Nothing so conclusively proves a man's ability to lead others as what he does from day to day to lead himself.” - Thomas J. Watson

Although my essay today talks about two kinds of sheepdogs, the picture above is not of a sheepdog. This is is our sweet little dog Zoe. I don’t think she’d be interested in being anyone’s boss, but I do think there is something to be learned in considering the two kinds of sheepdogs and how we might compare their approach to their jobs to the different approaches people take to being bosses.

Years ago, I enjoyed reading some research about two broad types of sheepdogs and their different approaches to herding and protecting the flocks they serve. The article I remember reading was probably published in Scientific American in the 1980s or 90s as I used to read every article in that magazine each month in those days. The general point of the research was that sheepdogs could be separated into two broad groups based on the way they were perceived by, and responded to, the sheep.

One group of sheepdogs includes breeds like the Border Collie, Australian Shepherd, Belgian Sheepdog, and Shetland Sheepdog. These are herding dogs and sheep tend to respond to these breeds as they would to wolves or other predators. They represent a potential threat and the sheep form flocks and move away from the “wolf” allowing the sheepdog to herd them. The other group of sheepdogs includes breeds like the Polish Lowland Sheepdog, Komondor,Great Pyrenees, and Maremma Sheepdog. These are guardian dogs and sheep tend to respond to them as if there were part of the flock. They are introduced to the sheep as puppies and bond with the animals they will spend their lives guarding.  

Before writing any more, I’d like to be very clear on one point. While I’m interested in the comparison between sheepdogs’ herding and protecting strategies and the approaches bosses take to directing, developing, and serving the people they work with, I’d never suggest comparing employees to sheep! The people we work with are each wonderful, complex, human beings in their own right and each deserves our respect and our best as bosses. I also think sheep get a bad rap when we use them as a stereotype for human’s blindly following a leader or trend without thinking critically. My wife is a knitter and fiber artist and I rather like sheep! They can be quite intelligent in their own way. Each spring as I see the new lambs with their mothers on the green hills near our home, my heart is warmed and delighted by these tiny reminders of the coming of spring and of how life and love continue.

This also seems to be a good time for a quick story about how I seem to collect odd bits of information like this. I’ve always been interested in pretty much everything and used to read the encyclopedia as a young boy. Our own boys used to kid me by calling me The Keeper of All Useless Bits of Knowledge until the day one of them mis-spoke by calling me The Useless Keeper of All Bits of Knowledge! That name has stuck and we all get a good laugh out of it. Now... back to those sheepdogs and to bosses.

Just as sheep relate to some sheepdogs as they would to wolves or other predators by acting to reduce or avoid the threat they represent, employees respond to some bosses as authoritarian figures who must be obeyed in order to avoid negative consequences. These bosses usually have a very top-down style of leadership, seem to engage line employees less in strategic planning, and set the direction for the organizations they lead based on their own ideas and instincts. I've also experienced some of these bosses as seeming to be somewhat separate from the teams they lead.

In contrast to these, there are bosses who have a more bottom-up style and see themselves as serving the teams they lead, and are part of, by engaging them in planning how their team can best contribute to the goals of the organizations. These bosses find ways to understand the abilities, interests, and needs of their employees, and to utilize, and develop, these to achieve objectives. I think that employees are more likely to follow these bosses based on loyalty and shared interest.

My style of leadership is more closely aligned to the second type of sheepdog and it has mostly served me well as I’ve managed IT professionals. Most often, the subject matter experts in each area have a deeper understanding than I do of options to achieve our objectives that are practical and effective. By seeking their engagement, respecting their contributions, communicating functional requirements, and leading discussions of potential innovations, I’m confident we achieve better results together than if I were more of a top-down leader.

I imagine there are times when all bosses must rely on authority, command, and control and I’ve had to use this approach at times, too. In situations where I must discipline an employee, where I am directing resources to achieve objectives under deadline, or coaching as opposed to mentoring, I can be very specific in the direction I provide and the expectations I establish. This isn’t my preferred style, but I use it where appropriate. I expect that my more top-down colleagues use a bottom-up approach at times, too. Having both approaches available and seeking the right balance is probably wise.

What kind of boss are you, or what sort of boss do you imagine you would be? To what extent do your employees identify with you and choose to follow you because of your shared values and interests? How much do you think you’d need to rely on command, control and authority?

Metaphors like this one, where we separate things into one of two categories, can be useful in helping us look at significant distinctions in style or approach. They are also inherently limited as the systems an behaviors we confront are almost always much too complex to be simplified in this way. I'd be interested in hearing from you to learn where you think this metaphor proves useful and where it breaks down. I'm also glad I have some warm, hand-knit, sweaters as winter approaches!