why it simply doesn’t exist
Many workplaces promote the idea that good leadership is neutral, objective, and nonintrusive (read: replaceable, plug and play). The expectation is that managers should simply execute company systems without adding personal influence, but this is a myth. Leadership is inherently interpretive and human.
I think the idea behind this is that if a company is able to find a system that works, then the system should be able to be repeated, and therefore scalable. People don’t buy into systems, though. They buy into credibility. Every manager applies systems differently.
Managers decide how rules are enforced, when exceptions are allowed, how feedback is delivered, what behavior gets rewarded, and what tensions are ignored. Two managers can use the same policies and create completely different cultures. In essence, when hiring a manager, a company is looking for someone to reserve judgement over a certain area or capacity of the business, and thus, leadership is by default not mechanical execution. It is interpretation, and interpretation is never neutral.
That being said, passive leadership still shapes culture too. For example, avoiding conflict (negatively) influences team dynamics and a refusal to intervene enables dominant personalities and unhealthy patterns. Hands-off management may appear to be the absence of leadership, but is still a form of management. Disengagement is also often confused for neutrality.
This idea seems more hyperbolized when scaling the thought pattern, as companies sometimes view themselves as neutral as well. Organizations already contain embedded values and assumptions. Companies have individual beliefs about productivity, hierarchy, urgency, communication, and accountability that stem from their leader’s own ideas and interpretations based on experience. Managers either reinforce, soften, or reinterpret those values. Even strict compliance with a company’s systems reflects a worldview, and there is therefore no such thing as a values‒free leadership position.
Flip this to the perspective of an employee. Employees experience leadership through relational dynamics, not policy. Employees notice who receives grace, how stress is handled, whether honesty feels safe, and whose voices are prioritized. Workplace culture is experienced via the manager. “Corporate” is secondary, always.
What the issue that most companies may have is not against the idea of influence itself, but of unexamined influence. Unhealthy managers may deflect their influence, but self-aware leaders acknowledge their impact.
Reflective leadership asks:
- How does my communication style affect morale?
- What assumptions do I have that shapes my decisions?
- How does my conflict style impact honesty?
Leaders who believe they are objective are often the least reflective.
This leads us to having to ask a deeper question. What makes a manager buy into the idea that they don’t have a personal impact in the first place?
Generally speaking, neutrality is a concept that’s associated with professionalism. There are miles and piles of cultural jokes about who we are at work versus who we are as people outside of work, and at the core they all revolve around being fake. I have to be this way to keep my job.
Do any of these sound familiar as a leader?
- “Don’t make it personal.”
- “Follow the process.”
- “Treat everyone the same.”
- “Leave emotions out of it.”
I will be the first to acknowledge that there is a time and place for emotions, and that they’re not always called for in decision-making. That being said, what do the above questions leave you feeling as to what the ask really is? To me, these questions ask me to remove myself from the dynamic.
Unrealistic.
Objectivity becomes associated with competence. It is an important skill! You do need to be able to filter things out and prioritize within a decisional flow. Nonetheless, that doesn’t equate to managers believing that minimizing visible personality equals minimizing influence. Reducing emotional expression is not the same as reducing influence.
Corporate environments are really, really good at making management processes feel procedural. Companies use policies, metrics, workflows, scripts, and performance frameworks as their North Star for focus areas. When direction comes from on high, it´s easy to say I’m just doing what I’m told.”
Bureaucratic environments reward consistency over reflection. The existence of formal discretion easily hides how much discretion managers still exercise daily. Those systems may be able to obscure the influence, but they cannot eliminate it.
It’s no surprise that if a manager’s internal monologue is to just “go with the status quo” then that manager may feel less responsible for morale issues, burnout, favoritism, and communication failures. The adopted “neutrality” creates emotional distance (I didn’t create this, the company did), and thus produces the desired pullback from self-examination. It ultimately functions as a drastic shield against personal accountability.
If you’re currently in this trap, take some time to complete the following exercises in your day to day with your team:
- Change your tone within how you usually present something. It doesn’t have to be negative, but make note whether your team responds to it.
- Take note of what behaviors are getting consistently rewarded, even if unintentional.
- Ask your team for honest feedback, and take note of who seems comfortable to speak honestly around you and who seems more cautious.
- Keep a record of your stress levels each day for a week and compare it to the emotional atmosphere of the team.
- Compare how your peers or different managers are running the same systems but producing different results. If one team seems interesting or “better”, schedule a meeting with that manager.
- Take an inventory of what your team believes your intentions are with different initiatives. Just ask them.
- Reflect on how your personal definition of professionalism may impact your managerial preferences.
- Examine where you allow flexibility for some team members but not others (and then, why).
- Pay attention to whether your presence increases clarity or tension.
- Observe how silence from leadership often gets interpreted as approval.
Leadership influence is unavoidable, only awareness of it is optional. You also must accept that consistency itself is still a value choice. Every leader influences through decisions, tone, priorities, silence, and interpretation, and even restraint communicates values. Neutral leadership isn’t real. Get out of the vacuum and own the culture! You and your team both deserve the best of your efforts.