I believe conversations make us stronger leaders. We need to explore topics, challenge ourselves to think and understand, and learn ways to be a better leader. In the <a title="Google+ - Lead Change" href="https://plus.google.com/communities/101604474820777716727?partnerid=ogpy0" target="_blank">Lead Change Google+ group</a>, we pose a different question each week. A few weeks ago, we asked:
<blockquote><strong>Which is a better leader:  A leader with big results and some respect, or a leader with limited results and much respect?</strong></blockquote>
There is no doubt that having respect, giving respect, and maintaining respect are all crucial. Respect is more than a leadership characteristic; it is a human one. However, in many organizations, there is a push to gain results quickly and often and some may take shortcuts to achieve the desired results. Although there may be some short-term benefits to this approach, the longer term impact can be very detrimental.
<h2><b>Respect versus Results</b></h2>
Highlighted below are some short clips from some of the Lead Change community insights:

<a title="David Tumbarello - Google+" href="https://plus.google.com/103543444672612470167" target="_blank"><b>David Tumbarello</b></a><b>: </b> This is one of those trick questions, right?  My first reaction is this:  How do you define results? I mean, if results mean my team produced 19 widgets per hour while the other team produces 17 widgets, then my team is producing more "results." But if the leader of the other team is developing a platoon of aspiring leaders who produce better quality, help the company towards higher goals, and are ready to serve as leaders or mentors for future teams, then I would say that leader has me beat.

This question goes back to how I view leadership -- with the end in mind.  First define the "end" then ask “What is the most effective way to get this particular team to achieve that end?”

<a title="Scott Mabry - Google+" href="https://plus.google.com/101893890142121821024" target="_blank"><b>Scott Mabry</b></a><b>:</b>  Depends on your time horizon and a little bit of context. If you're business is in a crisis, you might choose results over respect in the short term ...which, paradoxically, might gain you respect later.

<a title="Mike Henry Sr. - Google+" href="https://plus.google.com/111988678152304378767" target="_blank"><b>Mike Henry Sr.</b></a>: I agree with both David and Scott in that results must be specific and they must have a deadline. Once we set a target for results, we can't trade results (at the deadline) with respect or anything else (except for different results) for that matter. Results are table-stakes. A leader who respects others will produce results or accept the consequences.  Then, they will be a leader who is respected, regardless of the short-term outcome of a particular effort. Heck of a non-answer, don't you think?

<a title="Kate Nasser - Google+" href="https://plus.google.com/110736151092414539538" target="_blank"><b>Kate Nasser</b></a>: Results without respect vaporize or worse, leave a legacy of brutality. Just read a <a title="Will Your Bad Boss Make You a Bad Boss Too? - HBR" href="http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/11/will-your-bad-boss-make-you-a-bad-boss-too/" target="_blank"><i>Harvard Business Review</i> (HBR) article</a> quoting research that abusive leaders were mentored by abusive leaders. Since respect doesn't reduce results, I say there is no reason to choose!
<h2><b>Real Leaders. Real Results. Real Respect</b></h2>
No one said leadership would be easy. The conversation is a thought-provoking one. Leaders are expected to achieve results. Leaders may not always have the expectation put on them to achieve <a title="The Role of Self-Esteem in Respect and Leadership" href="http://www.thindifference.com/2013/10/05/role-self-esteem-respect-leadership/" target="_blank">results with respect</a>. After all, quarterly meetings and calls usually perform a check on results, not on how respect was maintained and enhanced. Imagine what would those interactions would be like!

Just think though, the very definition of respect is “a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.” Abilities produce results. Qualities deliver integrity. Achievements occur when <a title="Team Building: Trends and Tips for 2014" href="http://leadchangegroup.com/team-building-trends-and-tips-for-2014/">people collaboratively work</a> toward clear objectives.

<b>A leader’s responsibility then is to:</b>
<ul>
	<li>Define the sound leadership qualities they want to exhibit and then consistently lead by them</li>
	<li>Gather the right people with the right skills or train the right people to get the necessary skills</li>
	<li>Deliver clarity of objectives, metrics, responsibilities, accountability, culture, and then let the teams do their work</li>
	<li>Instill a culture of respect organization-wide, community-wide.</li>
</ul>
When a leader does this, politics disappear and more time can be spent on doing the work necessary to achieve the desired results in a respectful way. Time and context are better leveraged. In the HBR article Kate Nasser mentioned, it points out a plain fact:  When team leaders have to protect their teams from bad organizational leaders, much time is wasted. Doing this is exhausting. We have enough change to navigate without having to maneuver around leaders who don’t act with integrity and clarity.

As we lead for results, we need to remember to also lead with respect. Leading this way will make all involved much more productive and engaged.

<b>Join in. What is the ideal balance between results and respect? </b>