Some workers want quick, direct answers from their managers. Others prefer to be coached as they work through solutions on their own. Understanding that distinction is key to building trust, delivering results and improving overall performance.

That’s according to Rotman executive-in-residence Rajeev Chib. In his recently published paper, “Enhancing Subordinate Job Performance Through Coaching Behaviors,” Chib groups workers based on what he calls their “cognitive need for closure.”

Drawing on surveys of 219 millennial workers and 55 supervisors across age groups from 14 organizations in the financial services sector, Chib found that certain managerial styles are better suited to certain types of employees.

“Some individuals need closure — for example, if I ask a question, they typically want a binary answer, either yes or no,” he says. “Others are comfortable with ambiguity. They’re okay with a response like, ‘it depends,’ and are happy to sit with different possibilities.”

The research also explores how managers tend to oscillate between two distinct coaching styles: “guidance coaching” and “facilitation coaching.”

“Guidance coaching is more directive — ‘it’s my way or the highway,’” he says. “Facilitation coaching is, ‘I have your back. I’m not going to tell you what to do. You understand the problem — go explore it, and I’m here to support you.’”

Chib’s findings point to a pretty straightforward match: individuals with a high need for closure tend to perform best under a guidance coaching model, while those more comfortable with ambiguity often thrive with a facilitation approach.

Understanding rather than catering to subordinate preferences 

That being said, Chib cautions that just because workers have different preferences doesn’t necessarily mean managers should cater to them. In fact, having a high or low need for closure can create challenges in certain situations. 

For example, those who demonstrate a high cognitive need for closure tend to “move on very quickly,” Chib says. “Once they get their answer, it closes the door to more learning, and then they very quickly move on to that next thing.” 

On the other hand, those who have a low cognitive need for closure may be less equipped to move with speed and urgency in the event of a crisis. 

Leaders should be cognizant of their subordinates’ relative need for closure, as it can help them better anticipate potential challenges when a situation requires them to step out of their comfort zone. 

“It's important to understand, as a manager, that you're likely going to be working in an environment that has a cross-sectional group of individuals working for you,” Chib says. “It’s also about self-awareness — where are you as a manager on the spectrum between guidance and facilitation coaching?” 

Rather than adjusting their leadership approach to suit the recipient, however, Chib adds that managers should fit their leadership style to the situation and work towards helping staff better manage situations that aren’t in line with their preferred degree of closure. In other words, managers should try to help those who prefer straightforward responses become more comfortable with ambiguity, and vice versa. 

“Give someone who has less need for closure — if you're aware of it as a manager — a stretch goal to become a little more directive,” he says. “I have seen in my practical experience people can jump over the fence and are able to adapt.” 

When to use each managerial style 

Through more than three decades in the financial services sector, Chib says the clearest example of the challenges that can arise when staff aren’t able to operate beyond their preferred level of cognitive closure came during the pandemic. 

In the early days of the crisis, for example, Chib says clients were panicked and looking for reassurance, putting those who prefer ambiguity in a difficult position. 

“There was no time for, ‘hey, it depends,’” he says. “It was time for managers or bosses to go to workers and say, ‘listen, you’ve got three hours, you need to put together these three metrics for our clients, and then we’re going to jump on a call.’”

As the crisis continued, however, Chib says staff were challenged to deal with greater ambiguity. For example, he says some clients weren’t ready to make the switch to digital contracts. 

“Leaders who had a very high need for closure would say, ‘Look, we’ve got to make quick decisions. Let’s move on [from that client],’” he says. “Leaders who were being supervised by facilitation coaching styles hung in there, showed empathy to the smaller firms with less resources, they found ways to work with them, and they were able to save those relationships.”

The examples Chib provides also demonstrate how different styles are necessary in different situations. In times of crisis, leadership needs to act decisively and with urgency. However, maintaining that more directive approach can create challenges over time. 

“Team building, trust and collaboration erode over time the longer you stay in that guidance coaching mode,” he says. “In a crisis it’s fine, but eventually you’ll move away from transformational leadership towards being transactional.”