In many ways we are unformed lumps of clay at birth, but with immense potential. The challenge is how we are shaped, and by whom, to grow and mature to become our best. 

Certainly parents, teachers at school, coaches in sports, and bosses at work can be significant shaping sources. Unfortunately, in many cases these people spend more time telling us what to do and managing our behaviors than shaping us in a positive way. In other cases, which can be a pitfall of many parents, they do too much for us, giving us fish, than teaching us to fish.

Years ago, when we had young children, a friend told my wife and me about the six-year rule of parenting—an approach which provides insights into the difference between a shaping style and a management style.

My friend suggested that parenting happens in three six-year stages to help raise up a child in the way they should go between birth and eighteen years of age. Ideally, with a shaping approach, in the first six years of a child’s life (years 0-6) the parent provides a principled foundation and clarity of boundaries. This is when the child learns about the principles that govern our world and the boundaries involved in operating as an effective member of a family and society. This is also the stage when appropriate discipline takes place. As a child’s ability to reason is in the process of developing, discipline provides direction and understanding of the consequences of poor choices. 

In the second six years (7-12) the parent leads by example. If a good foundation was established in the first six years, then leading by example, with consistency, serves to reinforce the legitimacy of the principles.

The third six years (13-18) is a time of negotiation—a time of choices and consequences for the child. A time of letting the child make more of their own decisions, but with the guidance and safety-net of loving parents. In theory, at eighteen the child should be ready to live on their own, which also coincides with when most children go off to college.

While we share similar DNA with our children, they are very different people with different talents, perspectives, preferences, desires, and fears. A parent’s job is not to control their children, making them the same as the parent, but to equip them with clarity and tools to become interdependent healthy functional members of society.

A mistake made by many parents is to give the child too much freedom in the first six years. This has the effect of starting with the third stage [negotiation] without an appropriate foundation through which to filter decisions. This can have a devastating effects on the child. Here are just a few examples of how a parent might negotiate with their child in the first stage: letting them choose their own bed-time, feeding them on demand, not being consequential when they defy reasonable requests, and using the counting-to-ten method. I’m not suggesting a parent should dominate their child. But the parent must understand how good boundaries and structure actually provide the child with a greater sense of security. In the first six years the child is not mentally capable of sorting out the ultimate pros and cons of their behaviors. They are dependent on the parent to look after their best interests in these initial years.

Parents who don’t establish a good foundation in the first six years, often aren’t consistent and resolute enough to lead by example in the second six years, with the result that children come to their teenage years ill-equipped and confused. Then, when the child, who hasn’t yet developed the ability to think critically and interpret their environment, makes poor decisions, the parent, out of fear, often reverts to a more rigid and control-oriented approach, which often leads to rebellion by the child. 

Done correctly a child learns the principles of life in a safe and supportive environment during the first six years. In the second six years, still in a safe and supportive environment, the child sees how the parent navigates life. During this time the child is able to “practice life”, but with the support of their parents. By eighteen they are essentially ready to tackle life on their own, yet still with their parents in the background as resources.

Now think of the Six-Year Rule of Parenting in the context of our work life.

In organizations the three stages would not be six years each, but rather represent three stages of assimilation. In the first stage, during the hiring process and through the early weeks on the job, leaders need to establish a good foundation with clarity of boundaries and guiding principles through formal and written vision, mission, and values statements. The second stage involves leading by example, fully aligned with the guiding principles of the organization. The third stage consists of negotiation, practicing compassionate candor, and giving team members more and more autonomy and responsibility.

Too many organizations don’t lay a good foundation because they lack formal written vision, mission, and values statements. And, often times, when they have taken the time to write them down it’s more of a “check the box” exercise than creating a set of guiding principles to align the team. These organizations often bring people onto their teams without formal onboarding [foundation laying] and then wonder why so many new hires struggle to become functional members of the team.

Adding to the lack of clarity, many organizations give new hires too much leniency in the first stage, often referred to as a “honeymoon” period, a few weeks or months, during which they give them the benefit of the doubt. This deprives the new hire of valuable feedback of what is appropriate behavior. In the process, and not surprisingly, out of alignment situations create frustration within the new hire and others on the team, leading to further dysfunctional behavior and eventual termination or quitting.

Let’s reflect back on the potter. How does a piece of clay become a beautiful vase? It’s not by accident. Even before the potter places the clay on the wheel he has a vision for what he wants to create. He works with intentionality to shape the clay into the vision he has in his mind. There is an ancient story about how a Sculpture sees an image in a chunk of marble and then chips the pieces away that don’t fit.

Leaders need to have a vision of what they want to create in their organizations and then align the team with that vision. This involves giving candid feedback when behaviors don’t align with the values of the organization, and coaching team members to become their best. If we are hiring capable, cohesive, and hungry people why aren’t we giving them more autonomy in a safe, supportive, and positive environment to thrive in? Unfortunately, in many cases not enough consideration is given to the cohesive element during the hiring process. Further, most organizations don’t do a good job of on-boarding. The result is a potentially misaligned team with the vision and values of the organization. Imagine trying to drive a car with poor alignment. It may get you from point A to point B, but the ride may be shaky, may take more work to keep on course, may cause more wear and tear on the tires, may compromise safety, and may reduce performance. You might tolerate some misalignment in your daily-driver, but you certainly wouldn’t in your race car.

Shaping takes more work upfront, through one-on-one coaching, but allows people to become more effective and perform at higher levels for longer periods of time.

So why do so many organizations practice a management approach? I suggest there’s a few reasons, such as: the manager has never been shown a better way, telling seems quicker and easier with less effort, or being the boss feeds our ego and need for control. Whatever the reason it’s in everybody’s best interest to make the paradigm shift.