How should one approach to improving their leadership ?

Behavioral leadership vs psychological leadership

Two approaches to leadership. Behavioral leadership says you must change your behavior to improve your leadership. The other one says you get to know yourself better to change which will of course result in behavior.

Leaving the practical applications to one side I want to explore the two concepts.

The psychological View

This view asks, “Who are you?” and the focus is on your identity values and beliefs. The path that will take the person to be a better leader would be to Understand oneself; adapt your mindset to what you need to change and change on working the behavior.

The behavioral view

This view asks “What do you do differently than other leaders? The focus would be actions, routines and habits. The path that would take the take them to be a better leader would be to Practice the behaviors; master them and turn them into habits.

If you have been reading my posts and newsletter you will probably know that I am a believer on the psychological side. I do believe the behavioral side has its merits. From a pragmatic view as a leader if you want to get fast results yes, the behavioral path provides results with a faster nature.

Do they stick? Do they become a part of who you are? Not really. At best they become learned behaviors. The best-case scenario is that it could be turning into a habit. So, it’s not all bad. But it does take time.

Sadly, it doesn’t provide the transformation. Transformation is not easy and it’s not for everyone. But that’s the change.

So why do some people choose behavioral even if transformation is not there?

As mentioned, it does provide quick results. It is specifically measurable and repeatable. Not like psychological where it seems more abstract internal and harder to define. Leaving the comfort zone and working on a transformation is not an easy choice for many. You must work on yourself first before expecting results.

The critical distinction: Technique vs Routine

The main problem is that on the technique side the techniques are only done when necessary to have a certain effect which takes time to master and this is where others can detect your behavior difference.

Whereas in the routine people see it as who you are authentically. A routine is something you do because you want to be that person.

In brief the behavioral view says leadership is a skill you practice, not a personality you’re stuck with. Whereas the routine is more than skill practice it’s a work on who you are through routine.

“The psychological view isn’t the alternative to behavioral; it’s what enables behavioral to become routine. Without inner work, behavior stays technique. With it, behavior becomes who you are.”

In brief:

Both views can work on their own, but they each have limits.

The psychological view alone asks, “Who are you?” and assumes that if you understand yourself, adapt your mindset, and work on inner change, your behavior will follow naturally.

The problem many see is that people understand themselves better, but they don’t change. They don’t get better at leadership. To prevent this, psychological work must include concrete action; set specific behaviors to practice after each insight, or pair self-awareness with a coach who holds you accountable.

The behavioral view alone asks, “What do you do differently than other leaders?” and assumes that if you practice behaviors, master them, and turn them into habits, your leadership improves.

My observation is that without transformation, this stays as technique. It’s not sustainable. You’re doing it for an effect, for a result and not because it’s who you are.

Both views can work alone but psychologically go deeper. Behavioral gets you fast results.

Psychological gets you transformation that sticks.

If you’re working on leadership and want to explore how to make behavioral changes stick through transformation, DM me for a conversation.