I've recently had the opportunity of recording interviews with several banker friends I've known for as long as 30 years. In off-the-record conversations, we've reminisced about what our jobs were like "back in the day."
It's hard to overstate just how much the operational aspects of our businesses have evolved compared to when many of today's senior bank leaders began their careers. A friend suggested that what we try to do for customers — the things we do to help and support them — hasn't changed significantly.
However, the products, tools and processes we use to assist them have changed dramatically.
Banking has not been alone in this transformation. Industries from medicine to construction, from consumer sales to farming, from education to transportation have also undergone equally substantial changes during this time.
That said, some management and culture development principles from the past remain as relevant today as they were when these seasoned banking leaders began their careers.
Many of the friends I've reconnected with are now working in very senior roles in organizations that have grown far larger since they first joined. The size of the business units they now lead is greater than most ever imagined when they began their careers.
During different conversations about lessons learned along the way, one particular leadership pitfall was mentioned frequently.
It stuck with me because it's a management issue I've encountered countless times over the years. It's definitely one of the most common complaints I've heard, from branch managers to the C-suites of organizations.
That complaint is superiors who "go around" them or undermine them with their teams.
Few things are as deflating for someone who is accountable for building and developing a team as having their own manager, whether intentionally or not, weaken their authority in the eyes of that team.
One friend said, "One of the most important lessons you need to learn is that you can lead large teams, but you don't manage large teams."
Her thought was that effective management requires personal interaction to provide feedback, coach and mentor individuals.
Knowledgeable leaders understand that there is only so much time any individual has, and if you try to personally manage too large a group, you will inevitably shortchange those people and likely neglect other important responsibilities of your role.
Bringing in new talent is an essential part of building a business that endures. So, why are so many managers content to tolerate a hiring process that drives talented individuals away?
While few would disagree that poor adherence to the chain of command presents serious pitfalls, it remains a persistent problem in many organizations. It begins as simple as front-line managers who feel compelled to step in and complete a task or make decisions their subordinates should handle.
The immediate result may be the assurance that something was done to their liking, but the long-term effects tend to be less engaged and less competent teams. While this issue might seem more common at the front-line or branch level, it also scales up.
I've seen experienced managers with strong leadership backgrounds become disengaged, passive observers when their leaders consistently make decisions for them or over-scrutinize the decisions they "allow" them to make.
People who fear the repercussions of less-than-perfect decisions, no matter how small, tend to "bubble up" decisions they should rightfully make themselves, avoiding ownership.
As a leader, just because you have the authority to make a decision doesn't mean you should always be the one making it. Yes, it's quicker to simply resolve issues or answer questions brought directly to you, regardless of whether the chain of command has been followed.
However, more often than not, those quick, out-of-chain decisions — ones you may not consider all that significant — can undermine the managers who should have been involved or made the decision themselves.
It may seem ironic to some, but delegating authority, especially early on, can take more time and often be more stressful than doing everything yourself. Part of the stress comes from the fact that the managers who report to you likely don't think exactly as you do.
But competent and confident leaders know that it can actually be highly beneficial.
There's a difference between compliance with goals and compliance with approach.
Respected leaders recognize this and support the development and empowerment of the managers they lead.
Ultimately, our most valuable leaders are those committed to developing, supporting and empowering their subordinates to take ownership and lead.
