CONCLUSION

Ken Chenault, CEO of American Express, believes leaders have two fundamental roles. The first is to define reality. He describes this as leaders seeing the “real deal” in their organizations and markets. This can be a challenge because of the size and scope of corporations and the pace of change in highly competitive industries. Those in leadership roles also find that some people communicate what they believe a leader wants to hear or slant information, deliberately or not, to favor their preferred outcomes. The second leadership role is giving hope. This is communicating a vision that motivates people to strive for something greater than they thought possible. Instilling hope also helps people overcome the obstacles encountered along the path of any great undertaking. Leaders are “dealers in hope” because they inspire others in spite of the challenges ahead—being more positive, more sure of success, than an objective assessment would warrant. Some leaders are better at defining reality and others at giving hope—Chenault argues that both are essential to be successful.¹

A central theme of this book is the need for leaders to find an optimal margin of illusion in regard to their blindspots. They need to have enough illusion to create hope and sustain confidence—both in themselves and in those who follow them. Those who are only realistic are operating as managers and not leaders. At the same time, leaders need to see their situation clearly and not allow what they want to occur to blind them to the reality of what they are facing. The risk for some is that they will go beyond what is optimal and become detached from reality in critical areas—failing to see gaps in their knowledge and discounting information that doesn't fit with their view of themselves and their company. The confidence they need to be successful can grow into an insulating arrogance—hubris and a sense of entitlement takes hold and increases the risk of a major mistake. Success at an individual and company level accentuates this risk, as illustrated by leaders who were blinded by their initial achievements. There is no better example of this than Henry Ford—a man who became increasingly isolated from the world he helped to create.

Leaders can avoid this trap, in part, by thinking as both insiders and outsiders. That is, they need to know how things work in a particular company and industry, which allows them to pull the levers necessary to deliver results. They also, however, need to see things as outsiders, so they can take a more objective and at times more creative approach to their business. A model of this insider-outsider mentality is found in Jeff Bezos of Amazon.² He is an insider in building a business that operates with admirable efficiency. He monitors a wide range of metrics with his leadership team to ensure that the Amazon machine is running effectively. At the same time, he is obsessive in thinking of new ways to serve customers. He pushed Amazon, years ago, to move beyond books and position itself as the retailer of choice for all internet purchases. He created a range of innovative, customer-focused products and services such as the Kindle and one-click ordering. Bezos has consistently looked at his business as an outsider—in particular, thinking what the firm could do to create more value and a better experience for its customers.

Contrast this approach to what occurred at Microsoft over the last decade. The firm is exceptionally successful financially—including $78 billion in revenue in 2013, with net income of nearly $22 billion. It markets two of the most successful products in history in Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office. That said, the firm's outgoing CEO, Steve Ballmer, missed one new product innovation after another during his tenure. He failed to keep pace with more successful rivals in areas such as internet search, smartphones, and tablets. One competitor noted, “Microsoft had phones, Microsoft had tablets, but they tried to put Windows in them. They couldn't leave the PC world behind, even though they saw the change coming.”³ This pattern is evident in many successful firms that are invested—financially, intellectually, and emotionally—in maintaining the status quo. Microsoft runs the risk of repeating the Xerox saga—“fumbling the future” as it tries to protect its existing business model at the expense of new growth opportunities. Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, recently observed, “Any business today that embraces the status quo as an operating principle is going to be on a death march.”⁴ Microsoft's new CEO will face the challenge of changing an internally focused Microsoft culture that is bound by its past successes. Bill Gates may want to give the firm's new leader his photograph of Henry Ford as a reminder of what needs to be done.

■ ■

I noted in an earlier chapter that leaders are well served by surrounding themselves with talented people who will challenge their thinking and behavior. At the same time, leaders have a need to hear from others who hold them in high esteem. A senior leader faces ongoing scrutiny from a range of stakeholders—including, but not limited to, board members, institutional shareholders, financial analysts, journalists, union leaders, and employees. It is no wonder that many leaders prefer to surround themselves with people who are highly supportive. Some leaders go a step further and staff their teams with those who have similar backgrounds and think like themselves—making their lives even easier on some level. A homogeneous inner circle buffers a leader from what can be a demanding world.

Savvy leaders, however, recognize the risk they run by creating an echo chamber around themselves. To reduce the risk, they often identify one confidant, someone with superb judgment, who works in ways that reinforce a leader's strengths while minimizing the effects of his or her weaknesses. Consider the partnership between Mickey Drexler, CEO of J. Crew, and Jenna Lyons, the president of that firm. They share a passion for clothing design and a common vision for the J. Crew brand. A recent profile of the pair describes her as both his editor and translator, filtering Drexler's ideas and preventing the confusion that would ensue if the organization acted on his nonstop, stream-of-consciousness proposals.⁵ She doesn't try to change his style but, instead, works to channel his best ideas into specific actions while reining in his excesses when they occur. Drexler deserves credit for recognizing Lyons's talent and being willing to allow her to influence him and enhance his impact on the company. Lyons, in turn, is adept in working in a manner that makes Drexler and J. Crew more successful. She has developed her own leadership skills working with one of the most respected leaders in the retail industry and is the likely candidate to become CEO on Drexler's retirement.

While the benefit of this type of relationship is clear, the dynamic between a leader and a trusted confidant can be precarious. Interpersonal competition, and the strain that comes with sharing power, is never far from the surface. These factors can result in a quick end to what was once a close and successful partnership. Jamie Dimon, early in his career, departed Citicorp after being suddenly fired by CEO Sanford Weill when their relationship ran into problems. Weill commented years later: “Dimon was doing very well and he thought he was ready to run the company and he probably was. But the only problem was I wasn't ready to retire. So we began to not cooperate and that was not a good way to try and run a business.”⁶

Some assume that the role of the junior member in these partnerships is to feed the ego of the senior leader while carefully providing advice. Leaders, as noted above, clearly draw energy and confidence from others holding them in high esteem and respecting their strengths. There is research to suggest that people even perform better when they are viewed in a positive light by others.⁷ The more positive the expectations of others, the more positive the performance by those in positions of authority.

But most leaders want more than simple admiration. They want those closest to them to validate the way they view themselves. The psychologist William Swann describes this as the difference between wanting to be adored and wanting to be known.⁸ Various studies have shown that individuals who view themselves in a positive manner want to associate with others who also view them in a positive manner. However, these same studies find that those who view themselves in a negative manner want to associate with those who also view them in a negative manner—a surprise in that most would think that these individuals would crave positive feedback even more than others. The takeaway from this research is that people actively search for feedback that reinforces their self-perceptions and actively distance themselves from those who contradict those perceptions. Leaders, more than most, have the power to determine with whom they interact and can isolate themselves from those who don't view them in a manner consistent with their overall self-image.

More specifically, individuals seek to validate specific traits that they hold to be central to their identity as leaders. An individual who sees herself as strategic, for example, will want people around her who also see her as strategic. The situation becomes complicated when others push back or challenge her in these areas. Team members who voice concerns about her strategic plan for the firm may be working simply to improve the plan, but in doing so, they run the risk of inadvertently threatening this leader's self-concept regarding her strategic capabilities. Areas that this leader holds to be less central to her identity are likely to be less problematic in regard to the feedback that others provide. She may not be defensive if others find fault with her firm's approach to influencing the media because she doesn't personally identify with that capability.

In an ideal world, those receiving feedback about their blindspots would be grateful to those wanting to help them. However, as executive coach Marshall Goldsmith observes, successful people have two issues when it comes to negative feedback. First, they don't want to hear it. Second, people don't want to give it.⁹ Goldsmith exaggerates but not by much. The desire to avoid damaging one's relationship with another, particularly someone in a more powerful position, prevents blindspots of various types from being revealed, and for good reason. Who can name a person who wants to tell his boss that she is mired in operational details and has no strategic vision for the company? Who can point out an individual who wants to tell a leader that his leadership style is demotivating team members and producing a toxic team environment? How many people want to tell a colleague that he cracks under pressure and lacks the gravitas needed to deal with the stresses of leading in a large company? Who is going to tell the CEO that her pay is excessive and will create problems with both the board and shareholders? And from the other side, how many leaders truly want to hear this type of feedback, regardless of what they may say about the importance of leaders and teams being direct with each other?

One of my consulting colleagues worked with a leader who wanted to change the culture of his company, making it more agile. The first step was to assess what was working and what needed to change at the company. Based on input from team members, a feedback report was produced, including anonymous feedback regarding the leader's style and its impact on the culture. There was a fair amount of input on what the leader needed to change and the ways in which he was part of the problem, including the need to fully empower his team members to make decisions. The consultant sent the report to the leader and met with him the following week to discuss the findings. On entering the office, the leader stood up and said that he had read the report. He then picked up the report from the table and said, “This is what I think of it”—tearing it in half. Soon thereafter, the leader ended the consulting relationship.

I tell this story not to suggest that the truth should be avoided in order to keep one's job or to retain a consulting contract. But it is important to deliver hard truths skillfully and to realize that doing so often incurs a cost, particularly to those delivering the message. Those who work in a large company know that providing negative feedback can provoke retribution, even when the feedback is offered with the best of intentions. In each case, the individual surfacing the blindspot has to realize that he or she will be putting at risk a relationship that may be more important, over the long term, than the particular blindspot being surfaced. Those who shoot the messenger, in many cases, don't do so because the message is negative but because the messenger challenges a leader's self-concept. This means that the person providing the feedback needs to read the leader and understand his or her personality well enough to get through to that individual in a constructive manner. In many cases, feedback is provided in a manner that is either too subtle (in order to protect the messenger) or too blunt (which can end the relationship). People are often right in what they have to say but ineffective in how they deliver the message.

■ ■

A final recommendation, one that cuts across many of the previous chapters, involves curiosity. Leaders can be successful without being curious if their skills match the needs of a company or group at a particular point in time. They can be effective because what they know and how they lead fits what a company needs at a point in its history. But these individuals are less able than others to adapt to change, as their modus operandi is to replicate in new situations what worked for them in the past. They have but one playbook. They are less open to new ways of thinking and behaving—starting with themselves but also in regard to their teams, organizations, and markets. In contrast, more curious leaders are open to exploring data or points of view that conflict with what they believe. They may not agree with those points of view or recommendations, but they are willing to consider them. Their innate curiosity trumps, at least initially, the need to reinforce their own beliefs.

Blindspots, and the failures associated with them, are usually viewed in terms of a leader's history or personality. Leaders, as noted throughout this book, need to examine their own blindspots, but should do so in the context of larger factors that come into play. That is, blindspots are not simply a matter of personality flaws or mistakes in a person's decision-making process. These situational factors can push a leader in a manner that increases the likelihood of blindspots in specific areas. In other words, leader behavior takes place in a broad environment that, in some situations, makes blindness more or less likely. Linda Ham, the project manager at NASA during the Columbia flight, was a hard-driving and decisive leader with an autocratic style. In this regard, she embodied what was valued in the NASA culture and, as a result, was viewed as a rising star. Her blindspots, however, also matched those of the culture in which she worked. This created problems in the way information was surfaced and debated during the Columbia crisis, as she didn't see a need to actively work to surface dissenting views. In contrast, other leaders have an approach that conflicts with the culture in which they work. In these cases, blindspots that others see in these leaders may not be blindspots in the larger organizational culture. Leaders seeking to understand their own blindspots need to examine them in relation to the larger context, without abdicating responsibility for their own behavior.

Let me illustrate this point with a detailed example. A high-ranking executive in a West Coast technology firm receives feedback that she is too aggressive in promoting herself and her team's achievements. This feedback can be viewed by the executive in multiple ways. The first interpretation is that the feedback says more about those giving it, and the larger norms that influence how women leaders are viewed by others in some corporate settings, than it does about her. Research suggests that people, men and women alike, are more likely, in general, to view women who are assertive as violating informal social norms as to how women should behave (norms that say women should be supportive and collaborative). As a result, assertive and even competent women can be seen by some as being too aggressive and less likeable than men who possess similar traits.¹⁰ This is not to suggest that women should be less assertive. In this case, the blindspot is not in the female executive but in the larger environment in which she is operating. She understands the issue and is not surprised that some view her the way they do. They have never reported to a female executive and are unsure how to deal with a woman who doesn't fit their image of how women should behave. She decides to ignore the feedback and not worry about the social niceties and continues to assert herself as she has done in the past.

A second interpretation of the feedback is that this executive's style is interacting with the set of expectations about women noted above to create resistance to what she is trying to achieve. She understands how others view her and the larger dynamics at play. Being goal oriented and task focused, she doesn't care what people think. However, she decides to modify her leadership style by being less confrontational in some settings to avoid the appearance of being self-serving. She needs support and doesn't want to give people any reason to block her initiatives. She continues to push others forward and take pride in her team's successes but in a more subtle manner. She modifies her style in an authentic manner that helps increase her influence in the company.

A third potential interpretation is that the executive is, in fact, self-serving and operates in a manner that alienates others. People in her company don't trust her because they see her working in a manipulative and highly political manner that puts her interests above the interests of the company. She lacks self-awareness and defends against this interpretation by blaming her peers for not supporting her. With input from her CEO, she comes to see the need to change and take a hard look at her own motives and behavioral style. Over time, she becomes more self-aware and changes, at a deep level, the way she thinks and how she operates.

Which of these interpretations is right? As consultants are fond of saying, it depends. In some situations, there would be elements of truth in each view and in other situations only one would have merit and be worthy of action. The leader must ultimately decide which interpretation is the most accurate and then determine what, if any, changes are needed. The process, however, should be one of actively exploring the viability of each potential interpretation. Leaders need to be sufficiently curious to surface that which they need to understand and sufficiently savvy to ignore that which is “noise” and of little consequence.

Curiosity is sometimes undervalued in leaders because it can appear to others, particularly in a corporate environment, as a lack of certainty on the best path forward. Curiosity can also be viewed as a leader being overly analytical in his or her approach. Cognitive psychologist Daniel Kahneman notes that we typically think of strong leaders as being decisive and, inversely, weak leaders as dithering.¹¹ He observes that organizations often promote those who are overconfident because they fit the image of what constitutes a strong leader. In fact, there is a cost to being anything other than forceful “since there really is a strong expectation that leaders will be decisive and act quickly. We deeply want to be led by people who know what they're doing and who don't have to think about it too much.”¹² Hubris, in many companies, is rewarded.

We follow leaders who, all else being equal, are confident and decisive. However, those who work with leaders know that they can be flawed human beings with weaknesses and even illusions that stand in stark contrast to their considerable strengths. This is particularly true for the most talented and visionary of leaders. In other words, we shouldn't assume that greatness and awareness are found in the same person.¹³ To believe otherwise is to deny the complex character of leaders and the burdens of leadership. Steve Jobs free of blindspots would not have been Steve Jobs. This is not to say that his behavior was always admirable or effective.¹⁴ Nor am I suggesting that individuals don't grow as leaders over time. But those who believe that great leaders are inevitably self-aware don't know many leaders or don't know them very well.¹⁵

This means that blindspots can't be treated as problems. Problems can be analyzed and fixed. Blindspots, in contrast, are dilemmas that can be faced more or less effectively but never completely resolved. Treating a dilemma as a problem results in a false sense of having put to rest something that requires ongoing attention and effort. Blindspots don't just disappear when you become aware of them or take action to address them. They resurface over time or are displaced by other blindspots that become salient as you face new challenges. Remaining aware of blindspots requires vigilance and humility as you come to appreciate, and perhaps even value, the limits of your knowledge and skill—and how to lead forcefully even with that awareness. That's a lesson worth learning.