[sokoloff]

I see it slightly differently. In my subordinates, I want confidence that they'll consistently make decisions that they believe are in the best long-term interests of the company. If they consistently do that, I can work on anything else (including making sure I help them better understand the long-term interests as I understand them).

That will often mean "would make the same choice I would", but I'm happy if they merely use the same rubric.

[JamesBarney]

Say you're a consultant and you thought the best way to make a client happy was delivering a great product even if it's late and over budget.

If your subordinate thinks the best way to make a client happy is to always deliver on time and budget even if they have to cut a bunch of corners and deliver a buggy product, are you still going to be happy about that?

Are you going to stil be happy with his decision when you have to justify to the client and your boss why it was a good decision to release a buggy version early than a more polished version late? Despite the fact that if you were put in that exact same situation you would have made the opposite choice.

There are plenty of other examples too. You both believe that company goals are driven by great effective teams. You believe effective teams are born out of great morale and shared goal. He believes effective teams are the sum of their parts. There is someone that isn't pulling their weight. You would mentor them because they're always upbeat and positive and it'd be crushing to morale to fire this person. Your subordinate fires them because he believes he's slowing down the team.

[sokoloff]

In the short run, I may very well be unhappy in those examples, but only if the client ended up unhappy or if the team performance took a sustained dip. Some clients care greatly about budget. Some team’s morale improves when poor performers leave. The people closest to the client/team probably can make a better decision than I can. IOW, maybe my approach would be the wrong one.

I’m also confident that I can work with those hypothetical leaders because they share a common foundational compass.

I can talk about the trade offs of time/budget. I can talk about the trade offs of morale vs peak individual performance. Most importantly, I can be sure they have a guiding framework that pulls us in the same direction, even if the near-term paths are different.

I have two leaders working for me today (one of whom may well read this) who make markedly different decisions than I would. We talk openly about it; they get great results for the company via a different route to the same destination and I don’t try to make them into mini-mes. (I lead quite differently than my own boss as well.)

There are many paths to Rome.