Ok, firstly, apologies to those of you who don’t watch Strictly, but the analogy still stands (although ‘Good Cop’, ‘Bad Cop’ works just as well for those who don’t).  On a Saturday evening as I settle down to watch Strictly Come Dancing, it is Craig Revel-Horwood’s opinions that I’m most looking forward to hearing.  Why?  Because he’s brutally honest, he tells it how it is, without worrying whether he might upset anybody.  If he were my manager, and we were about to go through my performance review, would I feel the same way?  OK, of course I wouldn’t, but what I would have is clarity.  Craig’s direct and consistent approach means that contestants have a clear bench mark, they know what the goals they’re working towards are, and they’ve been given some guidance on how to achieve them.  When they do achieve excellence it’s always rewarded and that praise seems to mean more to the contestants than any praise offered by the other judges.  He does this all without getting personal or committing crimes of political incorrectness, (for reference, please see Bruno Tonioli).  As an approach to leadership, it promises high levels of engagement and accountability and provides a platform on which the difficult conversations can be tackled openly and honestly.  Not all will respond well to this type of leadership and those who don’t will no doubt look for other positions, but a team who understand and appreciate this style will be unstoppable. 

So what’s the alternative?  Referring back to the Strictly analogy, it’s Len who plays host to the ‘Good Cop’.  Yes, he may provide some criticism, but it’s usually dressed –up as a joke, making it easier both for him to deliver, but also for the contestant to receive.  This non-direct approach to delivering essential critique is all too-common amongst leaders; softening the blow with either a joke or a “but..”  The problem with this approach is that it just doesn’t afford the subject matter the significance required.  It allows for an easy change of subject and fails to demonstrate how important this matter really is to the leader.  The result?  The individual may make some attempt at change, but ultimately because there is neither consequence nor reward to be had, there is no incentive to change.