Three ways leaders can challenge for higher performance: Interactional, goal, and system tension

In several past articles I’ve discussed how leaders can challenge team members effectively (see planning the push, avoiding relentless goal pressure, signaling underlying intent when challenging, and how to challenge more senior leaders).

Expanding on this theme, in this article I’ll describe three ways leaders can challenge team members to achieve high performance, using concepts I call interactional, goal, and system tension.

Why challenging is important for leaders

Some of the challenging behaviours I describe below might make you squirm. Some are a little intense. You might even disagree that a few could ever be associated with effective leadership.

The reason I want to explore these behaviours in this article is because many of the models of leadership that have received the most attention over the last 40 years, relate to inspiration, or ‘pull’ oriented forms of leadership. As a leader I might try to attract others to work with me, by articulating a compelling vision, by expressing admirable values, or by projecting my magnetic charisma and personality. ‘Pull’ oriented leadership is great, and there’s significant evidence supporting it, but I can’t help but wonder if it misses some ‘grittier’ elements of leadership that could be useful at times.

Like, if I’m a leader, and I want to ask my team to go to the absolute limit of performance, to seek out the peak of their performance capabilities, I’m going to have to ask them – maybe even demand of them – that they sign up for some extreme discomfort. They’re going to have to feel some tension, maybe even pain, to reach that peak. So, I wonder if ‘pull’ forms of leadership are enough to convince people to sign up for the kind of suffering you trade for peak achievement, or if there might be a need, at times, to use ‘push’ tactics (some of which I describe in this article).

So in this article I want to explore a broad range of ways that leaders can challenge others to high performance, including both ‘pull’ and some grittier ‘push’ methods.

Creating discomfort

Before I outline the three ways leaders can challenge for high performance, I need to explain the idea of creating discomfort, and how that relates to generating motivation.

Goal setting theory suggests that when you set a goal, you create a gap or discrepancy between where you are now (the status quo), and where you want to go (the goal).

The theory further suggests that the size of that gap – i.e., the difficulty of the goal – also represents the amount of discomfort, or tension people feel about that goal.

Furthermore, the theory also suggests that the amount of discomfort or tension people experience, is equivalent to the amount of motivation they feel to close that gap and achieve that goal.

So to recap: goal difficulty/discrepancy = discomfort/tension = motivation.

In this article, I’m going to outline different ways that leaders can either establish, or draw people’s attention to discrepancy, and in so doing elicit discomfort, and therefore motivation.

I’ll describe how leaders can do this a) through the way they interact with others (interactional tension), b) through the kinds of goals they set (goal tension), and c) in how they construct or engineer the structures, processes, and physical environments that surround team members (system tension).

(Please note that for the purpose of this article, I use the terms discomfort and tension interchangeably. Sorry for the confusion. I’m trying to think of clearer language to use in future.)

Interactional tension

Interactional tension involves eliciting a sense of discomfort, in another person, during an interpersonal interaction with them.

In this section I’ll describe six forms of interactional tension. The first four – intellectual stimulation, challenge, pushing, and pressure – become progressively more intense, move from gentler to rougher tactics, and increasingly infringe on the receiver’s autonomy. The fifth, accountability, is a kind of post-hoc, after-the-fact form of challenging that takes place after someone tries to reach a goal. The sixth form, questioning, can take on either a positive or confrontational tone.

As a caveat, these interactional dimensions overlap to some degree with each other. They aren't meant to be totally discrete. So please consider them a set of not-as-tidy-as-they-could-be ideas designed to stimulate your thinking about leadership practice.

Intellectual stimulation

Intellectual stimulation involves asking others to think more creatively, innovatively, or in more exploratory ways.

It involves asking others to show curiosity, or to take a different perspective on a problem, or to examine it from multiple angles.

It also involves asking others to question their assumptions about an issue.

Generally, if leaders ask their team “how could we be totally wrong about this?” they’re using intellectual stimulation.

Note there’s a greater focus here on challenging thinking rather than action. When I consider how leaders might challenge others, I see two modes: a) challenging deliberation, including how people conceptualize an issue, and b) challenging implementation/action, including how people act or do something about that issue.

(For more ideas on how to express intellectual stimulation, see the Appendix at the end of this article for specific behavioural descriptors.)

Challenging

Challenging involves a benign form of pushing, that is relatively gentle, and preserves the autonomy of the follower.

One form is asking others to meet a higher/different performance level (with emphasis on ‘asking’). Examples include encouraging others to move outside their comfort zone, making the case for a new process or standard, contesting norms/customary ways of doing things, and asking someone to demonstrate a new or different behaviour.

Another form of challenging is pointing out discrepancy between the status quo and goal. This involves drawing awareness, in a non-threatening way, to the gap between current reality and the goal, to elicit discomfort and therefore motivation. This is equivalent to the leader saying “hey, guys, if this is our goal, we’re not achieving it, and we’re not on track to achieve it.”

Another form of challenging is exploring weak spots. This involves challenging inconsistencies in information and accounts, and investigating points of confusion, as well as possible evasions or falsifications. A key point here is that this doesn’t involve proactively searching for weakness, in a highly vigilant or suspicious way. It doesn’t assume errors in advance. Rather if inconsistencies arise, the leader pulls on the thread, and investigates.

Pushing

Pushing is a more forceful or assertive version of challenging. It involves overtly suggesting people stretch further than they may want to go, and move off the ‘status quo’ spot they’re currently occupying.

Pushing limits involves asking or even demanding that others explore what’s really possible, to see what others are capable of, without passing ‘the line’ beyond which risks magnify (e.g., the line could represent burnout, rule breaking, value destruction, or causing offence to the receiver, to name a few). As a leader, when you ask “how close to the sun can we fly on this, how close to the line or the boundary can we get, without crossing it or self destructing?” you’re pushing the limit.

Pushing for better, excellence or change involves leaders pushing for some kind of ‘extra,’ whether it be more effort, performance, quality, or value creation, beyond the current performance level. This isn’t about seeking the maximalist limit, but doing something incrementally more or better, or urging others to seek a high and respected standard of excellence. In many cases, this can take the form of pushing for continuous improvement, or small scale change.

Notice I don’t suggest pushing for ‘perfection.’ As summarized in a great book I read recently called ‘Anatomy of a Breakthrough,’ by Adam Alter, pushing oneself for ‘excellence’ is often more motivating than using ‘perfection’ as a reference point. Perfection can be a stifling goal, and makes people feel stuck and helpless to reach that standard. So here I’m suggesting leaders should push for better, excellence, or change – not perfection.

Pushing into a zone of discomfort involves leaders asserting that others need to move outside their physical or mental comfort zones, to journey beyond what feels ‘safe’ or risk free. This involves cajoling others to do more than they might volunteer, even if it creates aversive, or even painful experiences for them. (Note that I also think it's the leader's responsibility to help team members reframe and make meaning out of that pain, to turn it into something deeply symbolic, so that they'll want to reach for it. Perhaps more on that in a future article.)

Pushing for action involves specifically asking others to take action or to decide. Leaders may need to use this when teams find themselves spinning in a prolonged analysis, and must gain traction and move forward. (Contrast this with Intellectual Stimulation, which involves pushing thinking.)

Provoking dialogue happens when leaders intentionally make statements or ask questions to generate discomfort, with the intent of sparking more productive dialogue. For example, a leader could make a polarizing statement to generate a reaction, and ultimately a more rigorous debate. The leader could also use a provocative statement as a ‘test’ or ‘depth charge,’ by tossing it out, and seeing what reactions surface in response. Provoking dialogue could also involve raising counterpoints (playing the devil’s advocate) to strengthen debate quality, even if it upsets others, and even if the leader doesn’t sincerely believe in the positions they’re asserting. It could also involve asking provocative questions (a topic I’ll elaborate on below).

Pressure

Pressure is an acute, intense, and intentional attempt to create discomfort in others. Sometimes this is used when perceiving a concerning or even risky discrepancy between the status quo and the goal.

Confronting the need for higher performance. This involves a leader directly and forcefully drawing someone’s attention to their need to elevate performance. It’s blunt. It might be brutally honest. There’s no relational warmth. It might feel ruthless to some.

In many cases, leaders choose to do this in private, to allow the receiver to save face. In addition, I’ve also seen cases where some intensify this tactic by performing it in public, in an attempt to escalate the pressure receivers feel. For example, I’ve seen this used in private equity owned businesses, where key leaders driving a business transformation - under time pressure - must report their progress to a committee including investment partners, the CEO, and one or two other very senior executives. In this scenario, committee members call out in stark language areas of underperformance (“you didn’t make your number here”) and ask brutally honest and direct questions about why the leader didn’t meet the expectation. While some claim this is an effective accountability mechanism – and to be fair, some of these public sessions can involve coaching and constructive problem solving - there’s no doubt they also involve public shaming. While this practice may spark short term motivation, I wonder if it introduces too many risks – to trust, relationships, self confidence – to motivate people in the longer term. So I wonder about it's efficacy outside of private equity owned businesses and contexts. The risks are especially pronounced if forces outside the leader’s control prevent them from meeting the goal. 

Issuing a warning, or evoking a fear of increased risk, or failure. This clever tactic is a softer, depersonalized kind of threat, that nonetheless captures attention and can be effective. I’ve seen executives direct this towards more senior leaders, to compel them to change course. For example, a leader might say that the goal is at risk if the team doesn’t change course (“you want to achieve X, but we’re never, never, going to get there on our current trajectory - we need to change course”). Leaders might also describe the problem as worse than others perceive it (“you don’t understand the full extent of this problem, you can’t see it, but I can, and if we don’t change an unfortunate accident will occur, and we will look back and realize it was preventable”). Leaders can also issue a warning by outlining how the costs of inaction are higher than some believe (“I’m warning that doing nothing isn’t an option, it’s actually risker than pivoting in a new direction, and here’s what could happen…”).

Accountability 

This is a word familiar to many leaders and managers. Here I define it as drawing people’s attention to a previously agreed-on goal or standard, and referencing past performance in pursuit of that goal.

Following up involves the simple act of seeking out team members to discuss previously established objectives and their performance related to those.

Feedback involves providing clear, honest commentary, and critique, about a deviation from a high performance standard.

Accountability - pressure is a specific kind of acute pressure applied after some performance event. It could involve an honest, uncomfortable conversation, along with a strong appeal for assuming greater ownership of the goal.

Questioning

A final form of interactional tension involves using questions to challenge or push, to varying levels of intensity.

Soft questioning uses a tone of collaboration, curiosity, and dialogue. These questions are open-ended and exploratory. They seek deeper explanations, ask for clarity, ask for explanations of causal factors, and inquire about rationale/justification. There’s a sense of sharing power when posing these questions, and a warm and relational tone with the other party.

Hard questioning is more direct, less relational, and more hierarchical. In this mode the leader asks more pointed, direct, or blunt queries. The tone isn’t exploratory anymore, it’s assertive or even aggressive, revolves around fact finding, and feels more like a debate. The questioner intends to increase accountability/responsibility. Hard questioning could involve searching and probing – intentionally - for weaknesses in rationale or data. There may be a feeling of trying to test the other’s grasp of knowledge. The cadence of questioning can be rapid fire, persistent and relentless. Questions can be provocative, and may make reference to a standard (perhaps unmet).

Goal tension

Goal tension arises when leaders set a difficult goal, with a considerable gap between the status quo and the goal. The following are three ways to create goal tension.

Setting a challenging goal

This involves setting a bold, stretchy or aspirational goal that’s difficult to achieve.

This goal establishes a high performance target.

Setting a standard

This involves setting a rule, or boundary condition that the team always needs to follow.

It involves being steadfast in asking for the standard, as if to say “this is the only way, we’ll never deviate from this rule, we’ll never break this rule and let our performance dip below this standard.” The standard might take shape as a cultural or ‘golden’ rule.

There’s a sense of the leader demanding the standard, not just setting a goal and hoping the team will reach it. There’s a kind of moral imperative mindset to it.

Clarifying a goal or expectations

This involves clearly defining, or clarifying a goal or standard, such that it increases the precision of the objective, and therefore the tension, discomfort, and accountability others feels towards it.

A precisely worded goal, where people know exactly what they need to achieve, is harder to evade or escape accountability for. 

System tension

System tension creates discomfort using impersonal structures, processes, or environmental factors, that don’t directly involve the leader. So in this case, it's the system that orients the attention of team members towards the gap between the status quo and the goal, so the leader doesn't have to.

System tension can take many forms:

1. Accountability or tracking systems, that use precise goal metrics, or regularly recurring meetings or schedules for holding follow up conversations about progress.
2. The degree of structure in a schedule or task, such as timelines, and plans. Greater structure likely creates more system tension.
3. Organizational processes could invoke a sense of discomfort, like forced ranking performance reviews. Designating that only 5 or 10% of leaders receive the highest performance ranking, may motivate those in lower performance categories to work harder.  
4. Incentive/reward structures may also increase the amount of discomfort people feel about achieving a goal.
5. Environmental cues can also evoke discomfort. These could include physical signs at the office reminding team members of high performance goals, working in the presence of other outstanding performers, or working close to the core and most high performing part of the business.
6. Finally, the goal refreshment cycle can be a structural feature that creates discomfort. Some leaders actually reset goals just before the team accomplishes them, rather than waiting for the team to cross the achievement line. This approach can create a more constant need to strive.

Practical application

1. Use this framework as a checklist. Are you using all three forms of tension? Are you using all the facets? Which would you like to experiment with?
2. Think of ways to create system tension. Leaders may undervalue it. It contradicts the romantic myth of a heroic and singular leader, who sparks action through force of personality and will. In fact, research suggests that system variables are more powerful than individual leadership characteristics at influencing change within organizations. So, consider how to engineer the team’s environment such that those structural surroundings can generate tension, so you as the leader don’t have to.
3. Stay value neutral, and think about fitting these tactics to the situation. Some of the tactics seem harsh or caustic. But remember that unique situations may demand and change the way we perceive certain leadership behaviours. For example, if you caught an employee committing fraud, all of a sudden ‘hard questioning’ might seem totally appropriate. (See here for another article I wrote on situational leadership.)
4. Plan out your challenge. Think through the challenge tactics you want to use, and ensure they match the needs of the situation. Consider the timing of the challenge. Does the team have bandwidth for this? Are they facing other critical demands in the organization right now (e.g., executing other large scale change)? Do they need a rest interval before you issue a new challenge?

Tim Jackson, Ph.D. is the President of Jackson Leadership Inc., and a leadership expert with 18 years of experience assessing and coaching executives in service of increasing their effectiveness. He has worked with leaders across a variety of sectors, including agriculture, chemicals, consumer products, finance, logistics, manufacturing, media, not-for-profit, pharmaceuticals, healthcare, and utilities and power generation, including multiple private-equity owned businesses. He has also worked with leaders across numerous functional areas, including sales, marketing, supply chain, finance, information technology, operations, sustainability, charitable, general management, health and safety, and quality control, and across hierarchical levels from individual contributors to CEOs. Tim has also worked with leaders across Canada, the US, Western Europe, and China.

Tim has published his research and ideas on leadership in various outlets, including Forbes.com, The Globe and Mail, peer-reviewed journals, and several HR trade magazines. He also writes about leadership topics often in his newsletter at www.timjacksonphd.com. He has also shared details of his coaching practice at leading conferences like the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP).

He has a Ph.D. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from The University of Western Ontario, and is based in Toronto, ON.

Tim's services:

1. In-depth executive assessment, feedback, & goal setting: Tim uses interview-based 360 surveys to conduct in-depth, customized assessments of executives, often in combination with personality testing, and uses that data to provide practical feedback on improving leadership impact.
2. Executive coaching: Often following an in-depth assessment, Tim uses his accumulated knowledge from a career of researching and working with leaders, to provide one-to-one coaching for executives to help them strengthen their effectiveness.
3. Workshops: Tim offers two customized workshops for executive audiences. The first is titled 'How leaders can challenge, push, and pull teams to the limit of performance, without breaking them.' This content is based on Tim's original research, using data from 36 executive interviews. The second workshop is titled 'Foundational leadership concepts for new executives,' and summarizes all the key drivers and derailers of leadership effectiveness that Tim has learned about in his 18 year career, distilled from both academic sources and his practical experience.
4. Leadership circles: Tim facilitates groups of executives in discussing similar leadership challenges, asking them to share experiences, solutions, advice, and support for one another. These circles help carve out dedicated time for leaders to think about development amidst pressing day-to-day demands, and are a cost effective way to involve several executives in a growth experience at once.
5. Culture audits: Using the same in-depth, qualitative data gathering methods he uses for executive 360s, Tim conducts numerous interviews to investigate cultural friction points, so teams, functions, and organizations can address them and become higher performing.

Please contact Tim with your feedback about this site, questions about his services, or to share your own ideas about leadership in organizations.

Email: tjackson@jacksonleadership.com

Phone: 647-969-8907

Website: www.jacksonleadership.com

Newsletter: www.timjacksonphd.com