You know how you think you lead. But is that how others experience you?

Ask someone to describe their leadership style and they'll probably have a reasonably clear answer. They might tell you they're approachable, supportive, decisive or good at giving people the freedom to get on with things.

But I wonder how closely that description would match what the people around them have to say.

If I asked your colleagues, your manager and the people you lead what it's actually like working with you, would I hear the same things?

Perhaps I would. Perhaps I'd hear something quite different. Neither necessarily means anyone is wrong, but understanding where those perspectives differ could be useful.

What you intend isn't always what others experience

Let's say you pride yourself on having an open door. You're happy to help, and when someone comes to you with a problem, you do your best to sort it out. You want your team to know they can rely on you, and you take it as a good sign that they feel comfortable asking for your help.

Now imagine speaking to those same people.

They might appreciate how approachable you are, but feel that decisions tend to get referred back to you. Perhaps they believe they need your approval before moving forward, or that you sometimes offer a solution before they've had the opportunity to work something through themselves.

You see yourself as supportive, while they might be questioning whether you trust their judgement.

It could equally be the other way around. You might worry that you're not giving people enough of your time, while your team values the freedom you give them and feels trusted to make decisions without constantly checking in.

We can be unnecessarily critical of ourselves, just as we can be unaware of how something we're doing is affecting other people. And unless we ask, we're largely left making assumptions.

How much can you really see from your own perspective?

Taking time to examine how you lead is important. What are you good at? Where do you struggle? What happens to your behaviour when you're under pressure? These are useful questions, but how accurately can you answer them when you're only looking at things from your own perspective?

We all interpret situations through our own experiences and assumptions. We know what we intended to achieve, what concerned us and why we made a particular decision. The people around us don't have access to all of that. They experience what we say and do, and they'll interpret it through their own experiences too.

Consider a leader who sees themselves as decisive. They make decisions quickly because they want to keep things moving and avoid unnecessary delays, something their own manager might particularly appreciate.

Their team, however, might experience those decisions as rushed, especially if they feel their views haven't been considered. The manager sees someone who gets things done, while the team sees someone who doesn't always involve them.

Neither perspective gives us the whole picture, and that's worth considering when we're deciding where someone might benefit from development.

If we relied entirely on the manager's view, we might encourage more of a behaviour that's already causing difficulties elsewhere. If we only listened to the team, we could overlook the value of someone being able to make timely decisions.

Understanding both gives us a better starting point.

It's not just about asking for feedback. It's about understanding it.

There are plenty of 360 feedback tools that ask people to rate a leader against a set of statements. They're convenient, relatively quick to complete and can provide useful information, particularly when an organisation is looking at development across a larger number of people.

My preference is to interview people, because I want to understand what sits behind their observations rather than simply collect their opinions.

If someone tells me a leader doesn't listen, I want to know what they mean. Are they interrupting people, appearing distracted during conversations or asking for input but then making decisions without explaining their thinking? Has something happened that's influenced how this person now sees them?

These are different situations, and understanding what's happening matters if we're going to identify what might need to change.

The same applies when someone has something positive to say. If they describe a leader as particularly good at bringing people together, I'm interested in what that looks like. What do they do that others find helpful? What happens when they're involved? Is there something about their approach that the leader might not even recognise as a strength?

We can spend so much time concentrating on what someone needs to improve that we overlook what they're already doing well.

Interviewing people gives me the opportunity to ask for examples, explore the circumstances and check that I've understood what someone is telling me. An initial comment can mean something quite different once you've had the opportunity to discuss it.

It also means I can explore recurring themes. Several people might be describing a similar experience, but using completely different language. Equally, people might use the same description of a leader but mean very different things by it.

Those distinctions matter when we're trying to understand someone's behaviour rather than simply categorise it.

One person's experience isn't necessarily the whole picture

Feedback isn't automatically fact because someone has said it. People have different expectations, experiences and preferences, and their views may be influenced by a particular incident or how they feel about a decision that's been made.

This is why I want to hear from people who experience a leader in different circumstances, including those they report to, their peers and the people they lead.

I'm interested in what comes up repeatedly, but also in where people's experiences differ. Does the leader behave differently depending on who they're working with? Is something happening consistently, or only in particular situations? Could there be circumstances that help explain why someone has experienced a behaviour in a certain way?

And how does all of this compare with the leader's own understanding of themselves?

Perhaps they believe they're excellent at giving people autonomy, yet several team members describe feeling closely monitored. That's worth exploring, particularly if the leader has never considered that their involvement might be experienced that way.

But so is the leader who believes they're poor at managing difficult conversations, while colleagues describe them as fair, thoughtful and willing to tackle issues others avoid.

In both cases, the feedback could challenge an assumption the leader has made about themselves.

For an organisation investing in someone's development, this broader understanding can make a difference. Rather than deciding what someone needs based on assumptions or the views of one or two people, we have something more substantial, realistic and valuable to work from.

What happens once you've heard it?

Gathering feedback is one thing. Knowing what to do with it is another.

It can be uncomfortable hearing that something you've been doing with the best of intentions isn't having the impact you thought it was, particularly when it's something you've always considered a strength.

You might immediately want to explain why you behaved that way, question whether the feedback is fair or decide you need to change your approach completely.

Before doing any of that, I'd want to spend some time understanding what's actually being said.

What stands out? What surprises you? Is there something you've heard from several people that you hadn't previously recognised? Are there examples that help you understand why someone might be experiencing your behaviour differently from how you intended?

And is there anything you want to do differently as a result?

Going back to our approachable leader, they probably don't need to stop helping people or suddenly become unavailable. They might need to notice when they're stepping in too quickly, ask a few more questions or give someone the opportunity to make a decision without their involvement.

They're still approachable and supportive, but they're being more thoughtful about when and how they offer that support.

The next part is finding out whether anything has actually changed. Are team members making more decisions themselves? Do they feel more trusted? Is the leader spending less time dealing with things that other people could reasonably manage?

Without revisiting those questions, it's difficult to know whether the development work has made any difference.

And that's something organisations need to consider too. Gathering feedback, producing a report and agreeing a few development objectives is relatively straightforward. Understanding whether someone's behaviour has changed, and whether that change is making a difference to the people around them, requires more attention.

You don't have to wait for a formal 360

You can start gathering feedback in your everyday work, particularly after meetings or conversations where you've been conscious of how you might have come across.

Perhaps you've just come out of a difficult meeting where your decision was challenged. You were trying to explain your reasoning, but you're wondering whether you came across as defensive. Or perhaps you were chairing a discussion and you're not sure you gave everyone enough opportunity to contribute.

Ask someone who was there what they noticed, but be specific about what you want to understand.

Rather than a general "How did I do?", which can easily invite a polite "Fine, thanks", you might ask whether you appeared defensive when your decision was questioned, or whether there was a point when you could have handled the discussion differently.

Be mindful of how you frame the question too. You don't want to put words into someone's mouth or encourage them to agree with your own assessment. Ask what they noticed and give them room to tell you something you hadn't considered.

The more specific and intentional you are, the more likely you are to get something useful rather than a reassuring answer that doesn't tell you very much. This is particularly important when you're asking someone who reports to you, as they may be reluctant to say anything they think you'll find difficult to hear.

And if they do offer an observation you weren't expecting, try not to immediately explain why you did what you did. Ask them to tell you a little more.

You won't always get particularly revealing feedback, and people may need time to feel comfortable being candid with you. But regularly asking about specific situations, listening properly and showing that you're willing to consider what you've heard can help make those conversations more useful.

So, how do others experience your leadership?

Whether you've recently stepped into a more senior role or you've been leading people for years, how much do you really know about the way others experience you?

You may already have a good understanding of your strengths and the areas you'd like to develop. Examining those things yourself is a useful starting point, but there will always be things you can't see from where you're standing.

Hearing from others might confirm what you already know, challenge some of your assumptions or help you recognise strengths you've been overlooking. It might also raise questions that you hadn't previously considered.

You don't have to agree with every piece of feedback, and not everything someone says will require you to change. But understanding why people experience you as they do gives you the opportunity to make more informed decisions about how you lead.

What you intend matters, but so does what other people experience. Understanding both is where the development work can begin.

Looking for a clearer picture of your leadership?

At Storm McQueen Coaching, I use self-reflection, confidential stakeholder interviews and, where appropriate, leadership assessments to help individuals and organisations understand what's working well, where development would be valuable and what meaningful change could look like.