Fair Does Not Mean the Same
Have you ever believed that being fair meant treating everyone exactly the same?
Fairness and consistency are essential to good leadership. But somewhere along the way, many of us begin to equate consistency with sameness. If people have different strengths, experiences, motivations, and needs, should leading them all exactly the same really be considered fair?
Like many people of my generation, I grew up learning and believing in the Golden Rule:
Treat other people the way you want to be treated.
It seemed like a pretty good rule.
If I treated other people with the same consideration and respect that I wanted from them, how could I go wrong?
The principle behind the Golden Rule remains incredibly valuable.
But over the years, I’ve learned that my application of it was sometimes incomplete.
I married someone who came from a very different background and upbringing than I did. Her natural behavioral style is also quite different from mine.
For far too long, I assumed that the things I valued in communication were the same things she valued.
If I wanted someone to be direct with me, I should be direct with her.
If I wanted to approach a problem a certain way, surely that approach should work for her as well.
It has taken me a long time to understand something that seems obvious now.
She isn’t me.
Treating her the way I wanted to be treated wasn’t necessarily giving her what she needed from me.
I needed to adapt.
That’s true in marriage.
It’s true in friendships.
And it’s certainly true in leadership.
The people we lead aren’t interchangeable.
They have different personalities.
Different experiences.
Different talents.
Different motivations.
Different levels of competence and confidence.
Different ways of processing information.
Different needs from their leader.
John Wooden learned this during his coaching career. He came to understand that fairness didn’t require treating every player identically.
A team is made up of individuals.
Some players need encouragement.
Some need to be challenged.
Some need more direction.
Others need the freedom to figure things out themselves.
What brings out the best in one person may frustrate another.
That doesn’t mean our values or standards should constantly change depending on whom we’re dealing with.
It means our approach may need to.
As leaders, we need to meet people where they are rather than where we are.
That requires us to understand them.
To listen.
To observe.
To ask questions.
And sometimes to change a leadership or communication style that feels perfectly natural to us because it doesn’t work particularly well for the person standing in front of us.
That’s adaptability.
Great teams aren’t built by surrounding ourselves with people who think, communicate, and behave exactly as we do.
We want different personalities.
Different perspectives.
Different talents.
Different strengths.
But if we genuinely want that diversity, then we also have to accept the leadership responsibility that comes with it.
Our job as leaders isn’t to create clones of ourselves. It’s to help people become the best versions of themselves.
And sometimes doing that requires us to change first.
Am I treating people the way they need to be treated—or simply the way I prefer to be treated?
Who on my team might respond better if I adapted the way I communicate or lead?
What could I learn about someone if I spent more time understanding what they need from me?
CHALLENGE
Think about one relationship that isn’t working as well as you’d like.
Instead of beginning with what the other person needs to change, ask yourself:
How might I adapt my approach to better meet that person where they are?
Then try it.
Pay attention not only to what you learn about them, but also to what you learn about yourself.
Sometimes the first person we need to adapt is the one looking back at us in the mirror.
