earned.

It is through the voluntary choice to defer - to put aside one’s own views and beliefs as part of a genuine connection with an authority figure - that we can reconcile how to cultivate independent thinking and creativity while maintaining a decision making hierarchy.

What is the ideal role of leadership’s decision making authority from an employee perspective?

Let’s begin by considering the perspective of the employee who is expected to comply with the decisions made by their manager or higher up executives within their organization. How do they feel about the need to follow directives with which they may disagree, and how does this impact their individual performance and collective contribution to company culture and morale?

From an employee perspective, ideally decision making authority is rarely used as an exercise of power. While there needs to be a clearly delineated decision making process for an organization to operate effectively, an employee would typically prefer to be part of that process. When they are not included in decision making, especially when they disagree with or do not understand the decisions that are made, they feel powerless within a hierarchical structure.

Many organizations, particularly the early stage companies that I work with, claim to have a “flat” structure in which all voices have a chance to be heard and considered. In practice, for reports to be comfortable challenging assumptions or advocating for out of the box thinking, they need to know that their ideas will actually be seriously considered.

When leaders and managers pay lip service to soliciting input and feedback but then routinely overrule thoughtful objections and shut down counter arguments, employee creativity and engagement suffers. A company’s culture is not the values they post on their recruiting materials, it is the lived experience of the employees.

As an employee, there is a huge difference between a leader having a conversation with you about why they are not taking your suggestion and a leader dismissing your suggestion. Leaders and managers have a much broader view of an organization or a team than their reports, and there may be clear and convincing reasons why a theoretically good idea is impractical. When reasonable arguments are met with a reasonable response, most employees can understand and appreciate leadership’s thinking and may even learn something from the experience.

This dynamic whereby an employee accepts a manager or leader’s decision-making authority after having had their ideas evaluated on their merits is not deference. Being exposed to the bigger picture and hearing some of the considerations that make a given suggestion infeasible doesn’t require an employee to defer to the authority of someone else by putting aside their own thinking or beliefs. From the employee perspective, they are being convinced of the course of action and are brought along for the ride, which is the ideal interaction with authority figures.

When would an employee be more willing to show deference to leadership?

Now let’s consider what it’s like for an employee to experience something less than this ideal, where deference may be more relevant. Even at a company where employee feedback is regularly sought out and considered as discussed above, there may be moments when this process is unrealistic. Perhaps the leaders or executives are working against a clock to meet a deadline for a board meeting, or managers are putting out fires and have insufficient bandwidth to listen - there are always times, especially at a startup, where things are moving too quickly to involve everyone in decision making.

In such a situation where there is no opportunity for discussion or debate, an employee may be asked to defer to leadership’s decisions and do whatever is being asked of them. How this feels to the employee and whether they willingly defer or begrudgingly comply depends on three factors: (i) the importance or scope of the decision, (ii) how compelling the given reasons are for the decision, and (iii) the employee’s relationship with the decision maker or the organization in general.

(i) The importance or scope of the decision:

It really matters whether an employee is being asked to defer on something fundamentally related to their ability to do their job. Most employees understand why they aren’t consulted on the specific terms of a fund raise, even if they may have some informed opinions on the matter. Similarly, while some engaged employees have insights and perspectives to share about functions outside of their remit or about cross-functional processes, they will likely tolerate some instances where these are not considered by leadership. In both cases, an otherwise engaged employee might defer to leadership and trust that they are making the right decision for the company without soliciting feedback.

On the other hand, a sales or marketing professional will want to be consulted before being informed of decisions to slash a marketing budget, to dramatically increase pricing, or to shift their focus to a new industry vertical. In many instances, particularly at smaller companies, those employees likely know more about the given subject than the executives making the decisions. Following these directives is not deference, which requires making a choice to trust someone because they have earned that trust. Rather, it is a submission to power that often breeds frustration and resentment (over not being consulted) which can lead to turnover.

(ii) The reasons behind a given decision:

It matters both what is explained at the time as well as the narrative around next steps moving forward. There may very well be a compelling reason why employees were not consulted on an important decision. Maybe a partnership deal had been discussed in confidence before being announced, or a decision regarding raises or bonuses that would be unpopular had to be kept under wraps until it was shared. How these decisions are communicated is critical to how they’ll be interpreted; there is a huge difference between leadership personally delivering bad news about raises while explaining why the company needs the cash (and ideally that they also aren’t taking a raise) and an email that simply announces percentages. Timing, context, and tone are key.

Similarly, the right follow-up messaging and providing an opportunity for employees to give feedback can hugely influence the speed and ease with which they show deference. In the above example, leadership could make themselves available to listen to employee concerns after delivering the bad news. If they truly listen with empathy and connection, an employee is more inclined to defer to the wisdom of leadership in making the unpopular but necessary decision. If they do not, employees are more likely to question leadership’s integrity or confidence, eroding morale and potentially creating a negative employer brand that is difficult to restore.

(iii) The nature of the relationship between the leader or manager and the employee:

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the nature of the relationship between the leader or manager and the employee or team member is critical to whether deference is given. If the employee respects the leader’s record of success and can trust that perhaps they know better, this is the more classical definition of the word deference as putting aside one’s own views due to the wisdom or experience of another. Or if the employee has a great working relationship with the manager, even if the manager’s response isn’t as robust (perhaps they don’t know the reason that well either because leadership is being vague with them, or perhaps there just isn’t a clear answer), they will be more likely to show them deference given the good will they’ve built together in their relationship.

Think of a relationship with an authority figure as having a “deference account" - the goodwill generated over time makes deposits into it that can compound over time, and it needs to be actively restored once deference is shown and draws down from that balance.

Whatever confluence of these factors might occur, if an employee feels that power is used over them to shut them down, especially when it is a matter that is deeply personal or important to them, it will negatively impact their perceptions of leadership and engagement with their role. Leadership should not confuse an employee ceasing their arguing or backing down with deference; this is a response to a use of power and a wielding of authority. Perhaps it is justified - maybe the employee is disruptive, needlessly argumentative, or demands having their opinion heard on topics that have nothing to do with their role - in any case, it is not deference.

Again, assuming we’re talking about reasonable people, most employees understand that a company cannot make progress when decisions are made by consensus. Employees may be willing to defer to a leader that they respect, or at least to give leadership the benefit of the doubt in some instances, when their opinions are otherwise typically considered. When this deference is not earned through the accumulation of deference credit but is instead expected by dint of an org-chart hierarchy, the result is resentment that can fester and have negative and costly consequences for a company.

When is it reasonable for leaders to expect deference from their team?

Now that we have considered when an employee might be willing to show deference to leadership, let’s explore when leaders may be justified in asking for deference from their team.

The best leaders avoid needing to remind people that they are in positions of leadership. As Tywin Lannister famously told his nephew Joffrey, a real king doesn’t need to tell people that they’re the king.

There is a reason that the term “bossy” has such a negative connotation whereas being “a boss” is a form of praise - people willingly follow a confident leader while they begrudge a tyrant who tells them what they have to do.

Ideally, the job of a leader is to continuously weave a narrative that inspires others to want to join them in trying to make their vision a reality. While the leader likely has some sense of what the road might look like to get where they want to go, they realize that they need to build a team of people who may know better than them how to navigate that road. Strong leaders are therefore humble, acknowledging their gifts while seeking input and collaboration from others who can complement or supplement those strengths.

This style of leadership actually requires deference on the part of the leader to the team of experts that they’ve assembled. If someone is brought on to a team or company because of their unique skills or experience, a good leader concerns themself with making sure that person has the resources they need to do what they do best. This doesn’t mean that the leader abdicates their ultimate authority for company strategy to someone else, but rather that they trust their team and will largely defer to them on what is required to implement or execute that strategy.

As it relates to the bigger picture vision and direction for a company, the best leaders transparently lay out the sound logic and tangible evidence behind their decisions. Most leaders think they do this, delivering impassioned addresses laden with buzzwords and industry jargon, but in reality these communications usually fail to make an impact because they are not deeply understood and internalized. Leaders ideally should engage with employees (and also investors and prospective clients) in normal, human language that resonates with them beyond a superficial level.

Always seeking to deepen their understanding and curious to broaden their perspective, a strong leader welcomes feedback and debate about their analysis and planning. By inviting questions, especially when they are based on data or evidence (or a proposed experiment to collect that data or evidence), a leader can refine their thinking while also building a collaborative culture. Similarly, if a leader does not know an answer to a given question, it is better to acknowledge that and ask for time to reflect and research instead of making up an answer or waffling with noncommittal language - employees can sense this and will respect a vulnerable and humble leader more than an arrogant one.

Yet, even the best laid plans are not guaranteed and a leader’s job is to inspire faith in their team to follow them down an uncertain path. Maybe a leader has certain experience that gives them a particularly unique view of how events might unfold, and they can explain their conclusions and defend their convictions. Maybe they are just making a bet on a possible future. Acknowledging that risk, while stating why they think it is worth trying anyway, is often part of what makes people want to follow this type of leader.

In either case, a true leader does not demand or expect deference from anyone. They make every attempt to provide compelling arguments for their decisions and to consider any new evidence as part of that process, and then they lay out why they believe the path forward is the correct choice in that moment with limited information. When others follow them, it is either because they find the rationale and reasoning more compelling than their own, or they acknowledge that the leader’s perspective inspires them to see things a different way. When they voluntarily choose to put aside their own views, employees defer out of respect for the leader.

What about circumstances where employees do not agree with the leader’s vision or strategic planning? After engaging with others’ concerns with an open mind while transparently providing their own point of view, what should a leader do when there is still dissent? At that point, it is not unreasonable to ask for a tempered version of deference.

The phrase “disagree and commit” is relevant to this situation - the leader may ask the team member to go along with the plan even though their disagreement has been noted. The framing here is that the leader is not saying “no forever,” they are saying “no, for now.” They can acknowledge the possibility of trying the employee’s suggestion in the future or as a backup plan if the original strategy isn’t successful. If that isn’t agreeable, it is totally justified at that point for the leader to encourage the dissenting individual to seek employment elsewhere - no one should have to work at a company where they fundamentally disagree with its leadership.

When is it reasonable for managers to expect deference from their reports?

Like leaders, managers should not expect deference from their reports. They can instead earn it over time by building authentic and trusting relationships with the people that they manage.

It is the responsibility of a manager to understand and internalize the company strategy set by leadership. In this way, they can field questions or concerns from their reports and escalate or respond to them appropriately. Leadership should therefore take care to ensure that managers are involved in the company’s strategic decision making process, especially as it relates to their department. Expecting managers to defend leadership decisions to their reports without getting their buy-in is not an effective way to build channels of internal communication.

Managers should realize that the employees closest to a given work stream are the most likely to identify ways to streamline or improve the efficiency of their responsibilities. By encouraging their reports to bring up new ideas and to suggest improved ways of doing things, managers serve a critical function in bridging the gap between leadership and the boots on the ground.

That being said, there may very well be instances where a given suggestion is infeasible. As we discussed above, there may not always be a readily available reason for why that is the case. It is the job of the manager to document the suggestion for a time when it may be better received, and to ask their reports to trust them to know how best to advocate for leadership on their behalf. That trust is built on foundational principles of effective management and genuine human connection, and once established should afford the manager some deference from their reports.

When new managers are hired or brought into an existing team, it is therefore critical that they don’t expect to be obeyed right away. Particularly in a case where that manager now has reports that previously had a different manager, there will be some initial skepticism regardless of the new manager’s record of past accomplishment.

Coming into this situation with humility is essential - by showing some deference to the wisdom of reports who’ve been at the company longer and being open to learning from them, new managers can build the trust that ultimately will build up a balance in their deference account that will pay off in the long run. Managers in this situation should seek to first gain credibility through their actions at the new organization, whether through solving problems, by adding value as a team player, or even just by being a good listener and conflict mediator.

Deference in a coach or consultant’s relationship with their client

One of the biggest factors that drove my decision to become a coach and consultant was my desire to be my own boss. Through choosing the clients I partner with, I can for the most part avoid situations where an authority figure expects submission instead of earning deference.

Yet, as the saying goes “everybody works for somebody.” At the end of the day, my clients pay the bills. When a client decides to go in a direction other than the one that I would recommend, should I defer to my client’s wishes?

My favorite founding father, Thomas Jefferson, is often erroneously quoted as saying “in matters of principle stand like a rock, in matters of style, swim with the current” (apparently there is no historical record of him actually saying this even though it is often attributed to him). Whoever said it first, the relevant idea here is that whether to stand firm in your convictions or swim with a client’s desires really depends on the specific circumstances.

My engagements with clients are growth partnerships, where I work closely with them in the development of their growth strategies and plans. If the course of action that one of my clients wants to take is one that I would fundamentally disagree with in principle, I would vehemently challenge their decision. This is part of what my clients sign up for when they partner with me - knowing that I will push them to articulate the reasons behind their decisions. If no compelling reasons can be given to convince me of the wisdom of a different path, the best decision for both parties is for us to wind down our partnership.

This can be done totally amicably - it is out of respect for the client that I would not defer to them in a matter of principle. The best decision for them at that point is to find someone else more aligned with their views who can support the direction they want to go. Losing a client or the potential revenue is not a compelling reason for me to defer to them; I practice embracing an abundance mindset ( link) in my life and work, and would trust that the best course of action is to devote my time and energy to clients that better fit my ideal client profile.

On the other hand, if a client has stylistic preferences that differ from mine, I will usually swim with that current and trust that they know best what they want. If we have a strong foundation of a relationship as strategic partners, I can genuinely defer to them and their knowledge of themselves and their company.

Deference in the parent and child relationship

Some of the best parenting books I’ve read so far are: The Whole Brained Child, Elevating Child Care: A Guide to Respectful Parenting, The Conscious Parent, How to Talk So Kids Will Listen and Listen So Kids Will Talk, and Raising Good Humans. All of them stress the importance of limiting the exercise of power over our children, even from the youngest age in the way that we physically hold and guide them. They also emphasize that many of the rules parents are inclined to establish are actually arbitrary preferences imposed on their kids, and that as parents we should only dig-in on critical matters of safety, health, and good manners.

In short, these books teach that leading by example and giving kids space to be themselves is the best way to build a relationship with them where they are more likely to voluntarily defer to you when needed. When kids know that you respect them, their thinking, and their individuality, and when they see you as a partner invested in helping them find and express their authentic self, they may be more willing to do it your way when you need to lay down the law. That all being said, my son isn’t even talking yet, so we’ll see how all that theory works out in practice.

The Tiferet Approach

In Judaism, tiferet is the energy of harmony and balance that enables the reconciliation of contradictory elements through contextualizing them in light of something greater. Two opposites cannot be forced to coexist peacefully, they must be shown a greater reality or higher version of themselves in which they really aren’t in opposition to each other.

In the Jewish tradition, the beginning and root of refining the self is through the voluntary recognition of a reality greater than the self. To have an authentic connection with that reality, it is critical that the acceptance of it be given freely and willingly. The desire to bind oneself to the unity of all things and to pursue a relationship with the source of existence and life itself has to come from you - it cannot be compulsory. Only you can change you.

In other words, if the Ultimate Authority doesn’t want to force us to do anything and only seeks our genuine deference, how much more so should we as leaders and parents not seek to impose our authority on those in our care? By encouraging others to channel the energy of tiferet that enables contradictory elements to both be true and by modeling this behavior ourselves, we can empower the people we lead to both be unique individuals while also being an integral part of something greater than themselves.