Leadership Lessons: Ted Lasso vs. Michael Scott

In the world of leadership, there are as many styles as there are leaders. Some lead with their heart, while others take a more carefree or chaotic approach. Let’s think of two iconic characters: Ted Lasso, the optimistic and inspiring soccer coach, and Michael Scott, the eccentric and often disastrous sales manager in The Office. Both lead teams, but their approaches couldn’t be more different.

Imagine Ted Lasso, always positive and motivating, reflecting on his team’s mistakes. Ted knows there are things he can’t control: the decisions his players make on the field, the mistakes they commit at crucial moments, or even their confidence levels. However, Ted understands that his role isn’t to control everything, but to guide them, provide the tools to improve, and, when mistakes inevitably happen, remind them that these stumbles are part of growth.

On the other hand, imagine Michael Scott in his Scranton office, facing his team’s mistakes in a completely different way. Michael tends to get involved in every little detail, sometimes losing sight of the bigger picture by trying to solve everything himself. In the series, we see how his need for approval and inability to manage his team’s mistakes with perspective lead him to make disastrous decisions. Now, imagine that an alternative storyline in The Office had shown that Michael was fired precisely because he got too involved, taking responsibility for his team's mistakes instead of allowing them to learn on their own. Wouldn’t that be plausible for his character?

This leads us to an interesting question: which style is more effective? Ted’s, who knows he can’t control everything, or Michael’s, who feels that if his team fails, he also fails? Both leaders face the same dilemma: where to draw the line between guiding and taking responsibility for others' mistakes.

Now imagine that Ted probably made mistakes we didn’t see in the series. Maybe, at some point, he chose to avoid a difficult conversation with one of his players. Perhaps he knew someone wasn’t reaching their full potential, but instead of addressing it, he decided to dodge the situation, letting frustrations and misunderstandings pile up. A common leadership mistake, isn’t it? Avoiding uncomfortable moments might be easier in the short term, but in the long run, it creates disconnection between the leader and their team.

Conversely, Michael Scott, though well-intentioned, made mistakes from the opposite side: wanting to intervene in everything. His need for approval made him incapable of letting his team make mistakes on their own. Imagine how things would have been if Michael had learned that his team’s mistakes didn’t define him as a leader. Perhaps a valuable piece of advice for him would have been: "It’s your job to guide them, provide the necessary tools, but the mistakes are theirs, not yours."

So now the question is: have you felt more like Ted, trusting that your team will learn from their mistakes but perhaps avoiding some tough conversations? Or have you felt more like Michael, trying to take control of everything, only to end up overwhelmed by the mistakes of others that you cannot control?

Leadership, in the end, is a delicate balance between guiding and delegating. It’s not about avoiding mistakes, but about how we allow others to face the consequences and grow from them. Both approaches, Ted’s and Michael’s, show us that, while we may have different styles, there’s always room to learn and improve.

Which style resonates more with you? Have you ever experienced a situation where your team’s mistakes weighed on you as if they were your own?