Examining Leadership Strategies: The Art of Pulling and Pushing

In the realm of leadership, a profound question often arises: Do you exert pressure on your team to accomplish a task, or do you engage them, offering them a say in how they tackle it, and rely on motivation to kickstart their efforts? These two distinct approaches to achieving a goal hold their merits, but the true art lies in knowing when and how to blend them seamlessly—a skill of paramount importance for effective leadership.

Allow me to illustrate this delicate balance with an anecdote from the corporate world. A CEO, driven by a fervent desire for environmental and sustainability reform within the company, urged members of his leadership team to engage in a debate on the matter. Displaying a "pull" approach, he allotted ample time for discussion and exploration of ideas. However, amid this collaborative discourse, two executives remained skeptical, withholding their endorsement of the proposed initiatives. Faced with two months of inaction, the CEO eventually transitioned to a "push" approach, announcing the implementation of two projects and issuing a directive for everyone to commit. In response, one executive vehemently opposed the efforts, which ultimately led to his dismissal—a rather significant push.

This narrative underscores the profound value of combining these two leadership tactics. While pulling encourages collaboration and participatory decision-making, pushing can become a necessity when the pull approach fails to yield results. The balance between these strategies is where true leadership prowess resides.

Research has illuminated the concepts of pulling and pushing as management styles that share the common objective of goal attainment while employing divergent methodologies. One embodies the ethos of "driving for outcomes" (push), while the other embodies the spirit of "inspiring and motivating others" (pull).

**Defining "Pushing" and "Pulling"**

Leaders, when embarking on a quest to achieve a particular goal, often have two paths at their disposal:

Pushing, representative of an authoritarian leadership style, involves the issuance of directives, the imposition of deadlines, the enforcement of accountability, and the provision of explicit guidance. It leans towards a top-down approach to management.

Conversely, pulling centers on conveying the necessity of a particular task to an employee, elucidating its rationale, soliciting their input on the optimal approach, and inquiring about their willingness to undertake the task. In essence, pulling is a more inclusive, participatory style of leadership. It thrives on fostering enthusiasm and motivation within the team, with the leader's energy and passion serving as a contagious force.

An extensive analysis, drawing data from over 100,000 leaders through 360-degree assessments, reveals a notable trend: approximately 76% of these leaders were assessed as more proficient in pushing than pulling, according to evaluations by their peers. A mere 22% were deemed stronger in pulling, and a mere 2% demonstrated an equal prowess in both arenas.

Furthermore, evaluations solicited from over 1.6 million individuals who had rated these leaders indicated the relative significance of each skill in determining a leader's effectiveness within their current roles. Surprisingly, the data elucidated that pulling—embodied by the art of inspiring others—ranked as the most critical attribute for a leader's success, while pushing—representing the drive for results—emerged as the fifth most important factor.

**Understanding Human Needs and Desires**

The examination of human needs and desires within the context of leadership reveals intriguing insights. Research elucidates a striking correlation between the application of push and pull tactics and the outcomes in terms of organizational confidence and job satisfaction.

When both push and pull are employed sparingly—meaning low engagement on both fronts—confidence in the organization's ability to achieve its goals and job satisfaction plummet. However, when a strong push is coupled with a weak pull, organizational confidence and job satisfaction experience modest improvements, albeit not to a significant degree. It is when a robust pull is combined with a push that job satisfaction ascends to a higher echelon, alongside enhanced confidence in the company's potential to realize its objectives.

The pinnacle of efficacy occurs when both push and pull are deployed extensively—a rarity indeed. When both these forces are in full swing, the most substantial improvements in confidence and job satisfaction manifest. This unique equilibrium represents a lofty standard for leaders to aspire to, as it reflects the zenith of their capacity to inspire and motivate their teams while effectively driving for results.

**Harmonizing Push and Pull Forces**

In an era marked by the Great Resignation, leaders find themselves grappling with the profound question of how to retain and motivate their employees. How does one persuade individuals to remain committed? What are the factors that truly resonate with them in their work environments?

Calls have grown louder for leaders to exhibit empathy and compassion toward individual employees, favoring a style that leans toward pull rather than push. While this sentiment is well-founded, the data urges caution. The imperative to enhance empathy should not diminish a leader's capacity to push when circumstances demand it. Pushing, when tactically applied, can engender a sense of confidence in the organization's ability to achieve its objectives.

The essence of effective