We have been discussing how personal characteristics of a particular type tend to come paired with others that, while not exactly opposite, are nevertheless frequently counteracting. This appears to be especially true when we are talking about peculiarly salient expressions of these traits.
For example, if someone is especially intelligent, he or she may be (or have become) equally arrogant. Or, if someone is “visionary,” he or she may be ill-disciplined and unsuited to execution. Similarly, one who is forceful and courageous may also be close-minded and a bully.
This phenomenon – the pairing of putatively vital leadership characteristics with decidedly unproductive personal ones – has attracted increasing attention in recent years as the individual leadership model undergoes continuing exposure to the real world. Some dismiss the negative traits as the price we must pay for the supposedly positive ones. Others actually celebrate the former for heralding the latter.
But let’s consider, in this context, a quote from Warren Buffett:
When a management with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation for bad economics, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact.”
Now (bearing in mind that no analogy travels without some wear), let’s imagine that directors are considering hiring a CEO widely regarded as a leader of surpassing intellect and drive – passion, even – but also one for supreme arrogance and narrow, full-steam ahead bull-headedness. Might not one side of this reputation outlive the other? Which one?
Recall that we know that the performance of people commonly viewed as superior leaders – particularly those renowned for especially prominent leadership characteristics – can vary remarkably, even swinging from stunning achievement to desperate failure. The question is: do we know which characteristic from the good/bad pair caused which result?
The truth is, we often find that the success enjoyed by certain individuals, who we then celebrate for specific remarkable leadership qualities, turns out to be largely ephemeral. This leader, we come to discover, is unable to replicate the performance emanating with supposed inevitability from these characteristics.
So, the reputation of that person’s positive leadership traits fails to survive subsequent tests. And yet, might not the reputation of the accompanying negative traits remain intact – even robustly so?
—
Today’s tips: Speaking of confusing cause and effect, please see this insightful piece, by Eric Brown, about results and process. Please also view this excellent article by Miki Saxon about “in the moment” leadership.
—
If you have enjoyed this post, please do join us by using the subscription links just below or at the top right of this page. And thanks – we look forward to your being aboard!
—
Technorati Tags: Warren Buffett, management, business, economics, director, CEO, passion, performance, Eric Brown, Miki Saxon, intelligence, courage, arrogance, bullying, vision, leadership, characteristic, trait, leader
Sphere: Related Content
Note:
Hi Jim, Robert Nardelli certainly comes to mind:)
And thanks for including my post in your tip today, it’s quite a compliment!
Hi Miki,
Yes, that’s one name that gets mentioned in this context – let’s see how he does in his new job.
It’s my pleasure to recommend your post – it’s an excellent example of your thinking – thanks for writing it!
Great post, Jim. Bob Nardelli is an interesting case. His success at GE was primarily in the heavy industry parts of the company, building things like locomotives. The job at Home Depot was in a retail company. At GE he managed within a strong and clearly defined culture. At Home Depot he saw the challenge as changing the culture. At GE he dealt with important customers and with other GE people, but not with shareholders. As CEO at Home Depot he had to deal with shareholders and the press.
At Chrysler many of the things that he stumbled over at Home Depot are missing. He’s back in a manufacturing environment. And he’s working for a private equity firm where dealing with shareholders is not an issue.
In the last few years, I’ve become much more sensitive to the role that specific experience plays in a leader’s success in a particular job. For a good example of that, read Jim Kilts’ excellent book about the turnaround at Gillette, Doing what Matters. One reason he could sort out the issues facing him at Gillette was that he had spent his entire career in consumer goods.
Hi Wally,
Your description of the circumstances contributing to Nardelli’s background and varying experiences seems to me to strengthen the argument against the notion that individual leadership is a situation-independent factor that can parachute into any environment (or that can be grafted onto any personality) and save the day.
You note that at Chrysler, now a privately-held company, Nardelli doesn’t need to deal with shareholders. But he does need to deal with powerful investors, which will probably be new to him and offer challenges to his authority and freedom of maneuver that he has not yet encountered. It will be very interesting to watch.
And into the bargain, another undoubtedly great book recommendation – as always, thanks!