Captain, Coach, Diplomat

Different styles of leadership and when to use them.

In-company leadership development seminars are often filled with fluff, but some are exceptional. In the same seminar where I was introduced to the Watchtower Reflection technique, I also learned about the Captain, Coach, and Diplomat leadership styles. These “hats” help me decide how to influence my reports and stakeholders and debug my behavior to be a more effective leader.

What are the Captain, Coach, and Diplomat styles?

Think of it as different ways to act as a leader. We shouldn't be 100% one or the other. We have to adapt to the situation. The Captain and the Coach are useful at different moments, while the Diplomat must be avoided at all costs.

The Captain is direct, clear, and task-oriented.

The Coach hands over responsibility and helps the person reflect and grow.

The Diplomat tries to maintain the status quo and avoid conflict. Considering leadership can be summarized as “goal-oriented influence,” this is terrible leadership behavior and should be avoided.

But even if the Captain and Coach are useful styles, they must be used in the correct situation. If not, they do almost as much damage as the Diplomat.

Example: the Titanic is heading toward an iceberg

The Captain:

Captain: This is the captain for the engine room.
Engine room: This is the engine room, captain.
Captain: I need you to change course to XYZ immediately. We are heading into an iceberg. Confirm.
Engine room: Aye, aye, captain, changing course to XYZ immediately.
Captain: Thank you. Over and out.

The communication is unambiguous, but the Captain confirms it was understood anyway. It's direct and task-oriented, with no room for interpretation. Clarity is key.

It's on the nose that the effective style for a boat in an emergency situation would be the Captain, but it illustrates the point well.

The Coach:

Captain: Hi, engine room. How are you feeling today?
Engine room: Very good captain. And you, sir?
Captain: Amazing, thanks for asking. What do you think of our current speed and heading?
Engine room: They seem fine, sir. All motors are full-speed ahead.
Captain: Fine indeed! But what do you think of the iceberg problem?
Engine room: Sir?
Captain: Oh, yes, you don't know. You see, there is an issue. We are heading straight into an iceberg.
Engine room: Oh my god, sir! What are your orders?
Captain: What do you think we should do about it?
Engine room: Change course, sir!
Captain: Perfect, good idea! That's what I wanted to hear. Thank you, engine room. You are doing fine work down there.

That sounds like it could be a Monty Python sketch because it's using the wrong leadership style for the situation. Coaching is super useful, but it can also be overdone. More than once in my career, I screamed in my head, “Just tell me, I don't know!”

The Diplomat:

Captain: Hi, engine room. How are you feeling today?
Engine room: Very good captain. And you, sir?
Captain: Amazing, thanks for asking.
Engine room: Do you need something, sir?
Captain: I don't want to bother you, but since you asked, maybe we should change the course a little—if that is okay with you.
Engine room: Why, sir? To what heading?
Captain: Nothing major, don't worry about it. Just keep around X and Y.
Engine room: Which one, sir? X or Y?
Captain: Well, whatever doesn't rock the boat too much. I trust you to make the best decision.

The Diplomat doesn't even talk about the problem. He doesn't want to rock the boat, figuratively speaking. The Diplomat is unclear and disempowering. It's the wishy-washy of the in-between.

When to use the Captain and the Coach

Evangelizing vision, strategy, and goals

This is a clear job for the Captain. You want to be clear and convincing. You are selling, not building consensus.

On the other hand, when building a vision, strategy, or goals, depending on how bottom-up the culture is, it's common to engage the Coach. The mistake is to keep being the Coach (or worse, the Diplomat) and look for 100% consensus, which leads to compromise. At some point, the leader has to draw a line in the sand and say, “We got your input. This is my decision. Let's go!”

Giving feedback

Feedback has to be crystal clear to be understood. This is also a job for the Captain. The situation, facts, impact, and desired state must be clear. Leaders oftentimes tip-toe around this and end up with a problem that only grows. Especially with hard feedback, I like to write it down first: verbal clarity comes from mental clarity first.

After the feedback is given, it's time to engage the Coach. The Coach should actively listen to the person's reaction to the feedback, ask clarifying questions, and help the person build a plan for the next steps.

PS: Yes, feedback also means “performance assessment.”

Adapting to the report's task maturity level

Task maturity is a person's competence level in performing a task. The lower the maturity, the more the Captain should be engaged. When the task maturity is higher, the Coach should be engaged. This avoids being too prescriptive and micromanage-y to reports that can already work independently while also avoiding being too loose and macromanage-y for the ones that need more hand-holding.

Career talks

These tend to happen in 1:1 meetings. It makes sense to engage the Coach to make the person reflect and create a plan to further their career.

Emergencies and incidents

100% the Captain. After the emergency is averted, the Captain might still give feedback about the performance. Then, it might be good to engage the Coach to understand what happened and what we could do to avoid such a situation.