resolving_issues_with_your_boss

06/15/2025:

Resolving Issues with Your Boss (Part 22):

Supportive & People-Focused Leadership Styles

Summary of Part 21

Part 21 explored conflict resolution strategies for subordinates working under directive, task-focused leadership styles, as follows: Autocratic, Bureaucratic, Transactional, Coercive, Task-Oriented, Results-Oriented, and Pacesetting styles. It details how subordinates should adapt communication and conflict approaches based on the specific leadership style and the level of workplace tension. The article emphasizes using strategies like Controlled Communication, Unilateral Initiatives, GRIT, Superordinate Goals, SPIN techniques, and Principled Negotiations, tailoring their application to high- and low-tension environments to navigate disagreements effectively.

Introduction

In high-pressure work environments where conflict is nearly inevitable, the character and behavior of leadership significantly shape how subordinates experience and manage workplace disputes. Supportive and People-Focused leadership styles prioritize empathy, trust, individual development, and psychological safety—making them especially complex to navigate when tension rises and time becomes scarce.

From the subordinate's perspective, leaders who adopt styles such as Affiliative, Authentic Leadership, Coaching, People-Oriented or Consideration, and Servant Leadership offer emotional intelligence and relational strength. Still, they also pose distinct challenges when navigating fairness, expectations, and resolution issues.

This essay examines how these leadership styles interact with workplace conflict under stress, with special attention to factors such as realistic versus unrealistic disputes, psychological boundary issues, trust restoration, zero-sum avoidance, and how contemporaneous notes can assist in constructing an exit strategy or reinforcing accountability.

Affiliative Leadership

Affiliative leadership centers on creating emotional bonds and fostering harmony.

According to Daniel Goleman (2000), this style encourages collaboration and promotes a positive team climate. For subordinates, the benefit lies in reduced interpersonal friction and a strong sense of belonging. However, in high-tension environments where fast decisions and task clarity are essential, the Affiliative style can inadvertently delay necessary conflict engagement. When disputes arise—especially those rooted in realistic performance concerns or systemic inefficiencies—an affiliative leader may resist confrontation to preserve emotional balance, even if the problem requires prompt escalation.

Unrealistic disputes, such as misread tones in emails or perceived slights, are often diffused but unresolved. Trust is generally high with affiliative leaders, but rebuilding it is emotionally demanding for both parties once broken.

Subordinates must tread carefully, initiating Controlled Communication or SPIN techniques (Rackham, 1988) to gently draw attention to specific implications of inaction. Keeping contemporaneous notes is vital in such settings as evidence and as a structured record of emotional dynamics and informal agreements. If issues persist, this can become a foundation for either resolution or a respectful, mutually understood departure.

Authentic Leadership

Authentic Leadership emphasizes transparency, moral clarity, and self-awareness. Bruce J. Avolio and William L. Gardner (2005) describe authentic leaders as grounded individuals who act by deeply held values and openly admit mistakes.

Subordinates under such leadership often find a refreshing alignment of words and actions. However, when time constraints or emotional intensity strain the relationship, the leader's strength in consistency may evolve into rigidity. From the subordinate's view, disagreements over core values or ethical judgments can become high-stakes battles.

Realistic disputes—such as the allocation of credit or miscommunication over deliverables—are often addressed directly. Authentic leaders usually engage in Principled Negotiations (Fisher & Ury, 1981), favoring fairness and problem-solving over posturing. Unrealistic disputes, however, become more difficult when the leader interprets the issue as an attack on their integrity. Trust recovery is possible but typically requires time and transparency.

If shared constructively, contemporaneous notes can support a truth-seeking dialogue by grounding the conversation in facts and dates. Should resolution be out of reach, these notes also support a fair and principled case for reassignment or exit.

Coaching Leadership

Coaching leadership is geared toward development, long-term growth, and alignment between personal and professional goals. Daniel Goleman (2000) identifies this style as one of the most positive regarding employee engagement and satisfaction.

Subordinates benefit from regular feedback and future-oriented guidance. However, the Coaching style demands time and mutual commitment, which are not always feasible under high-pressure or conflict-heavy circumstances.

Realistic disputes—such as unclear performance expectations or contradictory feedback—can be addressed effectively using SPIN techniques to identify specific problems and future-oriented needs. Unrealistic disputes, like feeling micromanaged under the guise of "development," may be harder to articulate without risking offense.

Psychological boundaries may blur as the coaching leader delves into the subordinate's motivations and potential, sometimes ignoring short-term stressors. Controlled Communication is essential to ensure that feedback exchanges remain within comfortable and respectful limits.

Coaching leaders typically welcome note-taking, and contemporaneous records of prior discussions can support future check-ins and framing a tactful exit should alignment break down.

People-Oriented or Consideration Leadership

People-Oriented leadership, or what Ralph M. Stogdill and Alvin E. Coons (1957) termed "consideration," refers to leaders who prioritize team member well-being, trust, and interpersonal respect. Subordinates often experience this style as validating and inclusive, with high psychological safety. However, this sensitivity can result in decision paralysis when tensions escalate, especially if task demands outweigh relational harmony.

In high-tension situations, the subordinate may need to initiate Controlled Communication or Phased Intercession, gradually raising the stakes to gain a response. Realistic issues, such as unfair workload distribution or overlooked contributions, may be addressed empathetically but lack follow-through. Unrealistic concerns, such as imagined favoritism or vague slights, may receive too much attention, ironically leading to the erosion of trust in leadership competence.

Subordinates can tactfully use Principled Negotiations to highlight the importance of balanced attention to tasks and people. Keeping contemporaneous notes helps document the leader's responsiveness and provides a fallback for resolution or escalation when words alone fall short.

Servant Leadership

Robert K. Greenleaf introduced the concept of Servant Leadership (1977), identifying managers who prioritizes the needs of others above personal authority, a leadership style that emphasizes stewardship, listening, and shared power.

Under this style, subordinates often experience a profound sense of value and being given the opportunity to influence workplace outcomes.

It works exceptionally well in low-tension environments where relational depth enhances performance. In high-tension or deadline-driven contexts, however, servant leaders may become overwhelmed or uncertain when tough decisions or disciplinary clarity are required.

Disputes grounded in reality—such as role confusion or shifting priorities—may take too long to address if the leader is overcommitted to inclusive processes. Unrealistic disputes, such as imagined neglect or overlooked intent, are sometimes absorbed by the leader rather than corrected.

Subordinates can proactively deploy Unilateral Initiatives (Osgood, 1962) to show goodwill while subtly guiding the leader toward resolution. Trust tends to be resilient under servant leadership, and contemporaneous notes can be highly effective tools in building a shared memory of actions, intentions, and progress. This documentation can support a dignified and mutually supportive transition if leaving becomes necessary.

Conclusion

Supportive and People-Focused leadership styles foster psychological safety, trust, and human-centered collaboration. However, from a subordinate's perspective, these traits can create vulnerabilities in high-tension or time-sensitive conflict situations. Affiliative and Servant leaders may avoid conflict; people-oriented and Coaching leaders may over-personalize disputes; and authentic leaders may struggle to accommodate differing values.

Success in resolving issues under these styles relies on balancing emotional intelligence and practical strategies such as Controlled Communication, SPIN questioning, and maintaining contemporaneous notes to reinforce accountability or guide an amicable exit. When approached thoughtfully, conflict under these leadership styles can lead to resolution, growth, and respectful closure.

* Note: A pdf copy of this article can be found at:

https://www.mcl-associates.com/downloads/resolving_issues_with_your_boss_part22.pdf

References

Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338.

Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin Books.

Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78–90.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Paulist Press.

Osgood, C. E. (1962). An alternative to war or surrender. University of Illinois Press.

Rackham, N. (1988). SPIN selling. McGraw-Hill.

Stogdill, R. M., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.

While listening to an audiobook on the Medici by Paul Strathern, I was presented with a historical citation that I knew to be incredibly inaccurate. In a chapter entitled, "Godfathers of the Scientific Renaissance". discussing the apocryphal tale of Galileo's experiment conducted from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, the author cites Neil Armstrong in the Apollo 11 flight to the Moon with its memorable modern recreation, using a hammer and a feather.

Attributing this famous experiment to Armstrong on Apollo 11 is incorrect. It occurred on August 2, 1971, at the end of the last EVA of Apollo 15, presented by Astronaut Dave Scott. To press the point further, Scott used a feather from a very specific species: a falcon's feather. This small piece of trivia is memorable since Scott accompanied by crew member Al Worden arrived on the Lunar surface using the Lunar Module christened, "Falcon".

In an instant, the author's faux pas – for me -- undercut the book's entire validity. In an instant, it soured my listening enjoyment.

Mr. Strathern is approximately a decade my senior. As a well-published writer and historian, it is presumed that he subscribes to the professional standards of careful research and accuracy. Given this well-documented piece of historical modern trivia, I cannot fathom how he got it so wrong. Moreover, I cannot figure out how such an egregious error managed to go unscathed through what I assumed was a standard professional proofreading and editing process.

If the author and the publisher’s many editorial staff had got this single incontrovertible event from recent history wrong, what other counterfactual information did the book contain?

What is interesting to me, is my own reaction or -- judging from this narrative – some might say, my over-reaction to a fairly common occurrence. Why was I so angry? Why could I not just shake it off with a philosophical, ironic shake of the head?

And that is the point: accidental misinformation, spin and out-and-out propaganda -- and the never-ending stream of lies, damned lies, and unconfirmed statistics whose actual methodology is either shrouded or not even attempted -- are our daily fare. At some point, it is just too much to suffer in silence.

I have had enough of it.

God knows I do not claim to be a paragon of virtue. I told lies as a child, to gloss over personal embarrassments, though I quickly learned that I am not particularly good at deception. I do not like it when others try to deceive me. I take personal and professional pride in being honest about myself and my actions.

Do I make mistakes and misjudgments personally and professionally? Of course, I do. We all do. Have I done things for which I am ashamed? Absolutely. Where I have made missteps in my life, I have taken responsibility for my actions, and have apologized for my actions, or tried to explain them if I have the opportunity to do so.

For all of these thoughtless self-centered acts, I can only move forward. There is nothing I can do about now except to try to do grow and be a better human being in all aspects of my life. That's all any of us can do. I try to treat others as I wish to be treated: with honesty and openness about my personal and private needs, and when I am able to accommodate the wants and needs of those who have entered the orbit of my life.

We all have a point of view. Given the realities of human psychology and peer pressures to conform, it is not surprising that I or anyone else would surrender something heartfelt without some sort of struggle. However, we have a responsibility to others -- and to ourselves -- to not fabricate a narrative designed to misinform, or manipulate others.

Lying is a crime of greed, only occasionally punished when uncovered in a court of law
I am sick to death with liars, “alternative facts” in all their varied plumages and their all too convenient camouflage of excuses and rationales. While I am nowhere close to removing this class of humans from impacting my life, I think it is well past the time to start speaking out loud about our out-of-control culture of pathological untruthfulness openly.

Lying about things that matter -- in all its many forms, both overt and covert -- is unacceptable. When does lying matter? When you are choosing to put your self-interest above someone else’s through deceit.

Some might call me a "sucker" or "hopelessly naive". I believe that I am neither. Our species - as with all living things -- is caught in a cycle of both competition and cooperation
We both compete and cooperate to survive.

There is a sardonic observation, “It’s all about mind over matter. If I no longer mind, it no longer matters”. This precisely captures the issue that we all must face: the people who disdainfully lie to us – and there are many – no longer mind. We – the collective society of humanity no longer matter, if for them we ever did.

We are long past the time when we all must demand a new birth of social norms. We all have the responsibility to maintain them and enforce them in our own day-to-day lives. Without maintaining the basic social norms of honesty and treating others as you wish to be treated in return, how can any form of human trust take place?