It is easy to mistake the solidifying of biases for kernels of wisdom. In any case, after twenty or thirty years of working in some particular field there are “truths” that take shape in one’s mind. Here are some of mine regarding leadership:
We do a poor job in defining “successful leaders.” It is possible to be the head of an organization that is doing very well and still be an untrusting despot. Some who have made it to the top of the ladder are “successful” only in the narrowest sense of the word.
Great charisma alone is not enough. Individuals in senior positions in organizations need to do more than motivate, envision, and exemplify behaviors. They also need the skills we associate with classical “management.” If you don’t know the business and don’t understand the dynamics of organizations, wonderful vision and fine sensitivities to human aspirations won’t suffice for long.
The majority of ethical malfunctions stem more from the managerial shortcomings of executives than from the human proclivity to cheat. If, for example, we develop unattainable production quotas and then punish those who don’t meet the standard, something is going to give.
There are more intolerable subordinates than there are intolerable bosses. But that fact is irrelevant. The boss has to take the blame for friction, and the boss must accept responsibility for a poor climate. But the boss also has no excuse for tolerating forever behaviors that erode the morale of the overall organization. Modern bosses in large organizations are more often too slow rather than too quick to replace individuals who cannot accommodate to the legitimate needs of the group.
It is much easier to “fix it” or “start it” than to “sustain it.” Keeping a good organization tuned up, revitalized, and versatile year after year is the most difficult leadership challenge we have.
Our selection and promotion systems will continue to produce the current high rates of failure in leadership positions until we include in the evaluation process the systematic input from subordinates about leader behaviors. But this won’t change soon because most of us in senior positions think the system that produced us is obviously working well. Succession planning is typically low on the priority list of the chairperson or CEO—even though we recognize that a poor executive team at the top can destroy in weeks a solid climate or even a culture that was years in the making.
Our search for the “balanced life” among active leaders will continue to be elusive—and maybe not worth the effort. Many people who have made significant contributions to the world have been notoriously “unbalanced.” While we must try to keep serious pathology away from positions of power, the reality is that few top performers are not somewhat “driven.”
We don’t spend enough time designing our systems to measure organizational efficiency and effectiveness. And we don’t do much better in designing our individual performance assessment schemes—and the so-called pay-for-performance arrangements that emanate from them. Most organizations have never done a comprehensive scrub of their reports and measurements procedures, even though the total impact of the “how to succeed” equation has more influence on motivation and work prioritization than vision statements and value credos will ever have.
There is untapped, unexplored, underused talent at the bottom of every organization. Mining this lode is the only key to long-term enhanced productivity. That task is easy to envisage, hard to execute.
Expectations of future performance expressed by teachers, coaches, and executives have remarkable impact on results. This is especially true if we predict failure.
The natural state of things in organizations is a kind of rigid stupidity. If an organization is left unattended by the senior executive team for long—even if it is constituted by a workforce of good heart—it slides toward a dysfunctional climate.
Bosses—especially senior ones—overestimate the significance of their routine decision-making and underestimate the impact of their personal behavior. Exemplifying the desired leadership style and the positive values espoused in the company creed delivers power to others and sets the real managerial tone—and cannot be delegated to committees or consultants.
Except for these few items, I have no strong feelings about organizational leadership!
[Originally published in Issues & Observations, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1991]