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 tip: 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

The trait-theory of leadership assumes that leadership comes from specific vital characteristics possessed by extraordinary individuals; these traits must be had at all cost. When it is pointed out that this cost often includes sometimes painful levels of arrogance or narcissism, as well as other unpleasant and even decidedly non-constructive characteristics, we are indeed advised that we must find ways to pay the price. These are stars, after all ??? they will have their idiosyncrasies; sometimes we are even encouraged to view them as roguishly quaint.

Is that how you view them?

Here are some questions to consider in this context:

• Do strongly positive and negative leadership characteristics indeed accompany one another? For example, does arrogance inevitably follow great intelligence; does bullying behavior come right along with strength of will (or what some would call personal or even moral courage), or will narcissism typically be found alongside great self-confidence and force?
• Indeed, is it really the case that great positive characteristics must, or ought to, be accompanied by great faults? That is, might a lack of the latter undermine confidence in the actual presence of the former?
• How about this: can we even take the view that evidence of narcissism, for example, should encourage us that we will find levels of confidence and self-assurance that we need in a leader in order to imbue our organization with sure-footed confidence?
• Have you seen organizations led by such people? If they had character trait pairs like these, did one tend to predominate? Which one?

Have observations like these had any effect on your view of the trait-theory of individual leadership for organizations?

They sure have on mine. Why not share your experiences and thoughts?

—

Today’s tip: Speaking of speaking of sins and sanctimony, please make a point of seeing The Becker-Posner Blog for Gary Becker’s rejection of the ever-resurfacingAmerica in Decline argument, and Richard Posner’s response. Are these two talking past one another? Are cause and effect being confused? Is there unintended undermining of one’s own argument?

—

Have you noticed the blue ???Sphere??? icon, below? When you click on it, it will produce a window offering you content related to today???s item from other blogs and the regular media. Give it a try!

And, while you???re clicking around down there, don???t forget to subscribe, by email or RSS reader!

Technorati Tags: characteristic, leader, trait-theory, leadership, individual, arrogance, intelligence, bullying, courage, narcissism, confidence, individual leadership, The Becker-Posner Blog, Gary Becker, America, Richard Posner

But one of the many problems with this approach resides in the often less pleasant aspects of some of these characteristics as exhibited by particular sampled leaders, or of some other distinctly undesirable traits that often appear to inevitably accompany the celebrated ones. For example, as often as we hear about the importance of courage in a leader, we find it expressed as bullying. Or, enjoined to attract leaders with high levels of self-assurance, we find them bringing along similarly high levels of arrogance in the same baggage.

When confronted with problems like these, the trait touters sometimes fall back on the ???price you pay??? argument: if you want this, you get that ??? learn to deal with it. This is taken frequent recourse to in literally every realm peopled with supposedly exceptional individual leaders ??? from politics to the military to business ??? where the virtues initially sold to us are writ large, but no larger than the vices we eventually discover there as well.

But is it true? Must we accept certain disagreeable personal shortcomings in order to enjoy supposedly must-have leadership capabilities? Indeed, are the former inescapably paired with ??? even indicators of ??? the latter?

We’ll take a brief look at those questions and more tomorrow. Please do stop by, and bring your observations with you!

—

Today’s tips: Speaking of vices and virtues, they, unsurprisingly, are often in the eye of the beholder. Please see these contrasting views of one such issue: Vice: A WSJ article about Carl Icahn and the Yahoo board; Virtue: Icahn’s response posted at his blog. Which do you find more convincing?

—

Please do take a moment to subscribe, either by email or RSS reader, to be sure you receive future articles as they???re published.

Technorati Tags: leadership, characteristic, leader, trait, courage, bullying, arrogance, politics, military, business, WSJ, Carl Icahn, Yahoo

Actually, there are a number of potential problems with this view, even if it accurately describes leadership. But let’s just consider here the issue we touched upon at the close of last Friday’s post: when that decisive leader dispels enervating fear, where is the displayed leadership really coming from?

Consider the leader in question. We clearly viewed the behavior we saw, when she electrified everyone with her call to action, as the injection of leadership, originating in her, into the organization. Moreover, we likely have seen evidence of this leadership in various other, albeit less striking, circumstances during her stewardship of the outfit. So, we conclude, she is a leader.

And I don’t question that she is, or was, in the moments when she demonstrated leadership. My question is: did the leadership she demonstrate come from her?

Imagine this person in any other circumstances. Walking down the street, let’s say. Is she displaying leadership? If an event occurs ??? one with which she has no more personal connection than any other pedestrian, but that demands decision or action ??? will she inevitably exhibit the leadership required to resolve it. Because, after all, she is a leader?

What about a situation in which she might have somewhat more personal identification? For example, watching a chid’s sporting event, or a social gathering of friends. If something occurred that required a leader to step in, would everyone turn to her, or would she instinctively assume the role?

That is to ask, for all that there is a display of leadership in one or another set of conditions, does the leadership arise from the leader who expresses it? Or, does it come from the conditions in which it is displayed?

Is the ???leader??? the source, or the vehicle, of leadership?

—

Today’s tip: Speaking of leadership, if we’re not sure where it comes from, there certainly is one place where we can get a lot more insight about it: the second Leadership Development Carnival has been posted by Dan McCarthy, author of Great Leadership. This one includes a recent post from these pages on Leaders and Conflict, as well as dozens more from the likes of Wally Bock, Michael Wade, Steve Roesler and many more. Please stop over for a truly worthwhile selection - a carnival - of thought-provoking and engaging reading on this important topic.

—

Did you know that as a subscriber to this blog (by either RSS reader or email), you are entitled to a free download (.pdf format, 344KB) of the first chapter from Jim???s critically-acclaimed book, Managing Leadership? Download your free chapter now! (Even if you haven???t subscribed, yet - download it anyway! - (and then subscribe!))

Technorati Tags: leadership, boss, leader, organization, decision, action, Dan McCarthy, Wally Bock, Michael Wade, Steve Roesler

But when the boss does it ??? now that’s something else again. The boss doesn’t do it for him- or herself ??? although that can be a factor ??? but for organizational issues upon the outcome of which much, even our own personal livelihoods, depend. Often, given that we are talking about something exceptional, here ??? not a mere routine event, but one that claims territory or strikes out boldly on an uncharted path in uncertain times ??? this is done in what had been, until the moment of decision, paralyzing crisis.

And that, as we discussed in the previous post, is clearly evidence of individual leadership, as well as of its exceptional value to organizations. And yet, for all that, might there be more going on here?

Let’s look at the situations again. First, in the case of the individual who announces his stance on a social issue, there is not necessarily any pressure on him to do so. He is merely that sort generally, or he feels that the matter is of such import that citizens should step forward and be counted.

But what about the boss? Is her decisive stand solely a matter of personal civic or organizational philosophy? ???This is just my job, of course I’ll make the decision.??? Or is it the result of tremendous pressure arising from the immediate crisis, the scope and consequences of which grow with each moment that passes without it being resolved?

In the case of the boss, on the one hand how much of her decision was prompted by whatever degree of individual leadership she may possess, and on the other how much of that individual leadership was prompted by the pressure of the situation? If we agree that she displayed leadership, is it not reasonable to ask where it actually came from?

It is our habit to assume it came from her ??? that the organization’s fate issues from her possession of it. But is it not possible that ??? at least to some degree ??? her possession of it emanates from the organization and the dynamics its very existence sets in motion?

If that is the case, is she the only person so affected, or so imbued with the instinct, in this organizational context, to leadership?

Who is standing up, here, or who is being stood up? Do we really know?

—

Today’s tip: Speaking of standing up and attracting lightening, please see this Economist article about how one private equity executive views the varying rewards for managers and staff.

—

More and more readers are viewing the new mobile-friendly version of the Managing Leadership Blog on their internet-capable phones and pocket computers, and you can, too! Just use the ???Get Mobile Version??? link at the upper right of this page to have the address sent to your device or, for those of you reading this in your email client or RSS reader, go to http://fdm8.com/managingleadership to view the site (you can visit it right here from your computer to get an idea of what it will look like on your portable device).

If you enjoy this way of accessing this site, you can sign up for text alerts (of new posts) to your phone simply by enrolling your number in the mobile subscription link, also at upper right on the sidebar of the main page. Why not try it now!

And if you prefer to continue viewing the site on your regular computer, then please do subscribe by email or RSS reader, so you???ll always get the latest posts!

Technorati Tags: boss, decision, crisis, leadership, organization, Economist, executive, manager

Not decision-making. That is a managerial function ??? indeed, at the very heart of management.

But decisiveness is perhaps another matter altogether. There are two things about it, in this context. First, it is leadership.

It resolves matters and clears the decks for action. When there is nothing but uncertainty in the air ??? whether simple inertia, a blissful surfeit of good choices, or a desperate confluence of crises ??? a clear decision on a course of action can have a wonderfully liberating effect on an organization and its staff. The result is clarity of purpose and action, often given additional force by the sheer relief with which pent-up organizational energy is thus released.

Second, it is individual. There certainly can be a sort of cultural momentum in an organization that lends a decisive bias to otherwise confounding events, pressing decision-makers toward specific decisions and solutions to what might otherwise be dilemmas. Moreover, the best bosses will inform their decisions with the ???sense of the organization,??? lending a sort of collective cast to the result.

But none of this lessens the fact that, at bottom, an individual must make the final decision ??? one for which, however culturally homogeneous the firm may be, only he or she will be held ultimately responsible. Thus, a single person ??? typically, the boss ??? must step forward and take a stand, one that commits the entire organization to action.

When all is said and done, is that what individual leadership is really all about?

—

Today’s tips: Speaking of trying to figure out what leadership really is, please see why Wally Bock, author of Three Star Leadership, says it really doesn’t matter.

And speaking of decisiveness, how much of the elements that drive or constitute your decision should you reveal, and why? Please take a moment to see this piece by Michael Wade, the Execupundit, on revealing and filtering.

Finally, speaking of being revealing, or clarity, or trying to figure out what’s going on and if it matters - well, please just be sure to see what John Phillips, at The Word on Employment, has to say about transparency in the workplace.

—

We appreciate your visits here very much, and would love to have you as a regular reader. Please take a moment to subscribe, either by email or via an RSS reader, using the options available just below or at the upper right. And welcome aboard!

Technorati Tags: leadership, decision-making, management, decisiveness, decision, organization, boss, responsible, Wally Bock, Three Star Leadership, Michael Wade, Execupundit, John Phillips, The Word on Employment

They seem to begin reasonably enough, describing personality traits we might be expected to associate with leaders ??? intelligence, technical competence, and focus. Then they expand into martial virtues such as courage and willpower. Soon enough we find ourselves in spiritual territory, talking about moral compasses and the like.

At this point, discipline ??? such as it ever was ??? breaks down completely. In short order we are talking about essentially mystical, characteristics that real leaders in our impenetrably confusing modern times must have.

Then, when all of that has lost its novelty, we start over again, only more so. We begin to insist that there are actually special, previously undiscovered or imperfectly appreciated features of ground we’ve already covered, that must be worried over yet again.

And so, characteristics that started out life as more-or-less plausible pointers to leadership now come to describe beings of larger-than-life, mythic proportions. And with that, these leaders can seem to overshadow the very organizations in the service of which they are nominally appointed ??? however improbable, mind you, such an idea may actually be in the ???real world.???

Indeed, we twist and torture these traits around until one might be forgiven for experiencing concern at the prospect of confronting such a being as could actually possess them. What sorts of persons might such as these be?

After all, they take their inspiration from imitating saints and warriors. They examine genius in its many forms throughout history. They are admonished to study even themselves, through deep contemplation of everything from Japanese rock gardens to ??? really ??? the contents of their childhood toy boxes.

What big shoes they fill! But, then, clowns wear big shoes, too.

—

Today’s tip: When all is said and done, it might be more helpful if CEOs regarded the aims and reputations of their organizations with greater attention than their own. And it would appear that those who do serve both better. Please see this eye-opening piece from the WSJ by George Anders on the effects of ???hard??? versus ???soft??? leadership traits.

—

Why not try out this feature provided here by Answers.com: If you double-click on any (non-hypertext-linked) word on the main page of the site, a window will open providing definitions or encyclopedic material about that term, together with links to additional sources of information. Try it out - it???s interesting and fun.

And, of course, while you???re clicking around, don???t forget to click on your choice of an email or RSS-feed subscription to these pages - we???ll be proud to have you join us!

Technorati Tags: characteristic, leader, personality, trait, intelligence, competence, focus, virtue, courage, willpower, moral, discipline, leadership, organization, service, saint, warrior, genius, CEO, reputation, WSJ, George Anders

It is useful to keep in mind the fact that interactions - including marketing and sales - between businesses actually occur between real people, and that they involve engaging the decision-making mechanisms of those people. The same processes occur as with an individual end-consumer - and often the same way - such as emotional satisfaction followed by intellectual rationalization. However, in B2B marketing, it is much more important to sell the solution, rather than the service or product.

“No one understands me.” As a senior executive, you are well aware of your own targets and problems, but how well do you understand those of your business customers? If you want to be their preferred supplier, they need to be your preferred customer. This means more than superficial research about their business and market position. It means getting to know their executives and firm-specific processes and culture.

You’ve heard how the most successful consumer goods marketers study their customers’ purchasing and product-use habits relentlessly. They follow them around the store as they peruse the shelves. They even follow them home and observe how they use the product. They know not only how their customers interact with their products - they understand their customers’ needs. Some even do this sort of thing with their business clients.

Do you? When you know your customer like an insider, you will be able to determine how your products and services can help that customer, and how best to communicate that in a manner that solves both the customer’s intellectual (rational) and emotional (business process and cultural) needs. They will feel that their needs are truly understood by a reliable and professional ally. As a result, you’ll find yourself sitting - not across the table from someone who seems always to be returning to the status of a prospect - but around the table with an enduring partner.

—

Today’s tip: Speaking of elegantly integrating our desired ends with our customers’ desired means, please be sure to take a moment to view Michael Wade’s recent essay on reasoning.

—

Thanks for stopping by, today. If you enjoyed your visit, please take a moment to subscribe, so you can visit again in the future from the convenience of your email client or RSS reader.

Technorati Tags: business, executive, customer, consumer, product, service, marketing, sales, decision-making, research, market, culture, intellectual, emotional, need, professional, prospect, partner

In reply to my interest in hearing more about his concerns regarding Drucker’s influence, Ben said that he initially looked on him as a true business guru. However, with time and experience, he gained a perspective that dramatically altered this view.

For example, Ben served in the U.S. Navy nuclear program under Admiral Rickover. This afforded him the ability to contrast Rickover’s streamlined style of management with what he saw later in the civilian world, much of which was inspired by Drucker’s systems approach.

The inevitable result, Ben argues, was a layered management structure characterized by formulaic thinking, and resulting in top-heavy bureaucratic organizations. It was American businesses like these that lost so much ground so quickly to the leaner, more goal-focused firms from Japan beginning in the 1970s.

For my part, I feel very strongly about the positive nature of many of Drucker’s ideas and believe the better part of his contributions to be highly constructive, albeit imperfectly implemented. But I certainly welcome Ben’s perspective, and especially his readiness to demand that management figures even ??? perhaps especially ??? of Drucker’s stature should be compelled to defend not just their thinking in the abstract, but their results on the ground.

The systems-based approach to management does reflect Drucker’s concern that in the modern age of organizations we must give up our reliance on heroic figures as bosses ??? and even exceptional ones as managers generally. Rather, he argued, we must find ways to manage our ever-multiplying organizations with the ordinary material available: us.

Ben’s critique of how this turned out is important. But, as many of you know, Admiral Rickover has his own critics.

So the question is, are these our choices: stars or systems? Are there no alternatives, or no better ways of implementing these?

—

Today’s tip: Speaking of stars and systems, one of the world’s greatest orchestras has no conductor - a position often used as an illustration of the vital importance of individual leadership. But that doesn’t mean there is no leadership - it just emanates from the purpose of the orchestra and is expressed, when and as appropriate, by everyone. See this brief description of how they do it from the introduction of Wikipedia entry on the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra.

—

If you look at the contents section on the sidebar of the main page of this site, you will see a listing of the article series that have been published here. You can click through to view summaries of the pieces, and then read the full series or selections that are of most interest to you. Enjoy!

And while you are, please also subscribe by email or RSS reader ??? thanks!

—

Technorati Tags: manager, leadership, expert, guru, U.S., Navy, Rickover, management, organization, American, business, Japan, conductor, Orpheus Chamber Orchestra, Bennet Simonton, Peter Drucker

A principal one is the presence in a situation of a strong individual leader. Follett saw that ???the undue influence of leaders,??? is ???one of the chief obstacles to integration.??? A self-aggrandizing leader may find it preferable, in order to reinforce or strengthen his or her partisan power base, to attempt to obtain an all-out win through domination, even when a clearly preferable, from an organizational viewpoint, integrative solution is available.

The legalistic and adversarial approach to conflict that so often results in what might be called competitive compromise, sometimes as overt as strikes and lockouts, is an all too obvious example of this. Leaders on one or both sides may pursue such approaches to gain limited tactical gains for themselves or their sides, or to better position themselves for the next conflict.

The benefit of using an integrative approach, when feasible, in dealing with conflict is obvious. Domination suppresses conflict, and compromise temporarily removes it. Integration, however, uses conflict to provide the traction that enables organizations to move beyond the conflict to a greater understanding of the organization’s nature and needs, and an optimal means of realizing them.

As we have seen, however, Follett knew that there are occasions when such a solution is not practical (because of, for example, the ???undue influence of leaders???), or not feasible. But she also knew that it might not even be optimal. It might simply produce an additional way to perceive and deal with the conflict. Nevertheless, even that has value (if only in strengthening interparty relationships and interactions), and ought not to be missed merely because we are predisposed or driven to adversarial solutions.

It’s worth emphasizing again that Follett promoted integration as a means of dealing with, or (better) of using, a conflict ??? not of avoiding it. Conflict, properly perceived and exploited, is a potentially positive contributor to the vitality and progress of the organization. What’s more, it isn’t accomplished by yielding one’s interests to those of others ??? that’s just compromise.

The proper pursuit of integration of differences in order to constructively resolve conflict, according to Follett, ???needs just as great a respect for your own view as for that of others, and a firm upholding of it until you are convinced. Mushy people are no more good at this than stubborn people.???

Undoubtedly many of you have heard of this approach as it is applied to negotiations. That is an excellent use, of course. But have you ever thought of it, as Follett did, as an every day organizational asset, with operational and design implications?

Follett even evaluated organizations on the quality of the conflicts they generated, and the constructive use they made of them. How does yours measure up?

—

This post is a part of a series. You can learn about and link to the other articles here: Conflict

—

Today’s tip: Speaking of leaders and dealing with conflict, please see this WSJ piece about Carl Icahn and Yahoo.

—

Did you know you can click on the green ???Share This????? icon below and uplink this post to any of the major social content sites, or email it to your friends and colleagues - give it a try right now!

And, while you???re at it, don???t forget to subscribe, and encourage your friends and colleagues to do so, as well!

—

Technorati Tags: conflict, domination, compromise, integration, leader, influence, power, strike, lockout, organization, negotiation, WSJ, Carl Icahn, Yahoo, Mary Parker Follett