Leadership can be defined as influence. The ability to influence is based on a complex blend of many traits and practices. These traits and practices can sometimes tug a leader in different directions. Some of them are at different ends of a spectrum and require that the leader find a healthy place in the middle. For some of these opposing traits and practices, only in the middle can we be effective. To over-emphasize one versus the other makes a leader ineffective. Certain circumstances might require a short-term emphasis towards one end of the spectrum to deal effectively with a given situation, but the norm of leadership is often in the middle between opposing traits and practices.

Some examples of traits and practices where a leader needs to effectively blend two opposite traits or practices are given below. There isn’t a point of perfect balance. It will differ based on the personality of the leader and the circumstances in which he or she is operating.

Vision vs. action. You may have known someone who was always dreaming about the future but was so busy dreaming that there was no doing. It takes action to actually move from the present position to the future. But it is vision that energizes and motivates the team members, so a focus solely on action may leave the team uninspired. Leaders need to tie the action to the vision and let them work together.

Long-term vs. short-term. Leaders, almost by definition, are leading into the future. If they aren’t thinking with the future in mind, there is no vision for team members to follow. But ignoring the present or short-term can allow things to happen (or not happen) that jeopardize the ability to support or survive into the future. There needs to be a balance between the long-term view and the short-term.

Results vs. relationships. Leaders are driven to produce results, but results are produced by people. A focus that is solely on results risks burning out the team or making them feel like unvalued pawns. A leader that overly emphasizes results can be viewed as an uncaring bulldozer. On the other hand, a focus on people only can sacrifice performance and achievement of goals. An overly compassionate leader may avoid the difficult conversations that are required to address performance issues. Leaders need to have both but in balance.

Control vs. delegation. Some people function better with clear instructions and prefer to know that they are on track. Others find an overly controlling supervisor to be stifling. There can be circumstances where firm control is necessary because the outcome is so critical. But delegating can be effective in growing the self-confidence and abilities of those that seek constant feedback. Finding the middle ground and adapting to the personalities and requirements of the situation makes an effective leader.

Firmness vs. flexibility. A leader needs to set and maintain high standards. But firmness can become rigidity or narrow-mindedness when carried too far. The opposite extreme can be flexibility that becomes lackadaisical or sets no standards. An effective leader is both level-minded and open-minded.

Optimistic vs. realistic. It is important that a leader be both realistic and optimistic. Optimism carried too far becomes pollyannish, unable to recognize and admit the challenges that must be overcome. A realistic view taken to the extreme can focus too much on the challenges and potential hurdles to overcome, deflating or paralyzing the leader and the team. An effective leader is realistically optimistic, providing a vision and a path to get there.

Consistency vs. change. Especially in the entrepreneurial leader, there is sometimes a plan of the day, ever-changing. The organization is either continuously changing direction or the team learns to ignore the leader and move on their own. Other people are unable to adapt and adjust; they become fixated on the plan no matter what the environment or the team says. An effective leader charges forward but is aware and able to change direction when a better alternative is warranted.

Character vs. competency. Leadership is built on the combination of character and competency. The person who has been promoted into a position of leadership based solely on competency can sometimes fulfill the “Peter Principle”, failing because of a lack of character and leadership skills. On the other hand, a leader who has great character but is totally lacking in appropriate competencies can face difficulty in gaining the respect of the team members.

Leadership vs. management. In other articles we talk of the difference between management and leadership. Management is about accomplishing tasks; leadership is about influencing people. In many leadership positions, the leader needs to do some of both. But the better the leader, the less managing is required because the team members accomplish the tasks without needing to be managed.

Effective leaders have a base of strong traits and practices that make up the ability to lead or influence. The ones listed here are just a sampling and they are all important to leadership. But, as our pastor says in a different context, “A good thing becomes a bad thing when it becomes a ruling thing.” Leaders need these many traits and practices. But importantly, the best leaders have an awareness of both themselves and the situation along with the ability to nimbly adjust the levels of the various traits and practices to deal appropriately with the circumstances of the moment.

Do you have areas of your leadership where you need to find better balance? What are the challenges?