Great leaders choose their leadership style like a golfer chooses his or her club, with a calculated analysis of the matter at hand, the end goal, and the best tool for the job. ~Robyn Benincasa

My golf clubs are tucked neatly in my storage locker in the basement. They do see the light of day, now and then. But I’ve never played enough to really know how and when to use all of the different clubs. Wouldn’t the game be much easier with just maybe three clubs? A driver, an iron, and a putter? I’m sure the avid and pro golfers would tell me that it might be “easier” but the end-result would be a higher score.

There are many leadership styles. Authors use different descriptors, but for this analogy I’ll use Daniel Goleman’s six styles: coercive (demands immediate compliance), authoritative (mobilizes people toward a vision), democratic (forges consensus through participation), pacesetting (sets high standards for performance), and coaching (develops people for the future).

Think of these six styles as you would your set of golf clubs. You may be a really great driver but not as competent down the fairway or on the putting green. But you aren’t going to use your driver all the way from driving to putting. You’ll change your club depending upon the situation. I’m always intrigued by the pro golfers and the extent to which they analyze the situation. They don’t just grab a club and hit the ball. They look at everything: the lie, the distance, the wind, their score (should they go for a birdie or play it safe and stay on par), etc.

According to Goleman, “Research indicates that leaders with the best results do not rely on only one leadership style; they use most of them in a given week – seamlessly and in different measure – depending on the situation.”

Unfortunately, many leaders lead much like the way I play golf. I get comfortable with a few of my clubs and use them repeatedly. Even though I would probably get better results, given the situation, by using a different club. I just need to practice using the other clubs more frequently. The same way leaders need to practice different leadership styles instead of relying on what comes most naturally or feels most comfortable.

At first, it might feel a little mechanical, switching to different styles of leadership. Goleman tells us that “the most effective leaders are exquisitely sensitive to the impact they are having on others and seamlessly adjust their style to get the best results.” That’s a really powerful statement, worth repeating. “The most effective leaders are exquisitely sensitive to the impact they are having on others and seamlessly adjust their style.”

Good golfers don’t play through 18 holes of golf using only one or two clubs. They constantly assess the situation and make adjustments. The same is true for the best leaders. We live in a continually changing environment, so the best leaders will assess the situation and make adjustments in their leadership style—week to week, day to day, and hour to hour.

A word of encouragement from a teacher to a child can change a life. A word of encouragement from a spouse can save a marriage. A word of encouragement from a leader can inspire a person to reach their potential.  ~John C. Maxwell

I recently heard someone describe what happened when they intentionally took a break from watching the news. After taking a hiatus for a number of days, when he returned to watching the news, he was overwhelmed by all of the “bad” news.

Yes, there is a LOT of bad news being reported. According to Ray Williams in Psychology Today, it’s as much as 17 negative news reports for every one good news story. It’s because we are wired to seek out drama and negative events. Our human brains evolved in a hunter-gatherer environment. Anything that was unusual or dramatic had to be attended to immediately for survival. Our environment has changed, but our brains still function as if we need to defend ourselves against saber-toothed tigers.

Psychology Today tells us that we pay a price for all of this negative focus, in our homes and our workplaces. “Psychologist John Gottman at the University of Washington, found that there is kind of a thermostat operating in healthy marriages that regulates the balance between positive and negative. He found that relationships run into serious problems when the negative to positive ratio becomes seriously imbalanced. He found that the magic ratio is five positive to one negative.”

Are organization leaders also falling into this bad news/negative trap? What do employees hear from their leaders and supervisors? Do they hear the “good,” or is most communication they hear from leadership filled with the “bad?”

I’m not suggesting that leaders should be Pollyannaish in their communication. But what we remember most, what we respond to is the “bad news.” Also from Psychology Today, “According to positive psychologists we can change our habits, and we can focus on the glass being half-full. When we acquire new habits, our brains acquire ‘mirror neurons’ and develop a positive perspective that can spread to other people like a virus.”

Here’s another example from the business world. Based on psychologist and business consultant, Marcial Losada’s extensive mathematical modeling, 2.9013 is the ratio of positive to negative interactions necessary to make a corporate team successful. This means that it takes about three positive comments, experiences, or expressions to fend off the languishing effects of one negative. Dip below this tipping point, now known as the Losada Line, and workplace performance quickly suffers. Rise above it—ideally, the research shows, to a ratio of 6 to 1—and teams produce their very best work.

Imagine what might happen to organizations if all leaders started following the premise of the Losada Line?  So for the next week, will you join me in intentionally out-weighing the bad with the good at a ratio of 6 to 1 by giving more words of encouragement than what you have been giving?  Let’s try it and see what results from our countercultural social experiment.

Military leadership is built on the foundation of shared suffering. Most people who try to apply the principles of military leadership don’t understand that. ~Major in the U.S. Army

I have a dog; therefore, I have a routine. Part of that routine is a morning walk. Because I live in the city (sans trees) sometimes it’s hard to tell how windy it is and the wind in downtown Chicago can make a significant difference regarding which coat I choose to grab before we head out the door. However, I’m blessed with substantial American flags flying proudly over two nearby buildings. Those American flags not only provide a weather indicator, they also provide a daily reminder of both the freedom and sacrifice I all too frequently take for granted.

When we think of military leadership, images of Sergeant Vince Carter in Gomer Pyle may come to mind for those of us who can remember the 1960s sitcom. Someone who barks orders in a very authoritative and command style of leadership. While that made for good television, it doesn’t accurately portray the full scope of military leadership.

On a number of occasions, I’ve been asked to lead a discussion on servant leadership. If you Google servant leadership, you’ll find that many, if not most, of the examples listed will be from the military. That’s because, as the Major who I quoted today stated, “military leadership is built on the foundation of shared suffering.”

Another of my favorite leadership authors, Max De Pree, stated in the classic Leadership is an Art, “Leadership is not an easy subject to explain. A friend of mine characterizes leaders simply like this: ‘Leaders don’t inflict pain, they bear pain.’”

Simon Sinek’s most recent book Leaders Eat Last is based on a conversation Sinek had with a Marine Corps General who said, “Officers eat last.” Sinek commented, “What’s symbolic in the chow hall is deadly serious on the battlefield: Great leaders sacrifice their own comfort—even their own survival—for the good of those in their care.”

There simply isn’t a more definitive example of servant leadership than sacrificing your own survival.

Through 2002, there have been over 650,000 battle deaths. Not only is Memorial Day a time to pause and remember those who sacrificed their lives so we could live in freedom. It’s also a time to be in awe of the immense sacrificial leadership—the shared suffering—that has made our freedom possible.

Somehow the phrase we’ve all been taught to say, “thank you for your service,” seems woefully inadequate. And wishing someone “Happy Memorial Day” also feels rather out of context. Many great servant leaders, who shared suffering, have come before us. It should be our privilege to honor these leaders one day a year.

Thanks to Bryce Hoffman for sharing his conversation with an Army Major.

Millennials are worldly and interconnected. They strive to bond together in order to make this a better place. All they need are what we all need in a great leader: involve me, coach me, and invest in our success. Together, we will succeed; just let me drive with you. ~Glen Sollors

“Cubicles with walls so high you can’t see over to the other side. I can’t imagine working like that.” That’s a statement I overheard in a conversation among a small group of Millennials last week. I couldn’t help but smile. Especially since this same organization only a few years ago had cubicles just as she described. Today, they’ve been lowered to about 4’ and the plan is to eliminate them all together.

Desks huddled in small pods or long rows with employees working elbow-to-elbow is a common scene these days when I wander through organizations. The primary reason for this change in work environment is not to reduce space, but to increase collaboration and interaction. This is something that is not only driving innovation, but is expected by Millennials, just as my eavesdropping confirmed.

Shortly after overhearing that conversation, I attended a portion of this same organization’s quarterly town hall meeting. I heard their leader talk about making environmental changes to better adapt to the way Millennials work. He also talked about how it is critical that the organization become even more purpose-driven. Note, he didn’t say mission-driven, he said purpose-driven, and there’s a difference.

Every month there’s an article in some major publication about working with and leading Millennials. These four key points, suggested in an article on inc.com by Jeff Haden, mirror what I experienced last week.

Personal Development. Millennials need to know they are making progress. That doesn’t necessarily mean in title, but in skill development and responsibility. Which is why they crave training opportunities more than previous generations. Training is a way for them to accelerate their development.

Connection. Millennials are hyper-connected. They want to develop friendships with their fellow employees, and if that happens, they’ll be much more engaged and stay longer. Hence, the elbow-to-elbow work environments.

Purpose. They want to know that what they are doing is making a difference. I recently heard a definition of purpose that I think expresses what they are after. That definition is simply “social value.” Here’s how a Millennial described it to me last week. He told me that while Google’s desire to create a driverless car will make them more money, what Google’s employees are motivated by is the fact that someone who is blind, for the first time, will have a means of independent transportation—social value.

Coaching. Millennials will respond to a leadership style that is coach-centric, not authoritative or command and control. Coaching means empowering Millennials and helping them to build their confidence. Ask for their input (on important issues as well as routine processes) and support them whenever and however you can.

Are you allowing Millennials to transform your organization?