The Leadership Crescendo

The Narcissist Leader (Part 2)

In the last posting, narcissism was defined and explored as a behavior exhibited by some leaders. In this posting, I will share some of my insights arising from my work with these leaders.  Coaching a leader with this characteristic is one of the more challenging assignments one will experience. These leaders have blind spots that often prevent them from: 1. being aware of the dysfunctional aspects of their leadership, 2. assuming accountability for their actions, and 3. changing their behavior. It takes perseverance and a strong back bone to achieve results.  In addition, it is to be expected that there will be many narcissists that are not open to change, and are not “coachable”. The approaches listed below will be more or less applicable depending on your role and relationship with the narcissist.

1. Clarify Your Role – Explain that you are not there to pass judgment, but rather to support them by focusing on their strengths, (list those—narcissists like to hear them), and hold the mirror in a manner that reflects an accurate image of the perceptions surrounding them. Help her understand the distinction between the positive aspects of her leadership style and the “overuse” of these strengths that may lead to suboptimal results
2. Enlist a Support System – Are there individuals that the narcissist leader has let into his circle of trust?  Often these collaborators have hitched their wagon to the leader and have a powerful incentive to keep him in power. If you can enlist these individuals by demonstrating that their leader is setting himself up for a fall through his actions, you may be able to encircle the narcissist leader with a consistent message of change. This strategy has to be used with finesse, as the narcissist is by definition mistrusting and suspicious. He must not detect that there is any sort of conspiracy or palace revolt, or there will be a backlash that will only worsen the narcissist’s unproductive behavior
3. Use Setbacks As An Ally – Narcissist leaders leave a trail of misjudgments and mistakes prior to the straw that finally breaks the camel’s back. Create a compelling case for the cumulative outcome and direction of the leader’s decisions. Provide external benchmarks and other normative examples to demonstrate the probable outcome of his decisions
4. Build an Strong Culture – Narcissistic leaders often seek openings in organizational culture (processes, procedures, policies, etc.) that allow them to shortcut and bully their way to their desired outcome. The strongest impediment to the narcissist’s bullying tactics is a culture that rewards leadership and accountability at all levels in the organization and discourages the single leader knows it all mindset
5. Prepare For The Worst – If all else fails, begin to plan for the “fall”.  Who is ready to assume the reign? Which critical projects to initiatives will be adversely affected? What are your plans for rescuing them? How will you council and work with the fallen narcissist?

Questions for On-Line Conversation

1. What strategies have you used to reign in a narcissist leader?
2. How have these tactics worked?
3. When you are in a narcissist frame of mind and what can be done to pull you out of it??

The Narcissist Leader (Part 1)

This is the first of a two part posting on the Narcissist Leader.  Part I will provide the foundation for understanding, distinguishing, and recognizing the differences between the strengths of a narcissist leader and the overuse of these strengths.  Part II will highlight lessons learned from personal coaching experiences with this type of leader.

Part I – Definition, Symptoms, and Consequences

“(The leader’s) intellectual acts are strong and independent even in isolation and his will need no reinforcement from others … (He) loves no one but himself, or other people only insofar as they serve his needs.”    

— Freud, Sigmund, “Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego”

It was late, and we were still working.  Across the table was our client Jay, the CEO of a venture capital backed organization.  Recognizing an opportunity created by federal legislation/regulation, Jay acted swiftly and propelled the organization from a small start-up to a mid-sized organization experiencing exponential growth.  Jay was an immensely charismatic leader with a vibrant personality who, starting from a very humble background, experienced early success for his efforts.  His drive gained him admission to the most prestigious undergraduate and graduate institutions in the country.

He was relentlessly driven by competition, success, his mission to change the world, and an insatiable thirst for recognition and public admiration. During our meeting, one of the members of our team noticed that Jay seemed to be looking past him into a distant horizon.  Eventually, our colleague followed Jay’s gaze to a window with a reflection of Jay’s image.  Jay had been gazing at and perhaps admiring his image even as he spoke with us.  This did not strike us as unusual as we had been experiencing Jay’s need for power and recognition in every aspect of the organizational decision making.  He made it known that he needed to understand and approve decisions in all areas and at nearly every level in the organization. In a number of meetings, he could not contain himself.  He often jumped to the front of the room, seeming to project an impatience with the meeting lead of the moment.  Of course, he was articulate and smart and could often come up with a quick solution to any problem being addressed.  In the front of the room, he made it clear that he had the answers.

On several occasions, based on our concerns as well as those expressed by colleagues, we tried, unsuccessfully to provide constructive feedback and  to coach him.  While moving at the speed of light, emboldended by his own brilliance, he simply could not hear our message nor see the danger signs surrounding him and the organization.  Eventually, his self-absorbed impatience with the speed and capability of others, coupled with his own talent and inability to see his blind spots, led him to decisions that drove the organization into bankruptcy.

His will to win and crush the competition drove him to drive the organization much too hard and fast. The organization did not have the infrastructure and talent to respond to his mandate to grow at unrealistic levels. Cash flow ran dry and customer service suffered significant damage.  In an effort to not lose market share and to patch negative publicity, the field force turned to questionable practices resulting in ethical and legal issues. State regulatory organizations brought legal actions against the organization.  Concerned banks and vendors began to demand payment on time and would not compromise. Jay was eventually unable to secure additional venture funding and the organization imploded.

Narcissism is defined as—“dominant interest in one’s self; the state in which the ego is invested in oneself rather than in another person.  Self Love.

It is usually characterized by an excessive display of love and admiration of oneself. This pre-occupation with the self often diminishes empathy for others. At a psychological level, it is usually driven by unconscious deficits in self-esteem and a need for external validation such as attention and admiration from others or obsession with attention-attracting possessions.

Freud named this type of personality after a mythical figure, Narcissus, who died because of his psychological obsession with himself.

Of course narcissism can also be positive.  Narcissists have motivated and inspired others to reach great accomplishments. Donald Trump and Larry Ellison of Oracle might be some of several leaders who come to mind  These leaders see the world as it can be and not as is.  They don’t shy away from risk or the necessary effort to transform the ordinary into the extraordinary.  A narcissist has a strong back bone and the audacity to not take no for an answer and to push through resistance.  He has extraordinary oratory skills, charm, and charisma that allow him to influence and motivate the masses in support of his grand vision.  His followers want to like and follow him and to receive his approval.

However, these strengths can also be “overused”.  The same energy and skills that make the narcissist successful when overused can lead to his downfall.  Grand vision when not responsive to change or new information can become an impediment to creativity and innovation.  Resolve and resilience to push through obstacles to achieve extraordinary success can become the source for engaging in brutal and senseless dysfunctional behaviors designed to eliminate opposition, win at any cost, and to cause burnout in the organization.  The courage and risk taking mindset that provided the organization opportunities to experiment and be an industry leader can turn into a high stake reckless poker game that created the financial collapse of 2007 and the downfall of Enron.

Success is the enemy of the dysfunctional narcissist. As he gains power, wealth, and adulation he sees himself as of a higher order and not bound by ordinary societal conventions and rules. He gravitates towards a survival of fittest mindset.  The more his followers bestow admiration on him the more isolated he becomes. He will not hear those that are trying in earnest to help him.  He starts to reward and recognize those that are aligned with his views and distances himself from the others.

The fall of the narcissist leader is a tragic and gut-wrenching event to witness.  Not only because of the toll it takes on those that surround them, but also the personal agony and pain that the narcissist experiences.  The narcissist is usually marching to a different drum in his head and is generally oblivious to the emerging disaster surrounding him.  He lacks self awareness, understanding, and empathy for others and is distrustful and even revengeful of any source that contradicts them. Maurice Greenberg, the former CEO of AIG, and Donald Trump make a practice of threatening or taking legal action against those they see as presenting unflattering depictions of them.

In the next posting, I will pick up at this juncture and further chronicle the normal demise of narcissist leaders overusing their strenghts and my experiences in coaching them.

Questions For On-line Conversation

1. Have you experienced Narcissist tendencies in yourself?  If yes were you able to manage it productively?
2. Have you been led by or worked with a narcissist leader? What lessons or takeaways would you like to share with the readers?
3. Have you through your actions empowered a narcissist? Tell us about it…

The Giver Leader

There are occasions in my readings of leadership that I come across material so profound and self-explanatory that I will refer you the source, step aside, and put the spotlight on the author or the guest writer. Such is the case for this posting. This posting is devoted to Professor Adam Grant of the Wharton Business School and his work on the dynamics of “giving” and the work place.

Please read the New York Times Magazine article of March 31, 2013 titled Is Giving the Secret to Getting Ahead? by clicking the following link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/magazine/is-giving-the-secret-to-getting-ahead.html

As mentioned in the article, “Grant, 31, is the youngest-tenured and highest-rated professor at Wharton. He is also one of the most prolific academics in his field, organizational psychology, the study of workplace dynamics.”

After reading the article, please join our online conversation by thinking about the following questions, or by posting your own questions or suggestions:

1. What were your impressions after reading the article?
2. How do the findings of Adam Grant line up with your own life experiences and thoughts?
3. tIf you could have dinner with Adam Grant, what would you ask him or suggest to him?

Are Two Heads Better Than One??

Are Two Heads Better Than One??

Co-leading is more difficult than leading. Co-leading can also be richer, more productive, and rewarding than single leadership. Twenty-first century organizations are increasingly going to require co-leadership skills from their leaders. Leaders may be asked to occupy more permanent positions they will co-lead or jointly oversee important projects and initiatives. Companies such as Citi, PwC, Chipotle Mexican Grill, J.M. Smucker, Martha Steward Living Omnimedia, Primerica, Whole Foods Market, and Amway have all had co-leaders. However, few leaders are prepared and trained by their organizations to co-lead.  Co-leading requires each party to take on a mindset and leadership presence that is suited for the role. Conversations and experiences with co-leaders points to the following critical competencies for successful co-leadership:

1. Self-awareness and Humility – Successful co-leaders spend time in reflection and are aware of their strengths and weaknesses. In coaching, I have noticed that the diagnostic instruments I use for these leaders often result in similar conclusions on how they describe themselves. In addition, these leaders have the humility to acknowledge and to ask for help. Conversely, many leaders have difficulty in exhibiting vulnerability and humility. They seem to equate an honest assessment of their weaknesses with a recipe for others to take advantage of them. Experience has shown the opposite. The leaders that I have worked with who have acknowledged their less developed leadership skills and asked for help, experienced an abundance of work and personal/emotional support.
2. Agreement of Authority and Roles – Once the leaders understand their strengths and weaknesses it is vital that they establish clear roles and responsibilities that leverage their respective strengths. As Bill McDermott, co-CEO of technology giant SAP said, “One plus one can equal three.” His partner, Jim Hagermann Snabe, agrees. “Bill and I have different backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives,” Snabe says. “He has spent most of his career in the field with customers and running businesses for four global brands, and I’ve spent quite some time managing the development of our business software. We play to our strengths.”
3. Higher Vision– Successful co-leaders are aligned on the vision and destination of their organizations, and actively use it as a “North Star” to inform their decision making.  For example, in our organization our north star is “We aim to fill the unique space in our industry where our clients and employees trust and respect us completely.” This may seem obvious. However, we have noted that very few consultancies in our space have achieved this. There are many firms that are trusted and liked, and others that are competent, perform, and are therefore respected.  Few are trusted and respected completely. This requires the three of us who lead the firm to set aside our personal preferences and make decisions, (at times gut wrenching ones), in the service of our North Star.  As with any leadership team, our record has not been perfect.  On the few occasions when we have allowed our personal agendas and pet passions over rule our north star thinking, we have paid the price. A great example from the corporate world comes from the failed co-leadership of Sandy Weill and John Reed following the merger of Traveler’s and Citigroup.  As Sandy Weill said, reflecting on the experience. “I think we honestly believed…but it didn’t end up that way at all. We were driving the people who worked for us crazy and not making decisions, or making decisions they did not understand. Eventually, one of our senior managers at a management meeting [said] something about this, and that became the cry that led us to having to share a board meeting to make the decision that we needed one North Star. There had to be one North Star, and we had two North Stars.”
4. Camaraderie – Outstanding co-leaders spend a good deal of time of getting to know one another as people and establish a personal connection with one another. They seem to have a feel for each other’s thinking, tendencies, and likes and dislikes. They can improvise in the heat of the battle much like a jazz band when required because they have an intuitive understanding of their partner’s likely reactions. Most importantly, they genuinely enjoy spending time with one another, respect each other, and take an interest in the personal fulfillment and development of their partner. This last point, according to Katzenbach and Smith, the renowned authors of “The Wisdom of Teams,”is what distinguishes a “high performance team.”¹
5. Learning Mindset – Co-leaders believe in continuous learning and growth. They establish an early working norm that sees experience as a precursor to learning and continuous growth. These leaders do not favor gamesmanship that tries to hide mistakes or poor outcomes from one another.  Instead, they actively share their experiences with one another and solicit feedback and advice from their trusted thought partner(s).
6. United Support – it is critical that co-leaders develop norms and a process for resolving differences of opinion in private and present a united front to the outside world. Andy and Amy Heyward are married, and co-leaders of A Squared Entertainment, a Los Angeles-based provider of children’s entertainment programs competing with Disney, Nickelodeon, and others. In reflection on their collaboration, Andy said “Running the company is like parenting. People here understand that they can’t go to one of us, and if they don’t like the answer, go to the other. There is no court of appeals.”

One of the most powerful examples that demonstrates how all of these come together is at Sony Pictures Entertainment, described in the New York Times article by Tim Arango titled “Sony’s version of Tracy and Hepburn” dated December 24^th 2009.

The article describes the relationship and experiences of Amy Pascal and Michael Lynton in co-leading Sony Pictures Entertainment.  Mr. Lynton, a former AOL executive, had to check his ego after he thought he had been offered the job alone, while Ms. Pascal had to overcome her resentment and disappointment at not being given the chance to step up to this role after a long tenure with the studio. The idea of combining their talents originated with Howard Stringer, their supervisor. Mr. Stringer believed that while Ms. Pascal’s strength was in her intuitive ability to pick films, the organization also needed an outsider who had the knowledge and experience with the changing media environment, brought on by new digital technologies and to help Sony expand internationally. He also valued Mr. Lynton’s financial acumen and ability to minimize risk.

The combination of their talents paid immediate dividends.  In 2006, Sony released “The Da Vinci Code,” with revenues of $1.7 billion domestically, and had one of its best years. In the first quarter of 2009, revenue rose 6.5 percent, compared with a loss a year earlier.

Since getting to know one another, they allow each of their strengths to showcase itself at the appropriate moment.  As the article points out, “After reading ‘Superbad,’ a Seth Rogen comedy released in 2007, Mr. Lynton said he didn’t understand the humor, while Ms. Pascal said she thought it would ‘be fantastic and an anthem for this generation.’ But because the investment risk was so low, he relented. Amy said, ‘You know what, you’ve just got to go with me on this one.’ Mr. Lynton added that the movie was of the type that is ‘never going to make sense on a piece on a paper.’  Ms. Pascal’s instinct was dead-on. ‘Superbad’ cost about $18 million to make, and it generated about $120 million at the domestic box office, according to BoxOfficeMojo, which tracks ticket sales.”

It was not always a smooth journey.  However, by being able to elevate the conversation to a higher level, Mr. Springer was able to convince them to spend time to get to know one another.  In so doing, they developed a deep respect for each other’s talents, and camaraderie and friendship. The ultimate prize came when Ms. Pascal came upon the hours of rehearsal tape left by Michael Jackson after his death.  She quickly recommended buying up the cache for $60 million for exclusive move rights.  This strategy resulted in an amazing payoff when the film “This Is It” became a block buster.

1.  Katzenbach JR, Smith DK. The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-performance Organization. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers Inc. 1993.

Questions for Online Conversation:

• Have you been party to, or experienced co-leadership?
• If so, what was your experience? What worked? What didn’t?
• How would you co-lead?

The Case for Choosing Not to Lead

Many organizations designate high-performing employees as future leaders. Rising to leadership positions typically requires business acumen and performance.  However, outstanding leadership demands so much more. Leadership, particularly at the highest levels, is a sacred territory and a privilege that should be granted to the few. Sadly, many organizations do the opposite.  Leaders are often selected based on current business performance and metrics rather than for their intrinsic leadership behaviors and ability to motivate and inspire others.  Candidates often are placed in succession boxes and enticed with potentially lucrative rewards.  In addition, there is tremendous pressure to enthusiastically embrace the opportunity to assume higher positions of leadership.  If the successor is not perceived as enthusiastic and passionate about the new position, his or her career may be adversely affected, or their value to the organization may diminish.

To borrow an analogy from the world of science, outstanding leaders have qualities that are at the “DNA” level.  Similar to the DNA code, these distinguishing qualities of great leaders are not readily transferred or copied to others.  They are part of the essence of a person. Leaders who are interested in developing these skills must “unlearn” their current leadership styles and rewire.   Most research supports the premise that unlearning is more difficult than learning.  A great deal of commitment and work is required to transform those who do not inherently carry this leadership DNA. Often, organizations confuse the requirements of this type of transformation with tactical and remedial leader training and development programs.  These may include communication effectiveness, executive presence, and organizational/planning skills.

Listed below are critical competencies for outstanding leadership.  As you review this list, note whether those in your organizations, destined for senior leadership positions, are able to demonstrate these:

1. Leading with a heart and a backbone.  Showing empathy, understanding, support, and mentoring while driving the mission and values of the organization.  Balancing delivering business results with the art of motivating and inspiring
2. Reflective leadership. Regularly slowing down to reflect and use judgment, rather than reacting to information and events and reflexively passing judgment and making hasty decisions
3. Next level leadership. Letting go of habitual behaviors and strengths that have resulted in climbing the corporate ladder to take on new skills and leadership behaviors required for the next role.  Delegating; having a learning mindset; always reaching for the next plateau
4. Managing the loneliness. Making difficult and principled decisions in the service of the enterprise that are not always popular with a majority of stakeholders. Pushing through the loneliness, in the service of the future vision and rewards awaiting the enterprise. Being less concerned about being liked and popular, and more energized by the respect of colleagues
5. Situational leadership. Adjusting one’s style and message to the audience, and connecting to hearts and minds.  Able to motivate constituencies to reach and stretch beyond their normal comfort zones.  This entails deep and active listening skills and the ability to frame and deliver the communication accordingly
6. Ethics and motivation.  Being in the service of the organization vs. masquerading own agenda under the guise of the organizational strategy and mission. Truly being a servant to the organization, obsessed with delivering the best outcome for the greatest good of the enterprise
7. Authenticity and courage.  Consistently regarding values and beliefs vs. being more like a weather vane, constantly spinning with the direction of the oncoming wind. Communicating and acting clearly on declared values and beliefs. Trusted by followers who know that their leader will support and stand behind them throughout the journey

In my coaching engagements with emerging leaders, I often discuss these critical aspects of leadership.  Once trust is established and the client is assured of the confidential nature of our conversations, it is not uncommon for some to show discomfort and hesitation.  In these cases, the leader is usually attracted to certain aspects of the next role such as the position power, rewards and recognition, or greater levels of freedom and independence.  As discussed before, these individuals are concerned that lack of enthusiasm and passion to progress in the next role will be viewed negatively by the organizations and that their careers will be affected.  Others, who are not equipped to lead, carry an entitlement mindset that assumes that credentials, time in position, and performance equate to advancement and promotion.  Some go as far as making future plans and financial commitments on this basis prior to being promoted.

Consequently, best in class organizations create specialized career tracks that reward and recognize high performance in technical areas without putting undue pressure on staff who are ill equipped to carry the mantle of senior leadership.

It is imperative that organizations cast their net wide in identifying and attracting genuine leaders internally and externally. True leadership does not reside in everyone.

Questions for on-line conversation:

1. When you consider the next generation leaders in your organization, how do they fare relative to the DNA code leadership competencies listed above?
2. What other critical leadership skills would you add to the list?  Remember to distinguish these  from technical and business acumen

New Year Reflections

As 2012 draws to a close, I thought I would share some areas I consider important for reflection. (Previous blog postings contain more on each area.)

Consider starting the year with your thoughts on what you wish your legacy as a leader to be.

• Am I closer to being a “reflective” or “reflexive” leader? 
  • How often do I slow down to reflect?
  • Where is my balance between asking questions versus advocating my point of view?
  • Am I more often “in judgment” or “using judgment”?

• Am I able to lead with heart and backbone? Able to empathize, support, and champion others while driving the mission?
  • Am I more likely to be described as strong or hard?
  • Do my followers want to invest fully in my vision – or are they fearful of the consequences of not following my directions?

• Am I listening and present? 
  • Am I anxious to complete my colleagues’ thoughts and statements for them?
  • Can I listen for emotions and feelings? (Empathetic listening)
  • Do I consider the context or situations that surround them as they speak? (Contextual listening)

• How authentic and believable am I as a leader?
  • Do my values and deeply held views show up in my leadership style?
  • Would I trust and believe in me if I was led by me?
  • How do I manage the loneliness that is part of authentic leadership? Is it more important to me to be liked, or to serve the highest agenda of the organization?

• How do I lead under stress?
  • Do I filter stress, and am I able to retain my equanimity and composure?
  • Or, am I more likely to overuse my strengths and come across as disorganized, hurried, bullying, blaming…?

• Do I carry a fixed or a growth mindset? 
  • Am I willing to risk lower performance in a new area? Or do I prefer to rest on the recognition and applause from past accomplishments?
  • Do I help create an environment for others to reach for higher ground?  Or are my actions leading others to be risk averse and settle for the fixed mindset?
  • What is the continuous improvement process for my leadership?  Do I dwell on the past, or do I learn and adjust my future actions?

What questions would you add to this list for others to consider?

The Tragic Dramatic Leader

Tragic dramatic leaders are characterized by some or all of the following attributes:

• Their inherent insecurities have also pushed them to attain notable skills and achievements
• Reliance on past success, reputation, forceful logic, and passion to win at any cost
• A tendency to dramatize and glorify their past experiences and organizations
• Will often exaggerate the severity of a problem or embellish good news or successful events
• Characterized by mood swings.  Difficult for others to know which persona will show up on a given day
• Highly sensitive, and often taking business conversations and outcomes that do not comply with their wishes personally
• Become strong-handed or use bullying tactics, including advertising their superior intelligence or downgrading that of others when they don’t get their way.  Conversely, they may regress to passive aggressive withdrawal – “I don’t like what is going on around here so I am taking my ball and going home…”

Tragic dramatic leaders have a tendency to insert negativity and contaminate the climate of organizations, taking away from the motivation of the team.  They often cloak their own personal agendas behind key strategies and business goals.

Since this type of behavior is unsustainable, these leaders, at some point in their career, are forced to either reflect and adjust their leadership style or derail.  Anyone who coaches, or is tasked with helping the tragic dramatic leader may experience the following:

It is difficult for the tragic dramatic leader who has had business and financial success to admit to his highs and lows.  He may dismiss others as “too soft” or not in touch with the reality of the business and the hard decisions that a leader has to make or some other version of “oh but if you were in my shoes you would know that…”  Of course these explanations are the final remnants of a defense system that is experiencing a gradual breakdown.  It is futile to argue facts, figures and specific examples with him.  Years of left-brained conditioning in support of his tragic dramatic persona has made him a superb defender of his position and gifted debater.  It is more productive to ask him if he thinks that the perception that is surrounding him is affecting his success in the organization.  If he is willing to admit that these perceptions whether fair or unfair, are important, then it may be useful to ask him to provide his own examples of how these negative perceptions about them might have gained currency.  In this way, the coach steers clear of the intellectual banter and point-counterpoint debates.  It is also the ideal moment to ask the tragic dramatic leader if he or she wants to engage in the necessary work.

The coach must exercise a perfect balance of heart and backbone.  Under the hardened cover, the tragic dramatic leader carries vulnerabilities and insecurities that require understanding, empathy, active listening, support and trust.  On the other hand, he is usually masterful in exercising that which will carry the day.  This includes not only superb logic and intellect but also weaponry for emotionally high jacking the audience.  These include anger, cynicism, tears, silence/distance, resentment and even vengeance.  The coach must have a strong backbone and not take the mirror away prematurely.  It is only when the tragic dramatic leader realizes that the work is not about defeating the coach but to use the coaching opportunity as a safe process for gaining critical insights necessary for development and self mastery that the breakthroughs and insights surface.

An example of a tragic dramatic leader is a senior leader at a global pharmaceutical organization.  She was an exceptionally gifted and intelligent individual.  Her technical skills were outstanding.  She had been promoted rapidly to a senior position. It was not uncommon for her to make passionate presentations and appeals in favor of her position. During these presentations she neutralized all dissent and other points of view through her superior intellect and communication skills.  Naturally, over time her intense personality and style led some of her peers, who felt she was taking up too much air time and too focused on her own agenda, to turn against her.  Since she was used to being admired and winning the point, the tragic dramatic characteristic began to surface. She exhibited anger and impatience, followed by withdrawal and lack of participation.  When she was called on, she would respond in an indifferent and cynical manner.  In private, her frustration would well up and tears would follow.  She routinely placed the blame on others or the organization and would defend her own decisions and actions.  Her strong logic and debate skills led her supervisor and peers who were trying to help her to throw their hands up and give up.  Many were seeing her as foul tasting medicine—needed and valued in her area of specialty but to be avoided if at all possible.

Questions for on-line conversation:

1. Which aspects of the tragic dramatic leadership style have you observed in other leaders?
2. Have you had the opportunity to supervise or coach any? What was your experience in this regard?

Leadership Lessons From The U.S. Political Process

“Mistakes are the usual bridge between inexperience and wisdom.” Phyllis Theroux

I thought, given the timing of this posting, that I would focus on some of the lessons from the U.S. political process regarding leadership.  Unfortunately, most of the lessons at this time fall into the category of “what not to do.”

First, a qualification. What follows is not meant to be partisan.  The lessons are equally drawn from both sides of the aisle and are endemic.  In most cases I believe our political leaders are reacting to the societal and cultural signals they receive regarding the mindset and behaviors that will make them successful.

I have noticed an unmistakable trend to undervalue the longer term values and commitments of the leader and instead, to focus on specific issues, events and gaffs.  Some of the more important manifestations of this trend are described below.

I believe that there is a general lack of respect accorded in our political process to the “learner leader.”  As discussed in my September 27^th 2011 blog posting, “Bias For Action,” great leaders are learners.  They exhibit “reflective” leadership, regularly taking time to reflect on their experiences and insights in order to learn and make better decisions.  They freely admit to mistakes and shortcomings as important learning for the future.  Our current political process, on the other hand, does not celebrate learning.  In fact, it would be risky and even taboo for candidates to admit in a debate viewed by over 50 million Americans that a decision they made was imperfect but that they learned a great deal from it for the future.  Instead “reflexive” leadership focuses on justifying actions at any cost.  To display vulnerability and humility, (necessary conditions for the learner leader) is seen as political suicide.

The moderators of the political debates, correspondents interviewing the candidates or ordinary citizens who are afforded the opportunity to ask questions of the candidates, rarely ask the candidate what he or she has learned and how the experience has shaped their future course of action.  Each side prefers their candidate to display absolute knowledge, confidence, skill, an impressive physical stature, loving and stable families, impeccable values … In short, perfection. Numerous experts in public relations, communication effectiveness, stage design and cosmetic consultants surround the candidate to ensure that all blemishes are corrected and information is purged or spun to favor of the candidate. History has shown that great leaders are shaped by challenging experiences that helped create the learning necessary to reach their greatest leadership moments.  Imagine if JFK had folded his tent and the electorate had run him out of office after the Bay of Pigs political disaster.  We would never have seen him at his finest making the perfect call on the Cuba blockade, despite intense pressure by some in his inner circle favoring a more aggressive response to the Soviet threat.

In the wonderful article titled “The Opiate of Exceptionalism” in the Ops Ed section of the October 21^st edition of the New York Times, Scott Shane of the New York Times, writes “How far would this truth telling candidate get? Nowhere fast.  Such a candidate is in fact unimaginable in our political culture.  People in this country want the president to be the cheerleader, an optimist, the herald of better times ahead.  During a presidential campaign it can be deeply dysfunctional, ensuring that major issues are barely discussed. Problems that cannot be candidly described and vigorously debated are unlikely to be addressed seriously.”

The lesson for organizations is clear.  Organizations must create a culture where the leaders feels safe showing vulnerability, admitting not knowing the answer and being able to share information that may not always be positive without fear of being labeled an ineffective leader.  Here are some examples of important business leaders that learned from their setbacks to achieve phenomenal results:

Henry Ford convinced a group of businessmen to back him on the biggest risk of his life—a company to make horseless carriages. Ford knew nothing about running a business. Learning by doing often involves failure. The new company failed, as did a second. To revive his fortunes, Ford took bigger risks, building and even driving a pair of racing cars. The success of these cars attracted additional financial backers, and on June 16, 1903, just before his 40th birthday, Henry incorporated his third automobile venture, the Ford Motor Company.

At the age of 22 Walt Disney’s cartoon series in Kansas City failed and he went through bankruptcy.  He went to Los Angeles with $40 dollars of cash.  He thought he would give up animation and become an actor.  However, he realized that animation houses were not headquartered in California.  He set up his company and with his brother Oswald and became very successful.  However, soon he found out that his signature character, the Lucky Rabbit was owned by another distributor and most of the artists that worked for him had committed themselves to the other distributor. On his way back to New York he created another character called Mickey Mouse that became the symbol of his new company and the vanguard of his future success

When I started my career with Citibank the CEO, Walter Wriston, would often remind the staff that in baseball if you get 3 hits out of 10 at bat you wind up in the hall of fame. But make those 3 hits good ones…   This served as his mantra for Citibank. This brand of learning, risk taking and entrepreneurship made Citibank the leader in its industry at the time by a wide margin.

Questions for online conversation

1. What are some examples of failures in your career that led the way to insights and learning for future success?
2. Have you experienced working for leaders who celebrated the learning from failure for future success? How did they do it? What was the effect of this leadership style on the culture and performance of the organization?
3.  How does the current culture of your organization view failure? How does that influence the behavior of your leaders?

Leading Through Hurt

It goes without saying that most leaders at some point in their careers experience disappointment, pain, and in many cases, a sense of deep hurt.  Therefore, the fundamental question for leaders is not “if” or “whether” he or she will feel hurt, but “how” will it be managed productively and in the best service of the broader organization and the leader’s career.  It is not unusual for many leaders to sense resentment when hurt, that if not managed productively, travels quickly through the neurological pathways to connect with its road companion “revenge/getting even.” Symptoms of this might show up as generalizations regarding entire categories of people such as men, women, senior management, or nationals of other geographies. Sometimes it is accompanied by “withdrawal/passive resistance.” Decisions and actions taken in response to these symptoms such as, avoidance and exclusion, damaging comments, destructive alliance building, and ultimately derailing/blocking of careers can be even more damaging.

An alternative that outstanding leaders choose is “learning.” Great leaders have the ability to learn from hurtful experiences to shape different and positive experiences for their followers. These lessons become powerful foundations and core values of their leadership style and behaviors.  Rather than dwelling on their own personal hurt and anger, these leaders seem to have the ability to use these hurtful experiences as lifelong reminders of “what not to do” and even practicing the opposite behaviors.

A powerful example came from my own experience. I started my career at the American International Group (AIG) headquarters in New York City.  At the time, AIG was under the iron fisted rule of Maurice (Hank) Greenberg and an inner group of family and close advisors.  Greenberg was the classic autocratic leader – a hard charging, take no prisoners leader with a deliver or perish mindset.  It was not uncommon for executives to be publicly dressed down for not producing the planned results.  This type of leadership naturally cascaded down the organization.  As a newly minted MBA destined for overseas assignment, I was placed in a rotational training program designed for high potential employees.  Consequently, I had visibility to senior management meetings. In one such meeting, a leader at AIG in charge one of its core businesses ripped into one of the people that I considered a mentor.  My mentor Bob was an exceptionally generous, honest, and hardworking individual who had not delivered on his annual profitability target. Prior to the meeting, he had told me that this was due in large part to a number of natural calamities that had adversely affected the annual claims experience. The brutality and humiliation of his public dress down in front of his staff left me with tears in my eyes, and pure disgust and hate in my heart.  However, Bob kept his composure and seemed to be unaffected by this outrageous treatment.  After the meeting, over a cup of coffee, I asked Bob what it felt like to be tortured in that manner publicly.  He told me that he felt humiliated and incredibly frustrated.  I told him I was amazed at his composure, and I would have never known that was the way he felt.  The words he spoke to me on that December day in my first year of my career reverberate in my ears to this day, and have been pillars for my leadership development.  He told me that the deeper the words cut into his dignity and self-respect, the more certain he was that his greatest contribution to the development of his team would be to demonstrate the opposite.  In effect, he was establishing a powerful real time point of contrast between the oppressive culture created by Greenberg and his leadership team, and the leadership style that Bob witnessed in his family and later as a decorated veteran of the war in Vietnam.  I was floored. I asked him how he could have the presence of mind and the elevation of spirit to be able to distance himself from such a brutal attack in real time.  His answer was incredibly powerful in its simplicity.  He said “Kaveh, those verbal bullets pale compare to metal ones coming at you while you are carrying someone in your platoon to safety…”  As I listened, the power of the analogy did not escape me – the hurt buddy he carried to safety and the bruised colleagues at AIG that he was hoisting above his shoulders so they could have a sense of the higher road and their higher selves…

Questions for online conversation:

1. How have you or others that you know managed personal hurt and disappointment at work?
2. What have been the consequences of their actions?
3. What is your powerful story in this regard???