Harvard Business Review (January 2004)

Citation preview

Click here t o visit :

View Back Issues N ow Ava ila ble ! Exclusive New Benefit for HBR Subscribers: Online access t o t he past eleven issues of HBR! Sim ply select t he issue you want t o access from t he drop down m enu above. Th is M on t h : I n side t h e M in d of t h e Le a de r Most of us know what great leadership looks like from t he out side. But what about from t he inside? I n t his special issue of HBR, we delve int o t he psychology of leadership—from em ot ional int elligence t o Freud—t o reveal a deeper underst anding of effect ive leadership.

Th e Se ve n Age s of t h e Le a de r Warren G. Bennis Ge t you r H BR Su bscr ibe r Ale r t

Th e Se ve n Age s of t h e Le a de r Warren G. Bennis

Pu t t in g Le a de r s on t h e Cou ch A Conversat ion wit h Manfred F.R. Ket s de Vries

W h e n Follow e r s Be com e Tox ic Lynn R. Offerm ann

> | Click H e r e Th e n e x t issu e of H BR on lin e w ill post on t h e 1 st of t h e m on t h .

Fr om t h e Edit or Th e Le a de r ’s Se cr e t Se lf Thom as A. St ewart H BR Ca se St u dy Le ft on a M ou n t a in side Julia Kirby Voice s Le a din g by Fe e l

Be st of H BR M a n a ge r s a n d Le a de r s: Ar e Th e y D iffe r e n t ? Abraham Zaleznik W h a t M a k e s a Le a de r ? Daniel Golem an N a r cissist ic Le a de r s: Th e I n cr e dible Pr os, t h e I n e vit a ble Con s Michael Maccoby Un de r st a n din g Le a de r sh ip W.C.H. Prent ice

Th in k in g Abou t ... Also in t h is I ssu e Le a de r sh ip—W a r t s a n d All Barbara Kellerm an

Execut ive Sum m aries I n Closing Reprint s and Subscript ions About HBR

Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. All right s reserved.

Click here t o visit :

View Back Issues | January 2004 > The Seven Ages of t he Leader

> | Pu r ch a se Re pr in t > | Pr in t a ble Ve r sion

The Seven Ages of t he Leader

> | E- m a il a Colle a gu e > | Ex e cu t ive Su m m a r y

Ea ch st a ge of le a de r sh ip br in gs n e w cr ise s a n d ch a lle n ge s. Th e y’r e w r e n ch in g—bu t k n ow in g w h a t t o e x pe ct ca n h e lp you ge t t h r ou gh t h e m .

by W a r r e n G. Be n n is

My init ial plunge int o leadership cam e during World War I I . I was a lieut enant in t he infant ry, 19 years old, and scared out of m y wit s. My orders were t o assum e com m and of a plat oon on t he front lines in Belgium . I arrived in t he m iddle of t he night , when m ost of t he m en were asleep. The plat oon had t aken up residence in a bom bed- out shell of a house. I was led int o t he kit chen by t he plat oon’s runner, and he offered m e a bench t o sleep on. I nst ead, I put m y sleeping bag on t he floor, next t o t he rest of t he m en. Not t hat I slept . I lay awake all night , list ening t o t he bom bs explode. I was as green as can be and knew lit t le about com m and—or t he world, for t hat m at t er. When t he ot hers in t he house began t o st ir, I heard one sergeant ask anot her, “ Who’s t hat ?” “ That ’s our new plat oon leader,” t he m an answered. And t he sergeant said, “ Good. We can use him .” Wit hout realizing it , wit hout having any idea what was t he right t hing t o do, I had m ade a good first m ove. My ent ry had been low- key. I hadn’t com e in wit h m y new com m ission blazing. I n fact , I pret ended t o go t o sleep on t he floor. As a result , wit hout drawing at t ent ion t o m yself, I learned som et hing im port ant about t he m en I would be leading. I learned t hat t hey needed m e—or, at least , t hey needed t he person t hey would subsequent ly t each m e t o be. And t each m e t hey did. Over t he next few weeks in Belgium , m y m en, who had already seen com bat , kept m e alive. They also t aught m e how t o lead, oft en by exam ple. The sergeant who had greet ed m y arrival wit h approval becam e m y lifeline, quit e lit erally, t eaching m e such essent ial skills as how t o ride t hrough a war zone wit hout get t ing blown up. While few business leaders need worry about being blown up, m y experience in Belgium was in m any ways t ypical of first leadership experiences anywhere. I was com ing int o an exist ing organizat ion where em ot ions ran high, relat ionships had been est ablished, and t he m em bers of t he organizat ion harbored expect at ions of m e t hat I was not yet fully aware of. My new followers were wat ching m e, t o see if and how I would m easure up. Every new leader faces t he m isgivings, m ispercept ions, and t he personal needs and agendas of t hose who are t o be led. To underest im at e t he im port ance of your first m oves is t o invit e disast er. The crit ical ent ry is one of a num ber of passages—each of which has an elem ent of personal crisis—t hat every leader m ust go t hrough at som e point in t he course of a career. Business school doesn’t prepare you for t hese crises, and t hey can be ut t erly wrenching. But t hey offer powerful lessons as well. Shakespeare, who seem s t o have learned m ore every t im e I read him , spoke of t he seven ages of m an. A leader’s life has seven ages as well, and, in m any ways, t hey parallel t hose Shakespeare describes in As You Like I t . To paraphrase, t hese st ages can be described as infant , schoolboy, lover, soldier, general, st at esm an, and sage. One way t o learn about leadership is t o look at each of t hese developm ent al st ages and consider t he issues and crises t hat are t ypical of each.

M a j or ch a n ge s in t h e fir st six m on t h s w ill in e vit a bly be pe r ce ive d a s a r bit r a r y, a u t ocr a t ic, a n d u n fa ir , a s m u ch for t h e ir t im in g a s for t h e ir con t e n t . I can’t offer advice on how t o avoid t hese crises because m any are inevit able. Nor would I necessarily recom m end t hat you avoid t hem , since dealing wit h t he challenges of each st age prepares you for t he next . But knowing what t o expect can help t he leader survive and, wit h luck, com e t hrough st ronger and m ore confident . And so first t o t he leader on t he verge—Shakespeare’s infant , “ m ewling…in t he nurse’s arm s.”

W a r r e n G. Be n n is is a Dist inguished Professor of Business Adm inist rat ion at t he Universit y of Sout hern California in Los Angeles. He also serves as t he Thom as S. Murphy Dist inguished Research Scholar at Harvard Business School in Bost on and as chair of t he Advisory Board of t he Kennedy School’s Cent er for Public Leadership at Harvard Universit y in Cam bridge, Massachuset t s. He is t he aut hor of m ore t han 25 books on leadership and change.

Th e I n fa n t Ex e cu t ive For t he young m an or wom an on t he brink of becom ing a leader, t he world t hat lies ahead is a m yst erious, even fright ening place. Few resort t o m ewling, but m any wish t hey had t he corporat e equivalent of a nurse, som eone t o help t hem solve problem s and ease t he painful t ransit ion. I nst ead, t he fort unat e neophyt e leader has a m ent or, a concept t hat has it s origins in Greek m yt hology. When Odysseus was about t o go off t o war, t he goddess At hena creat ed Ment or t o wat ch over t he hero’s beloved son, Telem achus. The fact t hat Ment or had t he at t ribut es of bot h m an and wom an hint s at t he richness and com plexit y of t he relat ionship, suggest ing a deeper bond t han t hat of t eacher and st udent . I n t he real world, unfort unat ely, goddesses don’t int ervene and m ent ors seldom m at erialize on t heir own. While t he popular view of m ent ors is t hat t hey seek out younger people t o encourage and cham pion, in fact t he reverse is m ore oft en t rue. The best m ent ors are usually recruit ed, and one m ark of a fut ure leader is t he abilit y t o ident ify, woo, and win t he m ent ors who will change his or her life. When Robert Thom as and I int erviewed t wo generat ions of leaders for our book, Geeks and Geezers, we m et a rem arkable young real- est at e and I nt ernet ent repreneur, Michael Klein, who had recruit ed his first m ent or when he was only four or five years old, as Robert and I wrot e in our Harvard Business Review art icle, “ Crucibles of Leadership.” His guide was his grandfat her, Max Klein, who was responsible for t he paint - by- num bers craze t hat swept Am erica in t he 1950s and 1960s. The fad m ade Klein rich, but none of his children had t he least int erest in t hat business or any ot her. But lit t le Michael did, and Max j um ped at t he chance t o coach and counsel him , oft en in t he course of long t elephone conversat ions t hat cont inued unt il a few weeks before Max died. I n effect , t he older m an served as a first - rat e business school of one for his grandson, who becam e a m ult im illionaire while st ill in his t eens. I t m ay feel st range t o seek a m ent or even before you have t he j ob, but it ’s a good habit t o develop early on. I was recruit ed as a m ent or years ago while in t he hospit al for several weeks following a “ coronary event .” There, I had a rem arkable nurse who seem ed t o ant icipat e m y every need. We spent hours t oget her, oft en t alking lat e int o t he night . He t old m e of his am bit ion t o becom e a doct or, alt hough no one in his fam ily in Sout h Cent ral Los Angeles had ever been t o college. I was won over by his charact er and drive, as well as by t he superb care he gave m e. When he was ready t o go t o m edical school, I did all I could t o help, from put t ing him in t ouch wit h appropriat e adm inist rat ors t o giving him a glowing recom m endat ion. He had recruit ed m e as skillfully as any execut ive headhunt er and m ade m e one of t he first m em bers of t he t eam he needed t o change his life. The m essage for t he “ infant execut ive” ? Recruit a t eam t o back you up; you m ay feel lonely in your first t op j ob, but you won’t be t ot ally unsupport ed. Th e Sch oolboy, w it h Sh in in g Fa ce The first leadership experience is an agonizing educat ion. I t ’s like parent ing, in t hat not hing else in life fully prepares you t o be responsible, t o a great er or lesser degree, for ot her people’s well- being. Worse, you have t o learn how t o do t he j ob in public, subj ect ed t o unset t ling scrut iny of your every word and act , a sit uat ion t hat ’s profoundly unnerving for all but t hat m inorit y of people who t ruly crave t he spot light . Like it or not , as a new leader you are always onst age, and everyt hing about you is fair gam e for com m ent , crit icism , and int erpret at ion ( or m isint erpret at ion) . Your dress, your spouse, your t able m anners, your dict ion, your wit , your friends, your children, your children’s t able m anners—all will be inspect ed, dissect ed, and j udged. And not hing is m ore int ense t han t he at t ent ion paid t o your init ial words and deeds, as any first - t im e president ial candidat e can t ell you. I t ’s said of psychot herapy t hat t he first t en m inut es bet ween doct or and pat ient are t he m ost crit ical, and st udies show t hat friendships form ed by college st udent s during orient at ion are t he m ost enduring. Social psychologist s have found t hat we base our j udgm ent s of people on ext rem ely t hin slices of behavior. We decide whet her we are in sync or out of t une wit h anot her person in as lit t le as t wo seconds. So it is wit h leaders and organizat ions. Your first act s will win people over or t hey will t urn people against you, som et im es perm anent ly. And t hose init ial act s m ay have a longlast ing effect on how t he group perform s. I t is, t herefore, alm ost always best for t he novice t o m ake a low- key ent ry. This buys you t im e t o gat her inform at ion and t o develop relat ionships wisely. I t gives you an opport unit y t o learn t he cult ure of t he organizat ion and t o benefit from t he wisdom of t hose who are already t here. A quiet ent ry allows t he ot hers in t he group t o dem onst rat e what t hey know. And it allows you t o est ablish t hat you are open t o t he cont ribut ions of ot hers. I t shows t hem t hat you are a leader, not a

dict at or. I n ret rospect , I realize t hat officer- candidat e school had prepared m e for m y sm all t rium ph in t hat roofless house in Belgium . Even as t he officers t ried t o cram all t he survival skills we would need int o four m ont hs of t raining, t hey t old us again and again t hat t he com bat - seasoned m en under our com m and would be our real t eachers, at least at first . The sam e holds t rue in any organizat ion. I n t he beginning, especially, your m ost t alent ed, m ost seasoned, m ost decent followers will be t he ones t hat keep you alive. When St eve Sam ple becam e president of t he Universit y of Sout hern California in t he early 1990s, he did a m ast erful j ob of easing in. He went t o t he cam pus incognit o at least t wice, and during one of t hose visit s he at t ended a foot ball gam e and spoke t o facult y m em bers and st udent s who didn’t know who he was. Those visit s gave him a feel for t he cam pus as it really was, not how t he m ost assert ive of his const it uent s want ed him t o see it . And during his first six m ont hs, he did not m ake a single high- profile decision. He knew t hat t he im port ant t hings t o be done could be deferred unt il t he facult y, st aff, and st udent s were m ore com fort able wit h him and t heir relat ionships were m ore st able. Maj or changes in t he first six m ont hs will inevit ably be perceived as arbit rary, aut ocrat ic, and unfair, as m uch for t heir t im ing as for t heir cont ent . However, it is wort h not ing t hat , no m at t er what your first act ions are, you can influence ot her people’s im age of you only t o a lim it ed ext ent . The people who will be working under your leadership will have form ed an opinion about you by t he t im e you walk int o t he office, even if t hey have never m et you. They m ay love you, t hey m ay hat e you, t hey m ay t rust you or dist rust you, but t hey’ve probably t aken a st and, and t heir posit ion m ay have very lit t le t o do wit h who you act ually are. The leader oft en becom es a screen ont o which followers proj ect t heir own fant asies about power and relat ionships. To som e degree, all leaders are creat ed out of t he needs, want s, fears, and longings of t hose who follow t hem . Event s t hat predat e your arrival will also shape followers’ view of you. I n an organizat ion t hat ’s been t hrough a crisis—several rounds of layoffs, say— people are liable t o assum e t hat you’re t here t o clean house again and m ay respond wit h eit her open host ilit y or flat t ery in t he hopes of keeping t heir j obs. Ot hers m ay see you as t heir savior because of t he bad leadership of your predecessor. Your first challenge is t o t ry not t o t ake your new followers’ assessm ent s t oo personally. The second—and far t rickier—challenge is t o em brace t he fact t hat cert ain elem ent s of t heir assessm ent s m ay be accurat e, even if t hey put you in an unflat t ering light . Th e Love r , w it h a W oe fu l Ba lla d Shakespeare described m an in his t hird age “ sighing like furnace,” som et hing m any leaders find t hem selves doing as t hey st ruggle wit h t he t sunam i of problem s every organizat ion present s. For t he leader who has com e up t hrough t he ranks, one of t he t oughest is how t o relat e t o form er peers who now report t o you. Shakespeare paint ed a com pelling port rait of t he problem in Henry I V, Part I I . Before Prince Hal becom es Henry V, his relat ionship wit h t he aging rogue Falst aff is t hat of st udent and fellow hell- raiser. For all Falst aff’s excesses, he is oft en Hal’s wise t eacher, helping t he fut ure king see beyond t he cloist ered, narrow educat ion t radit ionally afforded a prince t o glim pse what his fut ure subj ect s feel, t hink, and need. But when it com es t im e for Hal t o assum e his royal responsibilit ies, he rej ect s Falst aff, despit e t heir having shared a sea of ale and t he sound of “ t he chim es at m idnight .” Henry doesn’t invit e Falst aff t o his coronat ion, and he point edly t ells t he ribald knight , “ I know t hee not , old m an.” Today’s leaders would inst ant ly recognize t he young king’s predicam ent . I t ’s difficult t o set boundaries and fine- t une your working relat ionships wit h form er cronies. Most organizat ions, wit h t he except ion of t he m ilit ary, m aint ain t he fict ion t hat t hey are at least sem idem ocracies, however aut ocrat ic t hey are in fact . As a m odern leader, you don’t have t he opt ion of t elling t he person wit h whom you once shared a pod and luncht im e confidences t hat you know her not . But relat ionships inevit ably change when a person is prom ot ed from wit hin t he ranks. You m ay no longer be able t o speak openly as you once did, and your friends m ay feel awkward around you or resent you. They m ay perceive you as lording your posit ion over t hem when you’re j ust behaving as a leader should.

On e m a r k of a fu t u r e le a de r is t h e a bilit y t o ide n t ify, w oo, a n d w in t h e m e n t or s w h o w ill ch a n ge h is or h e r life . I know of a young execut ive, let ’s call her Marj orie, who was recent ly prom ot ed from

m iddle m anagem ent t o head of t he m arket ing depart m ent at a pharm aceut ical com pany. One of t hree int ernal candidat es for t he j ob, she was close friends wit h t he ot her t wo. Marj orie had already dist inguished herself wit hin t he com pany, so it was no surprise t hat she got t he prom ot ion, even t hough she was t he youngest and least experienced of t he t hree. But t he t ransit ion was m uch m ore difficult t han she had ant icipat ed. Her friends were envious. She would som et im es find herself in t he awkward sit uat ion of at t ending an execut ive m eet ing at which one of her friends was crit icized and t hen going st raight t o lunch wit h her. The new execut ive m issed being able t o share what she knew wit h her friends, and she m issed t heir support . Her fellow execut ives had a m ore aut horit arian st yle t han she did, and som e even advised her t o drop her old friends, which she had no int ent ion of doing. Her com prom ise was t o t ry t o divide her t im e bet ween her new peers and her old. The t ransit ion was st ill hard, but she m ade a good early m ove: She had frank conversat ions wit h her friends, during which she asked t hem how t hey were feeling and assured t hem t heir friendships were im port ant t o her and would cont inue. However t ough it was for Marj orie, she had t he advant age of knowing t he organizat ion and it s players. The challenge for t he newcom er is knowing who t o list en t o and who t o t rust . Leaders new t o an organizat ion are swam ped wit h claim s on t heir t im e and at t ent ion. Oft en, t he person who m akes t he m ost noise is t he neediest person in t he group and t he one you have t o be m ost wary of, a lesson I learned m ore t han 50 years ago from t he renowned psychiat rist Wilfred Bion. At t he t im e, Bion was doing pioneering work in t he new pract ice of group psychot herapy. He warned his st udent s: Focusing your at t ent ion on t he m ost clam orous of your followers will not only anger and alienat e t he healt hier am ong t hem . I t will dist ract you from working wit h t he ent ire group on what act ually m at t ers, accom plishing a com m on m ission. Knowing what t o pay at t ent ion t o is j ust as im port ant —and j ust as difficult . I n t heir effort s t o effect change, leaders com ing int o new organizat ions are oft en t hwart ed by an unconscious conspiracy t o preserve t he st at us quo. Problem aft er problem will be dum ped in your lap—plent y of new ones and a bulging archive of issues left unresolved by previous adm inist rat ions—and responding t o t hem all ensures t hat you will never have t im e t o pursue your own agenda. When I arrived at t he Universit y of Cincinnat i as president I was t ot ally unprepared for t he volum e of issues t hat found t heir way t o m y desk, st art ing wit h t he 150 pieces of m ail I t ypically had t o respond t o each day. The cum ulat ive effect of handling each of t hese sm all m at t ers was t o keep m e from addressing what was t ruly im port ant : art iculat ing a vision for t he universit y and persuading t he rest of t he com m unit y t o em brace it as t heir own. I t is at t his st age t hat an inabilit y t o delegat e effect ively can be disast rous. Newcom er or not , alm ost all leaders find t hem selves at som e point in t he posit ion of having t o ask ot hers t o leave t he organizat ion—firing t hem , t o put it blunt ly. This is always a painful t ask, if only because it usually devast at es t he person being let go and because t he t im ing is never opport une. Facing you across t he desk always seem s t o be t he em ployee who’s j ust delivered t riplet s or bought an expensive house. There’s lit t le available t o guide leaders on how t o do t his awful business in a hum ane way; only rem em ber t hat you have people’s em ot ional lives in your hands in such circum st ances as surely as any surgeon or lover does. Th e Be a r de d Soldie r Over t im e, leaders grow com fort able wit h t he role. This com fort brings confidence and convict ion, but it also can snap t he connect ion bet ween leader and followers. Two t hings can happen as a result : Leaders m ay forget t he t rue im pact of t heir words and act ions, and t hey m ay assum e t hat what t hey are hearing from followers is what needs t o be heard. While t he first words and act ions of leaders are t he m ost closely at t ended t o, t he scrut iny never really ends. Followers cont inue t o pay close at t ent ion t o even t he m ost offhand rem ark, and t he m ore effect ive t he leader is t he m ore careful he or she m ust be, because followers m ay im plem ent an idea t hat was lit t le m ore t han a passing t hought . Forget t his and you m ay find yourself in som e less dram at ic version of t he sit uat ion King Henry I I did when he m ut t ered, of Thom as à Becket , “ Will no one rid m e of t his m eddlesom e priest ?” and four of his nobles prom pt ly went out and m urdered t he cleric. Many m odern- day Henrys have m used along t he lines of, “ We should be looking at our t echnology st rat egy,” only t o be confront ed a few m ont hs lat er wit h t hick PowerPoint present at ions and a heft y consult ing bill. Followers don’t t ell leaders everyt hing. I know of an execut ive I ’ll call Christ ine who had a close working relat ionship wit h t he rest of her group. The depart m ent hum m ed along product ively unt il t he day one of her t op perform ers, Joseph, showed up at her door,

looking uncom fort able. He t old her he’d been offered a j ob at anot her com pany and was planning t o t ake it . The t im ing was t errible; t he group was headed t oward a m aj or product launch. And Christ ine was st unned, because she and Joseph were friends and he had never expressed dissat isfact ion wit h his posit ion or t he com pany. Why hadn’t he t old her he want ed a new opport unit y? She would have creat ed a j ob especially for him , and she t old him as m uch. Unfort unat ely, it was t oo lat e. The fact is, however close Christ ine and Joseph were, she was st ill in charge, and few em ployees t ell t heir bosses when t hey’ve t alked t o a headhunt er. And because Christ ine and Joseph liked each ot her and had fun working t oget her, she’d assum ed he was sat isfied. A second challenge for leaders in t heir ascendancy is t o nurt ure t hose people whose st ars m ay shine as bright ly as—or even bright er t han—t he leaders’ own. I n m any ways, t his is t he real t est of charact er for a leader. Many people cannot resist using a leadership posit ion t o t hwart com pet it ion. I heard recent ly about an execut ive who had been well liked by his bosses and peers unt il he was prom ot ed t o head a division. Then t hose under him began t o grum ble about his m anagem ent st yle, and it wasn’t j ust sour grapes. His lat est prom ot ion had been a st ret ch, and he m ay have felt , for t he first t im e in his career, vulnerable. Short ly t hereaft er, his em ployees began t o not ice t hat he was t aking credit for t heir ideas and was bad- m out hing som e of t hem behind t heir backs. When confront ed about his behavior, he seem ed genuinely surprised and prot est ed t hat he was doing no such t hing. Perhaps he was unconsciously t rying t o sabot age t hose under him t o prop him self up. But t hose who report ed t o him began t o leave, one by one. Aft er a year, his reput at ion was such t hat nobody want ed t o work wit h him , and he was asked t o leave. I n cont rast , aut hent ic leaders are generous. They’re hum an and m ay experience t he occasional pang at wat ching som eone accom plish som et hing t hey cannot . But t hey are always willing—even anxious—t o hire people who are bet t er t han t hey are, in part because t hey know t hat highly t alent ed underlings can help t hem shine. Many of t he great est leaders of our t im es, including t he Manhat t an Proj ect ’s J. Robert Oppenheim er, Xerox PARC’s Bob Taylor, and even Walt Disney, had healt hy enough egos t o surround t hem selves wit h people who had t he pot ent ial t o st eal t heir j obs. Th e Ge n e r a l, Fu ll of W ise Sa w s One of t he great est challenges a leader faces at t he height of his or her career is not sim ply allowing people t o speak t he t rut h but act ually being able t o hear it . Once again, Shakespeare proves inst ruct ive. I n Julius Caesar, t hat brilliant st udy of failed m anagem ent , Caesar goes t o t he forum on t he ides of March apparent ly unaware t hat he will die t here. How could he not have known t hat som et hing dreadful was going t o happen on t hat inauspicious day? The soot hsayer warns him t o “ beware t he ides of March.” There are signs of im pending evil t hat any superst it ious Rom an would have been able t o read, including an owl hoot ing during t he day and a lion running t hrough t he st reet s. And t hen t here is t he awful dream t hat m akes Calpurnia, Caesar’s loving wife, beg him t o st ay hom e. She dream s t hat his st at ue gushed blood like a fount ain wit h a hundred spout s. Shouldn’t t hat have been clear enough for a m ilit ary genius used t o am assing and evaluat ing int elligence? I f not , consider t hat Art em idorus, a t eacher in Rom e, act ually writ es down t he nam es of t he conspirat ors and t ries t hree t im es t o t hrust t he not e of alarm int o Caesar’s hand, t he last t im e seconds before Brut us and t he gang fall upon him . Caesar’s deafness is caused as m uch by arrogance as anyt hing else, and he is hardly t he only leader t o be so afflict ed. Like m any CEOs and ot her leaders, m ovie m ogul Darryl F. Zanuck was not orious for his unwillingness t o hear unpleasant t rut hs. He was said t o bark, “ Don’t say yes unt il I finish t alking! ” which no doubt st ifled m any a difference of opinion. A m ore current exam ple can be seen in Howell Raines, t he deposed execut ive edit or of t he New York Tim es. Am ong t he m any ways he blocked t he flow of inform at ion upward was t o lim it t he pool of people he cham pioned and, t hus, t he num ber of people he list ened t o. Raines was not orious for having a sm all A- list of st ars and a large B- list m ade up of everyone else. Even if Raines’s division of t he st aff had been fair, which it cert ainly was not in t he case of now- disgraced report er Jayson Blair, t he t wo- t ier syst em was unwise and ult im at ely a career ender for Raines. He had so alienat ed t he vast m aj orit y of people in t he newsroom who knew what Blair was up t o t hat t hey didn’t even bot her t o warn him of t he t rain wreck ahead, and he refused t o believe t he few who did speak up. The at t it ude of Raines and his m anaging edit or, Gerald Boyd, was t hat t heir way was t he only way. When a dist inguished report er dared t o point out an error Boyd had m ade, Boyd lit erally handed him a coin and t old him t o call t he Los Angeles Tim es about a j ob. The report er prom pt ly did, quit t ing t he New York Tim es for t he West Coast paper.

But t he episode m ost clearly recalls Caesar’s sit uat ion in t hat Raines seem ed genuinely surprised when he was forced out in t he sum m er of 2003. He had no doubt read Ken Aulet t a’s lengt hy profile of him t hat ran in t he New Yorker in 2002, showing t hat Raines was widely perceived as arrogant . And he should have been a good enough newsm an t o be able t o t ell t he difference bet ween accept ance and angry silence on t he part of t hose who worked for him . Arrogance kept Raines from building t he alliances and coalit ions t hat every leader needs. When Blair’s j ournalist ic crim es and m isdem eanors cam e t o light , t here weren’t enough people on t he A- list t o save Raines’s professional life. Aut hent ic leaders, by cont rast , don’t have what people in t he Middle East called “ t ired ears.” Their egos are not so fragile t hat t hey are unable t o bear t he t rut h, however harsh —not because t hey are saint s but because it is t he surest way t o succeed and survive.

Th e r e a l t e st of ch a r a ct e r for a le a de r is t o n u r t u r e t h ose pe ople w h ose st a r s m a y sh in e a s br igh t ly a s—or e ve n br igh t e r t h a n —t h e le a de r ’s ow n . I ’ve m ent ioned t he wisdom of avoiding m aj or change in t he early m ont hs in a new posit ion. At t his st age, t he challenge is different , because leaders furt her along in t heir careers are frequent ly brought in wit h a specific m andat e t o bring about change, and t heir act ions have a direct and im m ediat e im pact on an organizat ion’s long- t erm fort unes. Hesit at ion can be disast rous. However, you st ill need t o underst and t he m ood and m ot ivat ions of t he people already in t he com pany before t aking act ion. I wish I ’d underst ood t hat when I arrived at t he Universit y of Cincinnat i in 1971 wit h a m andat e t o t ransform t he universit y from a local inst it ut ion int o a st at e one—a goal t hat was by no m eans widely shared am ong t he facult y or, for t hat m at t er, t he cit izens of Cincinnat i. One longt im e universit y board m em ber had warned m e t o keep a low profile unt il I had a bet t er grasp of t he conservat ive com m unit y and t he people in it were m ore com fort able wit h m e. I chose t o ignore his wise counsel, believing t hat broad exposure of t he universit y and, by ext ension, m yself would benefit m y cause. As a result , I accept ed an invit at ion t o host a weekly t elevision show. Worse, t he t it le of t he show was Bennis! The exclam at ion point st ill m akes m e cringe. I m ight have been perceived as an arrogant out sider com e t o save t he provinces under any circum st ances, but Bennis! guarant eed t hat I would be viewed t hat way. That percept ion ( all but indelible, as early percept ions t end t o be) m ade it m uch harder t o realize m y vision for t he universit y. The corporat e world is filled wit h st ories of leaders who failed t o achieve great ness because t hey failed t o underst and t he cont ext t hey were working in or get t he support of t heir underlings. Look at Durk Jager, who last ed less t han a year and a half at Proct er & Gam ble. Crit ics accused him of t rying t o change t he com pany t oo m uch, t oo fast . But what Jager couldn’t do was sell his vision of a t ransform ed P&G t o it s st aff and ot her st akeholders. His very able successor, A.G. Lafley, seem ed at first t o back off from Jager’s com m it m ent t o “ st ret ch and speed,” but in fact Lafley has been able t o bring about change every bit as radical as any Jager spoke of, including going out side t he com pany for new ideas, a reversal of P&G’s t radit ional “ invent ed here” philosophy. How did Lafley m anage? “ I didn’t at t ack,“ he t old BusinessWeek. “ I avoided saying P&G people are bad…I preserved t he core of t he cult ure and pulled people where I want ed t o go. I enrolled t hem in change. I didn’t t ell t hem .” Anot her m odel for doing it right is Carly Fiorina. She t ook over Hewlet t - Packard wit h at least t hree st rikes against her—she was a wom an, she was an out sider, and she wasn’t an engineer. And t he person who chose t o bat t le her was none ot her t han t he son of a com pany founder and t hus t radit ion incarnat e—Walt er Hewlet t . But Fiorina cleverly honored t he com pany’s illust rious past , even as she prepared for change, including t he m erger wit h Com paq. Her first annual report included a vision st at em ent t hat st art s wit h t he word “ I nvent ,” paying hom age t o t he pioneering spirit t hat creat ed HP while sim ult aneously rewrit ing t he “ rules of t he garage.” She also appreciat ed t he gravit y of t he t hreat present ed by Walt er Hewlet t and syst em at ically but t ressed her support am ong t he ot her m em bers of her board. When t he m om ent cam e, t he m aj orit y of t he m em bers t ook act ion and rem oved Hewlet t from t he HP board. Tim e will t ell how successful t he Com paq deal will be, but Dr. Bion would have given Fiorina an A. She didn’t overreact t o Walt er Hewlet t —she didn’t at t ack him , nor did she spend t oo m uch t im e t rying t o address his concerns. I nst ead, she st ayed her course and kept t he focus of all her st akeholders on what was t ruly im port ant . Th e St a t e sm a n , w it h Spe ct a cle s on N ose Shakespeare’s sixt h age covers t he years in which a leader’s power begins t o wane. But far from being t he buffoon suggest ed by Shakespeare’s descript ion of a “ lean and

slippered pant aloon,” t he leader in t his st age is oft en hard at work preparing t o pass on his or her wisdom in t he int erest of t he organizat ion. The leader m ay also be called upon t o play im port ant int erim roles, bolst ered by t he knowledge and percept ion t hat com e wit h age and experience and wit hout t he som et im es dist ract ing am bit ion t hat charact erizes early career. One of t he grat ifying roles t hat people in lat e career can play is t he leadership equivalent of a pinch hit t er. When New York Tim es publisher Art hur Sulzberger, Jr., needed som eone t o st op t he bleeding at t he newspaper aft er t he Blair debacle, he invit ed Howell Raines’s predecessor, Joseph Lelyveld, t o serve as int erim edit or. The widely respect ed j ournalist was an ideal choice, one who was im m ediat ely able t o apply a career’s wort h of experience t o t he newspaper’s crisis and whose t enure was unsullied by any desire t o keep t he j ob for t he long t erm . Consider, t oo, t he head of a governm ent agency who had chosen t o ret ire from his leadership posit ion because he had accom plished all his goals and was t ired of t he polit ics associat ed wit h his j ob. When an overseas office needed an int erim leader, he was willing t o st ep int o t he j ob and post pone ret irem ent . He was able t o perform an even bet t er j ob t han a younger person m ight have, not only because he brought a lifet im e’s wort h of knowledge and experience but also because he didn’t have t o wast e t im e engaging in t he polit ical m achinat ions oft en needed t o advance a career. Th e Sa ge , Se con d Ch ildish n e ss As I ’ve point ed out , m ent oring has t rem endous value t o a young execut ive. The value accrues t o t he m ent or as well. Ment oring is one of t he great j oys of a m at ure career, t he professional equivalent of having grandchildren. I t is at t his t im e t hat t he drive t o prepare t he next generat ion for leadership becom es a palpable ache. I wrot e earlier of m y relat ionship wit h a young nurse who had am bit ions t o becom e a doct or. Clearly, t he young m an benefit ed from our relat ionship, but so did I . I learned about t he t rue nat ure of m ent oring, about it s inevit able reciprocit y and t he fact t hat finding and cem ent ing a relat ionship wit h a m ent or is not a form of fawning but t he init iat ion of a valuable relat ionship for bot h individuals. My respect for m y form er nurse only grew over t he years. When he graduat ed near t he t op of his class from t he Universit y of Sout hern California Medical School, I was t here t o wat ch. When you m ent or, you know t hat what you have achieved will not be lost , t hat you are leaving a professional legacy for fut ure generat ions. Just as m y nurse clearly st ood t o benefit from our relat ionship, ent repreneur Michael Klein was indebt ed t o his grandfat her, Max. But im agine t he j oy Max m ust have felt at being able t o share t he wisdom he acquired over a lifet im e as a creat ive businessm an. The reciprocal benefit s of such bonds are profound, am ount ing t o m uch m ore t han warm feelings on bot h sides. Ment oring isn’t a sim ple exchange of inform at ion. Neuroscient ist Robert Sapolsky lived am ong wild baboons and found t hat alliances bet ween old and young apes were an effect ive st rat egy for survival. Older m ales t hat affiliat ed wit h younger m ales lived longer, healt hier lives t han t heir unallied peers. Whet her ape or hum an, individuals in a m ent oring relat ionship exchange invaluable, oft en subt le inform at ion. The elder part ner st ays plugged int o an ever- changing world, while t he younger part ner can observe what does and doesn’t work as t he elder part ner negot iat es t he t ricky t errain of aging. When we com pared older and younger leaders for Geeks and Geezers, we found t hat t he ruling qualit y of leaders, adapt ive capacit y, is what allows t rue leaders t o m ake t he nim ble decisions t hat bring success. Adapt ive capacit y is also what allows som e people t o t ranscend t he set backs and losses t hat com e wit h age and t o reinvent t hem selves again and again. Shakespeare called t he final age of m an “ second childishness.” But for t hose fort unat e enough t o keep t heir healt h, and even for t hose not as fort unat e, age t oday is neit her end nor oblivion. Rat her, it is t he j oyous rediscovery of childhood at it s best . I t is waking up each m orning ready t o devour t he world, full of hope and prom ise. I t lacks not hing but t he t awdrier form s of am bit ion t hat m ake less sense as each day passes.

> | Ex e cu t ive Su m m a r y > | Pu r ch a se Re pr in t > | Pr in t a ble Ve r sion > | E- m a il a Colle a gu e

Reprint Num ber R0401D

View Back Issues Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. All right s reserved.

Click here t o visit :

View Back Issues N ow Ava ila ble ! Exclusive New Benefit for HBR Subscribers: Online access t o t he past eleven issues of HBR! Sim ply select t he issue you want t o access from t he drop down m enu above. Th is M on t h : I n side t h e M in d of t h e Le a de r Most of us know what great leadership looks like from t he out side. But what about from t he inside? I n t his special issue of HBR, we delve int o t he psychology of leadership—from em ot ional int elligence t o Freud—t o reveal a deeper underst anding of effect ive leadership.

Th e Se ve n Age s of t h e Le a de r Warren G. Bennis Ge t you r H BR Su bscr ibe r Ale r t

Th e Se ve n Age s of t h e Le a de r Warren G. Bennis

Pu t t in g Le a de r s on t h e Cou ch A Conversat ion wit h Manfred F.R. Ket s de Vries

W h e n Follow e r s Be com e Tox ic Lynn R. Offerm ann

> | Click H e r e Th e n e x t issu e of H BR on lin e w ill post on t h e 1 st of t h e m on t h .

Fr om t h e Edit or Th e Le a de r ’s Se cr e t Se lf Thom as A. St ewart H BR Ca se St u dy Le ft on a M ou n t a in side Julia Kirby Voice s Le a din g by Fe e l

Be st of H BR M a n a ge r s a n d Le a de r s: Ar e Th e y D iffe r e n t ? Abraham Zaleznik W h a t M a k e s a Le a de r ? Daniel Golem an N a r cissist ic Le a de r s: Th e I n cr e dible Pr os, t h e I n e vit a ble Con s Michael Maccoby Un de r st a n din g Le a de r sh ip W.C.H. Prent ice

Th in k in g Abou t ... Also in t h is I ssu e Le a de r sh ip—W a r t s a n d All Barbara Kellerm an

Execut ive Sum m aries I n Closing Reprint s and Subscript ions About HBR

Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. All right s reserved.

Click here t o visit :

View Back Issues | January 2004 > When Followers Becom e Toxic

> | Pu r ch a se Re pr in t > | Pr in t a ble Ve r sion

When Followers Becom e Toxic

> | E- m a il a Colle a gu e > | Ex e cu t ive Su m m a r y

Fe w le a de r s r e a lize h ow su sce pt ible t h e y a r e t o t h e ir follow e r s’ in flu e n ce . A good se t of va lu e s, som e t r u st e d fr ie n ds, a n d a lit t le pa r a n oia ca n pr e ve n t t h e m fr om be in g le d a st r a y.

by Lyn n R. Offe r m a n n

Douglas MacArt hur once said, “ A general is j ust as good or j ust as bad as t he t roops under his com m and m ake him .” Alm ost as he m ade t hat rem ark, his count ry’s president was proving t he point . For in lat e 1961, John F. Kennedy, bowing t o pressure from his advisers, agreed t o t he escalat ion of Am erican int ervent ion in Viet nam . Am ong t he advisers pressuring him was t he senior aut hor of a report recom m ending m ilit ary int ervent ion. And t hat adviser’s t rust ed friend—an Am erican general—was chosen by t he president t o lead t he new U.S. com m and in Saigon. Given his loyalt ies, t he general want ed t o m ake sure t hings looked good on t he surface, so he st ifled evidence from t he field about pot ent ial set backs and obst acles in Viet nam , m aking it t ough for t he president t o discern t he t rut h. That , according t o aut hor and j ournalist David Halberst am , was how President Kennedy and his advisers led t he Unit ed St at es int o Viet nam . The st ory st arkly illust rat es j ust how easily, and wit h t he best of int ent ions, loyal and able followers can get t heir leaders int o t rouble. I f an accom plished polit ician like Kennedy could be m isled in t his way, it ’s no surprise t hat t oday’s business leaders oft en fall int o t he sam e t rap. No m at t er who we are, we are all influenced by t hose around us. Som e of us are leaders, but we are all followers. I ndeed, Ken Lay, t he disgraced ex- chairm an of Enron, m ay not be ent irely wrong in blam ing unscrupulous subordinat es and advisers for his com pany’s dem ise. As an execut ive coach t o senior leaders in a variet y of indust ries for m ore t han 20 years, I ’ve seen first hand j ust how easily followers can derail execut ive careers. How does it happen? I n t he following pages, I draw bot h on m y experience as a consult ant and execut ive coach and on decades of research in organizat ional psychology t o describe when and why leaders becom e vulnerable t o being led ast ray by t heir followers. I n som e cases, as t he Kennedy st ory illust rat es, effect ive leaders can end up m aking poor decisions because able and well- m eaning followers are unit ed and persuasive about a course of act ion. This is a part icular problem for leaders who at t ract and em power st rong followers; t hese leaders need t o becom e m ore skept ical and set boundaries. At ot her t im es, leaders get int o t rouble because t hey are surrounded by followers who fool t hem wit h flat t ery and isolat e t hem from uncom fort able realit ies. Charism at ic leaders, who are m ost suscept ible t o t his problem , need t o m ake an ext ra effort t o uneart h disagreem ent and t o find followers who are not afraid t o pose hard quest ions. Charism at ic or not , all leaders run t he risk of delegat ing t o unscrupulous followers. There’s probably lit t le t hey can do t o com plet ely guard against a det erm ined corporat e I ago, but leaders who com m unicat e and live a posit ive set of values will find t hem selves bet t er prot ect ed. W h e n t h e M a j or it y Ru le s Alt hough m any leaders pride t hem selves on t heir willingness t o t ake unpopular st ands, research has consist ent ly dem onst rat ed t hat m ost people—including leaders—prefer conform it y t o cont roversy. And t he pressure t o conform rises wit h t he degree of agreem ent am ong t hose around you. Even if widespread agreem ent doesn’t act ually exist , t he very appearance of it can be hard t o resist .

Pe ople t e n d t o be w h a t psych ologist s ca ll “cogn it ive m ise r s,” pr e fe r r in g t h e sh or t cu t s of a u t om a t ic t h in k in g ove r con side r e d e x a m in a t ion .

Join in g t h e Opposit ion Six W a ys t o Cou n t e r W a yw a r d I n flu e n ce s

Lyn n R. Offe r m a n n is a professor of organizat ional sciences and psychology at George Washingt on Universit y in Washingt on, DC, and t he direct or of t he universit y’s doct oral program in indust rial and organizat ional psychology. She can be reached at lr o@gw u .e du .

One of t he m ost st riking pieces of evidence for t his was a series of experim ent s conduct ed in t he 1950s by psychologist Solom on Asch. Asch showed part icipant s a vert ical line and t hen asked t hem t o j udge which of t hree ot her lines was m ost sim ilar in lengt h t o t he t est line. Part icipant s who m ade j udgm ent s on t heir own chose t he correct answer 99% of t he t im e. Yet when ot her part icipant s answered as part of a group in which fake respondent s had been coached t o pick a part icular incorrect line, alm ost t hree- quart ers of t he unknowing part icipant s m ade at least one wrong choice and onet hird of t hem conform ed t o t he group choice half t he t im e. I t ’s wort h not ing t hat t he part icipant s conform ed wit hout any pressure from t he fake respondent s. I ndeed, t he fake respondent s were st rangers whom t he part icipant s were unlikely t o see ever again. I n workplace sit uat ions where cont inued int eract ions are expect ed and where t here m ay be concern about possible loss of face, one would reasonably expect conform it y t o be even m ore m arked. What ’s m ore, m ost business decisions are urgent , com plex, and am biguous, which encourages people t o depend on t he views of ot hers. We should hardly be surprised, t herefore, t o find t hat t he et hical and capable individuals who served on t he boards of com panies like WorldCom and Enron t urned “ int o credulous, com pliant apparat chiks m ore focused on m aint aining collegialit y t han m axim izing long- t erm profit abilit y,” as t he Washingt on Post put it . What happens is t hat leaders faced wit h a unit ed opposit ion can st art t o quest ion t heir own j udgm ent . And t hey should quest ion t hem selves—t he reason t hat unanim it y is such a powerful influencing force is sim ply t hat t he m aj orit y oft en is right . I n general, research shows t hat using social proof—what ot hers t hink or do—t o det erm ine our behavior leads us t o m ake fewer m ist akes t han opposing t he m aj orit y view does. But as even t he sm art est leaders have had t o learn t he hard way, t he m aj orit y can be spect acularly wrong. One reason t hat even well- inform ed expert s so oft en follow t he crowd is t hat people by nat ure t end t o be what psychologist s call “ cognit ive m isers,” preferring t he short cut s of aut om at ic t hinking over considered exam inat ion. These short cut s can help us t o process inform at ion m ore quickly but can also lead t o m onum ent al errors. For inst ance, product designers m ay assum e t hat if t hey like a product , everyone will. Yet t he flop of Dell’s Olym pic line of deskt op and workst at ion com put ers t aught m anagers t here t hat product s m ust appeal t o m ore t han t he com pany’s own t echnically savvy workforce. As Michael Dell put it , “ We had gone ahead and creat ed a product t hat was, for all int ent s and purposes, t echnology for t echnology’s sake rat her t han t echnology for t he cust om er’s sake.” Cognit ive m iserliness can be reinforced by cult ure. I n t he Unit ed St at es, for inst ance, Am ericans have long t olerat ed—even encouraged—people who form and express quick opinions. I t is not a reflect ive societ y. Am ericans like t o brainst orm and m ove on. That short cut m ent alit y can be part icularly dangerous if t he opinions are present ed publicly, because people will t hen advance t heir views t enaciously. I n such public forum s, it falls t o t he leader t o push followers t o exam ine t heir opinions m ore closely. Alfred P. Sloan, t he form er chairm an of GM, underst ood t his very well. He once said at t he close of an execut ive m eet ing: “ Gent lem en, I t ake it we are all in com plet e agreem ent on t he decision here. I propose we post pone furt her discussion unt il our next m eet ing t o give ourselves t im e t o develop disagreem ent and perhaps gain som e underst anding of what t he decision is all about .” Anot her fact or cont ribut ing t o t he power of t he m aj orit y is t hat leaders worry about underm ining t heir em ployees’ com m it m ent . This is a reasonable concern. Leaders do need t o be careful about spending t heir polit ical capit al, and overruling em ployees one t oo m any t im es can dem ot ivat e t hem . I ndeed, t here are t im es when going along wit h t he m aj orit y t o win com m it m ent is m ore im port ant t han m aking t he “ right ” decision. ( For m ore on when it ’s wise t o go along wit h t he m aj orit y, see t he sidebar “ Joining t he Opposit ion.” ) But ot her t im es, leaders need t o list en inst ead t o t he single, shy voice in t he background, or even t o t heir own int ernal doubt s. As Rosalynn Cart er once said, “ A leader t akes people where t hey want t o go. A great leader t akes people where t hey don’t necessarily want t o go but ought t o be.” I n going against t he t ide, t he leader will som et im es boost rat her t han underm ine his or her credibilit y. Join in g t h e Opposit ion Foole d by Fla t t e r y Being swept along by t heir followers isn’t t he only form of influence t hat leaders need t o be wary of. Som et im es, follower influence t akes t he subt ler and gent ler form of

ingrat iat ion. Most people learn very early in life t hat a good way t o get people t o like you is t o show t hat you like t hem . Flat t ery, favors, and frequent com plim ent s all t end t o win people over. Leaders, nat urally, like t hose who like t hem and are m ore apt t o let t hose t hey are fond of influence t hem . For t heir part , followers t hink t hat being on t he boss’s good side gives t hem som e m easure of j ob securit y. To an ext ent , t hey’re probably right ; even a recent Forbes guide t o surviving office part ies recom m ends: “ Try t o ingrat iat e yourself. I n t his m arket , people are hired and kept at t heir com panies for t heir personal skills.” I ndeed, a recent st udy indicat ed t hat successful ingrat iat ors gained a 5% edge over ot her em ployees in perform ance evaluat ions. This kind of m argin by it self won’t get som eone ahead, but in a com pet it ive m arket , it m ight well t ip t he scale t oward one of t wo people up for a prom ot ion. Everyone loves a sincere com plim ent , but t hose who already t hink highly of t hem selves are m ost suscept ible t o flat t ery’s charm s. I n part icular, leaders predisposed t oward narcissism m ay find t heir narcissist ic t endencies pushed t o unhealt hy levels when t hey are given heavy doses of follower ingrat iat ion. Grat uit ous ingrat iat ion can creat e a subt le shift in a leader’s at t it ude t oward power. I nst ead of viewing power as som et hing t o be used in t he service of t he organizat ion, client s, and st akeholders, t he leader t reat s it as a t ool t o furt her personal int erest s, som et im es at t he expense of ot hers in and out side t he organizat ion. This happens as a leader st art s t o t ruly believe his press and com es t o feel m ore ent it led t o privileges t han ot hers. People oft en cit e Jack Welch’s ret irem ent deal as an exam ple of execut ive ent it lem ent gone haywire. The result ing furor drew public scorn for a longst anding corporat e icon. But one of t he m ost serious problem s for leaders who invit e flat t ery is t hat t hey insulat e t hem selves from t he bad news t hey need t o know. I n her m em oir, Nancy Reagan relat es how t hen–Vice President George Bush approached her wit h concerns about Chief of St aff Donald Regan. Mrs. Reagan said she wished he’d t ell her husband, but Bush replied t hat it was not his role t o do so. “ That ’s exact ly your role,” she snapped. Yet followers who have wit nessed t he killing of previous m essengers of unwelcom e news will be unlikely t o volunt eer for t he role. Sam uel Goldwyn’s words resonat e st rongly: “ I want you t o t ell m e exact ly what ’s wrong wit h m e and wit h MGM even if it m eans losing your j ob.” As m ore st aff ingrat iat e or hold back crit icism , t he percept ion of st aff unanim it y, oft en at t he expense of t he organizat ion’s healt h, increases as well. The rare individual who won’t j oin an ingrat iat ing inner circle of followers is t ypically seen as a bad apple by bot h t he leader and her peers. Even when t his percept ion problem is acknowledged, it is t ough t o fix. Despit e widespread publicit y aft er t he 1986 space shut t le Challenger disast er about t he dangers of failing t o at t end t o negat ive news, NASA is once again facing charges of having downplayed possible lift off problem s j ust before t he Colum bia disast er. I n bot h cases, engineers allegedly did not inform senior NASA execut ives of safet y concerns; t hey eit her wit hheld inform at ion or present ed it in ways t hat dim inished it s im port ance or feasibilit y. Obviously, t his t endency t o wit hhold inform at ion is not lim it ed t o governm ent agencies. Bill Ford, t he new CEO of Ford Mot or Com pany, believes t hat isolat ion at t he t op has been a big problem at Ford—a problem he has spent considerable t im e t rying t o rect ify by a variet y of m eans, including forcing debat e and discussion am ong execut ives and having inform al, im prom pt u discussions wit h em ployees at all levels. I n dealing wit h ingrat iat ion, leaders need t o begin by reflect ing on how t hey respond t o bot h flat t ery and crit icism . I n considering a follower’s advice or opinion, ask yourself if you would respond different ly if a st aff m em ber you disliked m ade t he sam e com m ent , and why. Are followers really free t o voice t heir honest assessm ent s, or are t hey j um ped on whenever t hey deviat e from your opinions? Bill Ford m akes a point of t hanking people whom he has overruled because he want s t hem t o know t hat t heir honest y is appreciat ed. One sim ple t est of whet her you’re get t ing t he feedback you need is t o count how m any em ployees challenge you at your next st aff m eet ing. As St even Kerr, chief learning officer of Goldm an Sachs, says: “ I f you’re not t aking flak, you’re not over t he t arget .” Organizat ional m echanism s can also help. Great er exposure t o ext ernal feedback from client s, well- run 360- degree feedback program s, and execut ive coaching m ay be m ore likely t o reveal t he full t rut h. I t ’s hard t o lead from a pedest al; open channels of com m unicat ion can keep a leader far bet t er grounded. For honest feedback, som e CEOs rely on longt im e associat es or fam ily m em bers, people who m ay even t ake pleasure at t im es in let t ing som e of t he air out of t he execut ive’s balloon. ( Your t eenage children m ight part icularly enj oy t his, t hough t hey m ight not

have as m uch insight int o your business) . Bill Gat es, for inst ance, has said t hat he t alks t o his wife, Melinda, every night about work- relat ed issues. I n part icular, he credit s her wit h helping him handle t he t ransit ion period when he t urned over t he Microsoft CEO t it le t o his old friend St eve Ballm er. Ballm er, t oo, has been one of Gat es’s closest advisers. Gat es says of t his peer relat ionship wit h Ballm er: “ I t ’s im port ant t o have som eone whom you t ot ally t rust , who is t ot ally com m it t ed, who shares your vision, and yet who has a lit t le bit different set of skills and who also act s as som et hing of a check on you.” And Gat es’s well- known friendship wit h fellow billionaire and bridge buddy Warren Buffet t serves as a sounding board for bot h m en. Disney’s Michael Eisner had a sim ilar relat ionship wit h Frank Wells, unt il Wells’s deat h in 1994, wit h Wells enj oying t he role of devil’s advocat e, challenging Eisner t o ensure t hat t he best decisions got m ade. I n his book You’re Too Kind, j ournalist Richard St engel gives an account of flat t ery t hrough t he ages, not ing t hat “ t he hist ory of how m inist ers have used flat t ery t o cont rol leaders did not begin wit h Henry Kissinger’s relent less and unct uous t oadying t o Richard Nixon…. Cardinal Richelieu was a fam ous user of flat t ery…and he was a fam ous sucker for it him self.” St engel argues t hat corporat e VPs who suck up t o t heir bosses are no different t han t he less powerful chim panzees who subordinat e t hem selves t o m ore powerful ones in t he anim al world. Though it m ay feel great at t he t im e, st roking a leader’s ego t oo m uch, and prot ect ing him or her from needed inform at ion, can have negat ive consequences for bot h t he leader and t he organizat ion. I t ’s wort h rem em bering t he words of cart oonist Hank Ket chum : “ Flat t ery is like chewing gum . Enj oy it , but don’t swallow it .”

I t ’s w or t h r e m e m be r in g t h e w or ds of ca r t oon ist H a n k Ke t ch u m : “Fla t t e r y is lik e ch e w in g gu m . En j oy it , bu t don ’t sw a llow it .” Pow e r s Be h in d t h e Th r on e Caught bet ween t he Scylla of follower unanim it y and t he Charybdis of flat t ery, leaders m ight be t em pt ed t o keep t heir followers at a dist ance. But in t oday’s world, t his is sim ply not an opt ion. CEOs of m aj or firm s cannot know everyt hing about t heir own organizat ions. I n coaching senior execut ives, I oft en hear t hem lam ent ing t hat t hey don’t have full knowledge of what ’s happening in t heir com panies. They report sleepless night s because t hey’ve been forced t o m ake decisions based on incom plet e inform at ion. They m ust rely on ot hers for full, accurat e, and unbiased input as well as for m any operat ional decisions. From t he follower’s point of view, t his present s wonderful opport unit ies. He can learn and pract ice new skills as t he leader relies on him m ore and m ore, and he m ay be present ed wit h new opport unit ies for advancem ent and reward. At t he sam e t im e, however, it opens t he door for t he occasional follower who uses his newfound power t o serve his own int erest s m ore t han t he com pany’s. So how can leaders guard against t hat problem ? They can begin by keeping et hical values and corporat e vision front and cent er when delegat ing and m onit oring work. Only t hen can t hey be cert ain t hat followers have a clear fram ework and boundaries for t heir act ions. As Baxt er CEO Harry Kraem er says, t he key t o ensuring t hat followers do t he right t hing is “ open com m unicat ion of values…over and over and over again.” Six W a ys t o Cou n t e r W a yw a r d I n flu e n ce s Leaders can also prot ect t hem selves and t heir com panies by set t ing good exam ples. Followers—especially ingrat iat ors—t end t o m odel t hem selves aft er t heir leaders. Thus, st raight forward leaders are less likely t o be m anipulat ed t han m anipulat ive leaders are. And a leader who is seen t o condone or encourage unet hical behavior will alm ost cert ainly get unet hical behavior in his ranks. Take t he case of form er WorldCom CEO Bernie Ebbers, who allegedly ridiculed at t em pt s t o inst it ut e a corporat e code of conduct as a wast e of t im e even as he pressed his followers t o deliver double- digit growt h. He shouldn’t have been surprised t o find t hat j unior WorldCom execut ives cooked t he books or at least t urned a blind eye when ot hers did. Alt hough com pet ency is generally a good basis on which t o grant followers great er influence, leaders need t o avoid let t ing followers influence t hem based on com pet ency alone. As W. Michael Blum ent hal, form er chairm an and CEO of Unisys, once said, “ When did I m ake m y great est hiring m ist akes? When I put int elligence and energy ahead of m oralit y.” The danger here is t hat ast ut e but unscrupulous followers can find ways of pushing t heir leaders in unet hical direct ions and m ay even use t he leader’s st at ed values against him . Suggest ions like “ I know you like saving m oney, so you’ll love t he idea

of…,” followed by a shady proposal, force leaders int o t he posit ion of having t o choose bet ween eat ing t heir words and accept ing t he proposal. At t he end of t he day, leaders have t o rely on t heir inst inct s about people. Fort unat ely, t here is good news in t his respect . Research by psychologist Robert Zaj onc suggest s t hat we process inform at ion bot h affect ively and cognit ively and t hat we experience our feeling t oward som et hing a split second before we int ellect ualize it . I f leaders are at t ent ive, t herefore, t hey m ay be able t o t une in t o a fleet ing feeling t hat som et hing is not quit e right or t hat t hey are being m anipulat ed before t hey rat ionalize and accept what t hey would be bet t er off rej ect ing. For exam ple, one t act ic favored by m anipulat ive followers is t o creat e a false sense of urgency t o rush t he leader int o an uninform ed decision. Recognizing t hat you’re being pushed t oo fast and reserving j udgm ent for a t im e m ay save you from an act ion you m ay regret . I t ’s not only t he people you delegat e t o t hat you have t o wat ch, it ’s also what you delegat e. Clearly, leaders can never delegat e t heir own responsibilit ies wit hout peril. Sm art leaders underst and t hat even well- int ent ioned followers have t heir own am bit ions and m ay t ry t o usurp t asks t hat properly belong t o t heir leaders. Harry St onecipher, now CEO of Boeing, likes t o point t o t he great polar explorer Ernest Shacklet on as an exam ple of a leader who knew what responsibilit ies he could and couldn’t afford t o delegat e. St randed on an ice pack and crossing 800 m iles of st orm y seas in an open boat , Shacklet on knew t he deadly consequences of dissension and t herefore focused his at t ent ion on preserving his t eam ’s unit y. He was happy t o delegat e m any essent ial t asks t o subordinat es, even put t ing one m an in charge of 22 ot hers at a cam p while he sailed off wit h t he rem ainder of t he crew t o get assist ance. But t he one t ask he reserved for him self was t he m anagem ent of m alcont ent s, whom he kept close by at all t im es. Am azingly, t he ent ire crew survived t he m ore t han 15- m ont h ordeal in fairly good healt h, and eight m em bers even j oined Shacklet on on a subsequent expedit ion.

On e sim ple t e st of w h e t h e r you ’r e ge t t in g t h e fe e dba ck you n e e d is t o cou n t h ow m a n y e m ploye e s ch a lle n ge you a t you r n e x t st a ff m e e t in g. • • • By underst anding how followers are capable of influencing t hem , t op execut ives can im prove t heir leadership skills. They can choose t o lead by st eadfast ly refusing t o fall prey t o m anipulat ive forces and t ry t o guide t he way t oward m ore open and appropriat e com m unicat ions. Followers, for t heir part , can bet t er underst and t heir power t o inappropriat ely influence leaders. Once t hey recognize t he danger t hey pose t o t heir leaders—and ult im at ely t o t hem selves—ingrat iat ors m ay com e t o realize t hat isolat ing leaders from realit y can be as cost ly t o t hem selves as t o t he com pany’s shareholders. Realizing t he value of dissent m ay force followers t o t ake m ore care in form ing and prom ot ing t heir opinions. > | Ex e cu t ive Su m m a r y

Underst anding t hat som e t asks are best left t o a leader m ay help followers t o know where t o st op and leaders t o know what not t o give away. I n t he final analysis, honest followers have j ust as great an invest m ent in unm asking m anipulat ive colleagues as t heir leaders do.

> | Pu r ch a se Re pr in t > | Pr in t a ble Ve r sion > | E- m a il a Colle a gu e

Reprint Num ber R0401E

View Back Issues Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. All right s reserved.

Click here t o visit : > | ht t p: / / www.hbsp.org

When Followers Becom e Toxic Fe w le a de r s r e a lize h ow su sce pt ible t h e y a r e t o t h e ir follow e r s’ in flu e n ce . A good se t of va lu e s, som e t r u st e d fr ie n ds, a n d a lit t le pa r a n oia ca n pr e ve n t t h e m fr om be in g le d a st r a y.

by Lyn n R. Offe r m a n n Lyn n R. Offe r m a n n is a professor of organizat ional sciences and psychology at George Washingt on Universit y in Washingt on, DC, and t he direct or of t he universit y’s doct oral program in indust rial and organizat ional psychology. She can be reached at lr o@gw u .e du .

Douglas MacArt hur once said, “ A general is j ust as good or j ust as bad as t he t roops under his com m and m ake him .” Alm ost as he m ade t hat rem ark, his count ry’s president was proving t he point . For in lat e 1961, John F. Kennedy, bowing t o pressure from his advisers, agreed t o t he escalat ion of Am erican int ervent ion in Viet nam . Am ong t he advisers pressuring him was t he senior aut hor of a report recom m ending m ilit ary int ervent ion. And t hat adviser’s t rust ed friend—an Am erican general—was chosen by t he president t o lead t he new U.S. com m and in Saigon. Given his loyalt ies, t he general want ed t o m ake sure t hings looked good on t he surface, so he st ifled evidence from t he field about pot ent ial set backs and obst acles in Viet nam , m aking it t ough for t he president t o discern t he t rut h. That , according t o aut hor and j ournalist David Halberst am , was how President Kennedy and his advisers led t he Unit ed St at es int o Viet nam . The st ory st arkly illust rat es j ust how easily, and wit h t he best of int ent ions, loyal and able followers can get t heir leaders int o t rouble. I f an accom plished polit ician like Kennedy could be m isled in t his way, it ’s no surprise t hat t oday’s business leaders oft en fall int o t he sam e t rap. No m at t er who we are, we are all influenced by t hose around us. Som e of us are leaders, but we are all followers. I ndeed, Ken Lay, t he disgraced ex- chairm an of Enron, m ay not be ent irely wrong in blam ing unscrupulous subordinat es and advisers for his com pany’s dem ise. As an execut ive coach t o senior leaders in a variet y of indust ries for m ore t han 20 years, I ’ve seen first hand j ust how easily followers can derail execut ive careers. How does it happen? I n t he following pages, I draw bot h on m y experience as a consult ant and execut ive coach and on decades of research in organizat ional psychology t o describe when and why leaders becom e vulnerable t o being led ast ray by t heir followers. I n som e cases, as t he Kennedy st ory illust rat es, effect ive leaders can end up m aking poor decisions because able and well- m eaning followers are unit ed and persuasive about a course of act ion. This is a part icular problem for leaders who at t ract and em power st rong followers; t hese leaders need t o becom e m ore skept ical and set boundaries. At ot her t im es, leaders get int o t rouble because t hey are surrounded by followers who fool t hem wit h flat t ery and isolat e t hem from uncom fort able realit ies. Charism at ic leaders, who are m ost suscept ible t o t his problem , need t o m ake an ext ra effort t o uneart h disagreem ent and t o find followers who are not afraid t o pose hard

quest ions. Charism at ic or not , all leaders run t he risk of delegat ing t o unscrupulous followers. There’s probably lit t le t hey can do t o com plet ely guard against a det erm ined corporat e I ago, but leaders who com m unicat e and live a posit ive set of values will find t hem selves bet t er prot ect ed. W h e n t h e M a j or it y Ru le s Alt hough m any leaders pride t hem selves on t heir willingness t o t ake unpopular st ands, research has consist ent ly dem onst rat ed t hat m ost people—including leaders—prefer conform it y t o cont roversy. And t he pressure t o conform rises wit h t he degree of agreem ent am ong t hose around you. Even if widespread agreem ent doesn’t act ually exist , t he very appearance of it can be hard t o resist .

Pe ople t e n d t o be w h a t psych ologist s ca ll “cogn it ive m ise r s,” pr e fe r r in g t h e sh or t cu t s of a u t om a t ic t h in k in g ove r con side r e d e x a m in a t ion . One of t he m ost st riking pieces of evidence for t his was a series of experim ent s conduct ed in t he 1950s by psychologist Solom on Asch. Asch showed part icipant s a vert ical line and t hen asked t hem t o j udge which of t hree ot her lines was m ost sim ilar in lengt h t o t he t est line. Part icipant s who m ade j udgm ent s on t heir own chose t he correct answer 99% of t he t im e. Yet when ot her part icipant s answered as part of a group in which fake respondent s had been coached t o pick a part icular incorrect line, alm ost t hree- quart ers of t he unknowing part icipant s m ade at least one wrong choice and onet hird of t hem conform ed t o t he group choice half t he t im e. I t ’s wort h not ing t hat t he part icipant s conform ed wit hout any pressure from t he fake respondent s. I ndeed, t he fake respondent s were st rangers whom t he part icipant s were unlikely t o see ever again. I n workplace sit uat ions where cont inued int eract ions are expect ed and where t here m ay be concern about possible loss of face, one would reasonably expect conform it y t o be even m ore m arked. What ’s m ore, m ost business decisions are urgent , com plex, and am biguous, which encourages people t o depend on t he views of ot hers. We should hardly be surprised, t herefore, t o find t hat t he et hical and capable individuals who served on t he boards of com panies like WorldCom and Enron t urned “ int o credulous, com pliant apparat chiks m ore focused on m aint aining collegialit y t han m axim izing long- t erm profit abilit y,” as t he Washingt on Post put it . What happens is t hat leaders faced wit h a unit ed opposit ion can st art t o quest ion t heir own j udgm ent . And t hey should quest ion t hem selves—t he reason t hat unanim it y is such a powerful influencing force is sim ply t hat t he m aj orit y oft en is right . I n general, research shows t hat using social proof—what ot hers t hink or do—t o det erm ine our behavior leads us t o m ake fewer m ist akes t han opposing t he m aj orit y view does. But as even t he sm art est leaders have had t o learn t he hard way, t he m aj orit y can be spect acularly wrong. One reason t hat even well- inform ed expert s so oft en follow t he crowd is t hat people by nat ure t end t o be what psychologist s call “ cognit ive m isers,” preferring t he short cut s of aut om at ic t hinking over considered exam inat ion. These short cut s can help us t o process inform at ion m ore quickly but can also lead t o m onum ent al errors. For inst ance, product designers m ay assum e t hat if t hey like a product , everyone will. Yet t he flop of Dell’s Olym pic line of deskt op and workst at ion com put ers t aught m anagers t here t hat product s m ust appeal t o m ore t han t he com pany’s own t echnically savvy workforce. As Michael Dell put it , “ We had gone ahead and creat ed a product t hat was, for all int ent s and purposes, t echnology for t echnology’s sake rat her t han t echnology for t he cust om er’s sake.”

Cognit ive m iserliness can be reinforced by cult ure. I n t he Unit ed St at es, for inst ance, Am ericans have long t olerat ed—even encouraged—people who form and express quick opinions. I t is not a reflect ive societ y. Am ericans like t o brainst orm and m ove on. That short cut m ent alit y can be part icularly dangerous if t he opinions are present ed publicly, because people will t hen advance t heir views t enaciously. I n such public forum s, it falls t o t he leader t o push followers t o exam ine t heir opinions m ore closely. Alfred P. Sloan, t he form er chairm an of GM, underst ood t his very well. He once said at t he close of an execut ive m eet ing: “ Gent lem en, I t ake it we are all in com plet e agreem ent on t he decision here. I propose we post pone furt her discussion unt il our next m eet ing t o give ourselves t im e t o develop disagreem ent and perhaps gain som e underst anding of what t he decision is all about .” Anot her fact or cont ribut ing t o t he power of t he m aj orit y is t hat leaders worry about underm ining t heir em ployees’ com m it m ent . This is a reasonable concern. Leaders do need t o be careful about spending t heir polit ical capit al, and overruling em ployees one t oo m any t im es can dem ot ivat e t hem . I ndeed, t here are t im es when going along wit h t he m aj orit y t o win com m it m ent is m ore im port ant t han m aking t he “ right ” decision. ( For m ore on when it ’s wise t o go along wit h t he m aj orit y, see t he sidebar “ Joining t he Opposit ion.” ) But ot her t im es, leaders need t o list en inst ead t o t he single, shy voice in t he background, or even t o t heir own int ernal doubt s. As Rosalynn Cart er once said, “ A leader t akes people where t hey want t o go. A great leader t akes people where t hey don’t necessarily want t o go but ought t o be.” I n going against t he t ide, t he leader will som et im es boost rat her t han underm ine his or her credibilit y. Join in g t h e Opposit ion Sidebar R0 4 0 1 E_ A (Locat ed at t he end of t his art icle)

Foole d by Fla t t e r y Being swept along by t heir followers isn’t t he only form of influence t hat leaders need t o be wary of. Som et im es, follower influence t akes t he subt ler and gent ler form of ingrat iat ion. Most people learn very early in life t hat a good way t o get people t o like you is t o show t hat you like t hem . Flat t ery, favors, and frequent com plim ent s all t end t o win people over. Leaders, nat urally, like t hose who like t hem and are m ore apt t o let t hose t hey are fond of influence t hem . For t heir part , followers t hink t hat being on t he boss’s good side gives t hem som e m easure of j ob securit y. To an ext ent , t hey’re probably right ; even a recent Forbes guide t o surviving office part ies recom m ends: “ Try t o ingrat iat e yourself. I n t his m arket , people are hired and kept at t heir com panies for t heir personal skills.” I ndeed, a recent st udy indicat ed t hat successful ingrat iat ors gained a 5% edge over ot her em ployees in perform ance evaluat ions. This kind of m argin by it self won’t get som eone ahead, but in a com pet it ive m arket , it m ight well t ip t he scale t oward one of t wo people up for a prom ot ion. Everyone loves a sincere com plim ent , but t hose who already t hink highly of t hem selves are m ost suscept ible t o flat t ery’s charm s. I n part icular, leaders predisposed t oward narcissism m ay find t heir narcissist ic t endencies pushed t o unhealt hy levels when t hey are given heavy doses of follower ingrat iat ion. Grat uit ous ingrat iat ion can creat e a subt le shift in a leader’s at t it ude t oward power. I nst ead of viewing power as som et hing t o be used in t he service of t he organizat ion, client s, and st akeholders, t he leader t reat s it as a t ool t o furt her personal int erest s, som et im es at t he expense of ot hers in and out side t he

organizat ion. This happens as a leader st art s t o t ruly believe his press and com es t o feel m ore ent it led t o privileges t han ot hers. People oft en cit e Jack Welch’s ret irem ent deal as an exam ple of execut ive ent it lem ent gone haywire. The result ing furor drew public scorn for a longst anding corporat e icon. But one of t he m ost serious problem s for leaders who invit e flat t ery is t hat t hey insulat e t hem selves from t he bad news t hey need t o know. I n her m em oir, Nancy Reagan relat es how t hen–Vice President George Bush approached her wit h concerns about Chief of St aff Donald Regan. Mrs. Reagan said she wished he’d t ell her husband, but Bush replied t hat it was not his role t o do so. “ That ’s exact ly your role,” she snapped. Yet followers who have wit nessed t he killing of previous m essengers of unwelcom e news will be unlikely t o volunt eer for t he role. Sam uel Goldwyn’s words resonat e st rongly: “ I want you t o t ell m e exact ly what ’s wrong wit h m e and wit h MGM even if it m eans losing your j ob.” As m ore st aff ingrat iat e or hold back crit icism , t he percept ion of st aff unanim it y, oft en at t he expense of t he organizat ion’s healt h, increases as well. The rare individual who won’t j oin an ingrat iat ing inner circle of followers is t ypically seen as a bad apple by bot h t he leader and her peers. Even when t his percept ion problem is acknowledged, it is t ough t o fix. Despit e widespread publicit y aft er t he 1986 space shut t le Challenger disast er about t he dangers of failing t o at t end t o negat ive news, NASA is once again facing charges of having downplayed possible lift off problem s j ust before t he Colum bia disast er. I n bot h cases, engineers allegedly did not inform senior NASA execut ives of safet y concerns; t hey eit her wit hheld inform at ion or present ed it in ways t hat dim inished it s im port ance or feasibilit y. Obviously, t his t endency t o wit hhold inform at ion is not lim it ed t o governm ent agencies. Bill Ford, t he new CEO of Ford Mot or Com pany, believes t hat isolat ion at t he t op has been a big problem at Ford—a problem he has spent considerable t im e t rying t o rect ify by a variet y of m eans, including forcing debat e and discussion am ong execut ives and having inform al, im prom pt u discussions wit h em ployees at all levels. I n dealing wit h ingrat iat ion, leaders need t o begin by reflect ing on how t hey respond t o bot h flat t ery and crit icism . I n considering a follower’s advice or opinion, ask yourself if you would respond different ly if a st aff m em ber you disliked m ade t he sam e com m ent , and why. Are followers really free t o voice t heir honest assessm ent s, or are t hey j um ped on whenever t hey deviat e from your opinions? Bill Ford m akes a point of t hanking people whom he has overruled because he want s t hem t o know t hat t heir honest y is appreciat ed. One sim ple t est of whet her you’re get t ing t he feedback you need is t o count how m any em ployees challenge you at your next st aff m eet ing. As St even Kerr, chief learning officer of Goldm an Sachs, says: “ I f you’re not t aking flak, you’re not over t he t arget .” Organizat ional m echanism s can also help. Great er exposure t o ext ernal feedback from client s, well- run 360- degree feedback program s, and execut ive coaching m ay be m ore likely t o reveal t he full t rut h. I t ’s hard t o lead from a pedest al; open channels of com m unicat ion can keep a leader far bet t er grounded. For honest feedback, som e CEOs rely on longt im e associat es or fam ily m em bers, people who m ay even t ake pleasure at t im es in let t ing som e of t he air out of t he execut ive’s balloon. ( Your t eenage children m ight part icularly enj oy t his, t hough t hey m ight not have as m uch insight int o your business) . Bill Gat es, for inst ance, has said t hat he t alks t o his wife, Melinda, every night about work- relat ed issues. I n part icular, he credit s her wit h helping him handle t he t ransit ion period when he t urned over t he Microsoft CEO t it le t o his old friend St eve Ballm er. Ballm er, t oo, has been one of Gat es’s closest advisers. Gat es says of t his peer relat ionship wit h Ballm er: “ I t ’s im port ant t o have som eone whom you t ot ally t rust , who is t ot ally com m it t ed, who shares your vision, and yet who has a

lit t le bit different set of skills and who also act s as som et hing of a check on you.” And Gat es’s well- known friendship wit h fellow billionaire and bridge buddy Warren Buffet t serves as a sounding board for bot h m en. Disney’s Michael Eisner had a sim ilar relat ionship wit h Frank Wells, unt il Wells’s deat h in 1994, wit h Wells enj oying t he role of devil’s advocat e, challenging Eisner t o ensure t hat t he best decisions got m ade. I n his book You’re Too Kind, j ournalist Richard St engel gives an account of flat t ery t hrough t he ages, not ing t hat “ t he hist ory of how m inist ers have used flat t ery t o cont rol leaders did not begin wit h Henry Kissinger’s relent less and unct uous t oadying t o Richard Nixon…. Cardinal Richelieu was a fam ous user of flat t ery…and he was a fam ous sucker for it him self.” St engel argues t hat corporat e VPs who suck up t o t heir bosses are no different t han t he less powerful chim panzees who subordinat e t hem selves t o m ore powerful ones in t he anim al world. Though it m ay feel great at t he t im e, st roking a leader’s ego t oo m uch, and prot ect ing him or her from needed inform at ion, can have negat ive consequences for bot h t he leader and t he organizat ion. I t ’s wort h rem em bering t he words of cart oonist Hank Ket chum : “ Flat t ery is like chewing gum . Enj oy it , but don’t swallow it .”

I t ’s w or t h r e m e m be r in g t h e w or ds of ca r t oon ist H a n k Ke t ch u m : “Fla t t e r y is lik e ch e w in g gu m . En j oy it , bu t don ’t sw a llow it .” Pow e r s Be h in d t h e Th r on e Caught bet ween t he Scylla of follower unanim it y and t he Charybdis of flat t ery, leaders m ight be t em pt ed t o keep t heir followers at a dist ance. But in t oday’s world, t his is sim ply not an opt ion. CEOs of m aj or firm s cannot know everyt hing about t heir own organizat ions. I n coaching senior execut ives, I oft en hear t hem lam ent ing t hat t hey don’t have full knowledge of what ’s happening in t heir com panies. They report sleepless night s because t hey’ve been forced t o m ake decisions based on incom plet e inform at ion. They m ust rely on ot hers for full, accurat e, and unbiased input as well as for m any operat ional decisions. From t he follower’s point of view, t his present s wonderful opport unit ies. He can learn and pract ice new skills as t he leader relies on him m ore and m ore, and he m ay be present ed wit h new opport unit ies for advancem ent and reward. At t he sam e t im e, however, it opens t he door for t he occasional follower who uses his newfound power t o serve his own int erest s m ore t han t he com pany’s. So how can leaders guard against t hat problem ? They can begin by keeping et hical values and corporat e vision front and cent er when delegat ing and m onit oring work. Only t hen can t hey be cert ain t hat followers have a clear fram ework and boundaries for t heir act ions. As Baxt er CEO Harry Kraem er says, t he key t o ensuring t hat followers do t he right t hing is “ open com m unicat ion of values…over and over and over again.” Six W a ys t o Cou n t e r W a yw a r d I n flu e n ce s Sidebar R0 4 0 1 E_ B (Locat ed at t he end of t his art icle)

Leaders can also prot ect t hem selves and t heir com panies by set t ing good exam ples. Followers—especially ingrat iat ors—t end t o m odel t hem selves aft er t heir leaders. Thus, st raight forward leaders are less likely t o be m anipulat ed t han m anipulat ive leaders are. And a leader who is seen t o condone or encourage unet hical behavior will alm ost cert ainly get unet hical behavior in his ranks. Take t he case of form er WorldCom CEO

Bernie Ebbers, who allegedly ridiculed at t em pt s t o inst it ut e a corporat e code of conduct as a wast e of t im e even as he pressed his followers t o deliver double- digit growt h. He shouldn’t have been surprised t o find t hat j unior WorldCom execut ives cooked t he books or at least t urned a blind eye when ot hers did. Alt hough com pet ency is generally a good basis on which t o grant followers great er influence, leaders need t o avoid let t ing followers influence t hem based on com pet ency alone. As W. Michael Blum ent hal, form er chairm an and CEO of Unisys, once said, “ When did I m ake m y great est hiring m ist akes? When I put int elligence and energy ahead of m oralit y.” The danger here is t hat ast ut e but unscrupulous followers can find ways of pushing t heir leaders in unet hical direct ions and m ay even use t he leader’s st at ed values against him . Suggest ions like “ I know you like saving m oney, so you’ll love t he idea of…,” followed by a shady proposal, force leaders int o t he posit ion of having t o choose bet ween eat ing t heir words and accept ing t he proposal. At t he end of t he day, leaders have t o rely on t heir inst inct s about people. Fort unat ely, t here is good news in t his respect . Research by psychologist Robert Zaj onc suggest s t hat we process inform at ion bot h affect ively and cognit ively and t hat we experience our feeling t oward som et hing a split second before we int ellect ualize it . I f leaders are at t ent ive, t herefore, t hey m ay be able t o t une in t o a fleet ing feeling t hat som et hing is not quit e right or t hat t hey are being m anipulat ed before t hey rat ionalize and accept what t hey would be bet t er off rej ect ing. For exam ple, one t act ic favored by m anipulat ive followers is t o creat e a false sense of urgency t o rush t he leader int o an uninform ed decision. Recognizing t hat you’re being pushed t oo fast and reserving j udgm ent for a t im e m ay save you from an act ion you m ay regret . I t ’s not only t he people you delegat e t o t hat you have t o wat ch, it ’s also what you delegat e. Clearly, leaders can never delegat e t heir own responsibilit ies wit hout peril. Sm art leaders underst and t hat even well- int ent ioned followers have t heir own am bit ions and m ay t ry t o usurp t asks t hat properly belong t o t heir leaders. Harry St onecipher, now CEO of Boeing, likes t o point t o t he great polar explorer Ernest Shacklet on as an exam ple of a leader who knew what responsibilit ies he could and couldn’t afford t o delegat e. St randed on an ice pack and crossing 800 m iles of st orm y seas in an open boat , Shacklet on knew t he deadly consequences of dissension and t herefore focused his at t ent ion on preserving his t eam ’s unit y. He was happy t o delegat e m any essent ial t asks t o subordinat es, even put t ing one m an in charge of 22 ot hers at a cam p while he sailed off wit h t he rem ainder of t he crew t o get assist ance. But t he one t ask he reserved for him self was t he m anagem ent of m alcont ent s, whom he kept close by at all t im es. Am azingly, t he ent ire crew survived t he m ore t han 15- m ont h ordeal in fairly good healt h, and eight m em bers even j oined Shacklet on on a subsequent expedit ion.

On e sim ple t e st of w h e t h e r you ’r e ge t t in g t h e fe e dba ck you n e e d is t o cou n t h ow m a n y e m ploye e s ch a lle n ge you a t you r n e x t st a ff m e e t in g. • • • By underst anding how followers are capable of influencing t hem , t op execut ives can im prove t heir leadership skills. They can choose t o lead by st eadfast ly refusing t o fall prey t o m anipulat ive forces and t ry t o guide t he way t oward m ore open and appropriat e com m unicat ions. Followers, for t heir part , can bet t er underst and t heir power t o inappropriat ely influence leaders. Once t hey recognize t he danger t hey pose t o t heir leaders—and ult im at ely t o

t hem selves—ingrat iat ors m ay com e t o realize t hat isolat ing leaders from realit y can be as cost ly t o t hem selves as t o t he com pany’s shareholders. Realizing t he value of dissent m ay force followers t o t ake m ore care in form ing and prom ot ing t heir opinions. Underst anding t hat som e t asks are best left t o a leader m ay help followers t o know where t o st op and leaders t o know what not t o give away. I n t he final analysis, honest followers have j ust as great an invest m ent in unm asking m anipulat ive colleagues as t heir leaders do.

Reprint Num ber R0401E

Join in g t h e Opposit ion

Sidebar R0 4 0 1 E_ A

The leader who aut om at ically rej ect s his followers’ opinions can be as unwise as one who unt hinkingly goes along wit h t hem . I n fact , t here are t im es when it is advisable t o go along wit h followers who are plainly wrong. A senior execut ive in t he healt h care field recent ly faced a unit ed front of followers in an acquired facilit y. The followers want ed t he execut ive t o ret ain a popular m anager despit e an out side consult ant ’s report t hat st rongly recom m ended t he m anager’s dism issal. St aff m em bers felt t hat t he m anager had been wrongly blam ed for t he unit ’s problem s and t hat t he unit had been m ishandled, underfunded, and generally “ done in” by previous m anagem ent . Alt hough t he senior execut ive was under pressure from her COO t o dism iss t he m anager, she chose t o keep and support him —and wat ch carefully. By choosing t his course, t he execut ive won t he support and confidence of hundreds of em ployees who saw procedural j ust ice in her willingness t o give t he m anager a chance. Wit h t he full support of her st aff, t he execut ive t hen went on t o lead a t urnaround of t he facilit y in short order, exceeding t he COO’s expect at ions. I ndeed, t he execut ive built so m uch credibilit y t hrough her act ions t hat she was event ually able t o dism iss t he m anager, wit h t he st aff underst anding t hat he had had a fair chance but had failed. The execut ive recognized not only t he unanim it y of em ployees but also t he im port ance of winning t heir buy in and com m it m ent . She chose, int ent ionally, t o defer t o t he st aff’s wishes in order t o dem onst rat e her fairness and openness. Aft er all, t he em ployees could have been correct in t heir assessm ent . Even t hough t hat didn’t t urn out t o be t he case, t he leader’s considered decision t o go along wit h her report s likely result ed in a bet t er out com e t han if she had sum m arily rej ect ed t heir opinions.

Six W a ys t o Cou n t e r W a yw a r d I n flu e n ce s

Sidebar R0 4 0 1 E_ B

There’s no guarant eed m eans of ensuring t hat you won’t be m isled by your followers. But adhering t o t hese principles m ay help. 1 . Ke e p vision a n d va lu e s fr on t a n d ce n t e r . I t ’s m uch easier t o get sidet racked when you’re unclear about what t he m ain t rack is. 2 . M a k e su r e pe ople disa gr e e . Rem em ber t hat m ost of us form opinions t oo quickly and give t hem up t oo slowly. 3 . Cu lt iva t e t r u t h t e lle r s. Make sure t here are people in your world you can t rust t o t ell you what you need t o hear, no m at t er how unpopular or unpalat able it is. 4 . D o a s you w ou ld h a ve don e t o you . Followers look t o what you do rat her t han what you say. Set a good et hical clim at e for your t eam t o be sure your followers have clear boundaries for t heir act ions. 5 . H on or you r in t u it ion . I f you t hink you’re being m anipulat ed, you’re probably right . 6 . D e le ga t e , don ’t de se r t . I t ’s im port ant t o share cont rol and em power your st aff, but rem em ber who’s ult im at ely responsible for t he out com e. As t hey say in polit ics, “ Trust , but verify.”

Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. This cont ent m ay not be reproduced or t ransm it t ed in any form or by any m eans, elect ronic or m echanical, including phot ocopy, recording, or any inform at ion st orage or ret rieval syst em , wit hout writ t en perm ission. Request s for perm ission should be direct ed t o perm [email protected], 1- 888- 500- 1020, or m ailed t o Perm issions, Harvard Business School Publishing, 60 Harvard Way, Bost on, MA 02163.

Click here t o visit :

View Back Issues | January 2004 > Execut ive Sum m aries

> | Pr in t a ble Ve r sion > | E- m a il a Colle a gu e

Execut ive Sum m aries

Ja n u a r y 2 0 0 4

H BR Ca se St u dy Le ft on a M ou n t a in side

Julia Kirby Reprint R0401A > | Read Ent ire Art icle

> | Purchase Reprint

Ed Davidson is on t op of t he world, lit erally and figurat ively, at t he beginning of t his fict ional case st udy. He’s in t he Swiss Alps, headed for Davos and his first experience as a delegat e t o t he World Econom ic Forum ’s annual conference. And he has reason t o believe he is about t o be m ade president of his com pany, Carst on Wait e—and t herefore heir apparent t o t he CEO posit ion. Then his phone rings. I t ’s his m ent or, Frank Maugham , t he CFO and a board m em ber at Carst on Wait e, calling t o inform him of a m aj or set back. “ David asked m e t o let you know you are not going t o be nam ed president ,” he says. “ At least not yet . He want s t o st ay close t o t he business.” But Frank has a plan t o change t he CEO’s m ind. Meanwhile, Ed feels bet rayed and hum iliat ed—and his desire for revenge against t he CEO m ount s. When t he news com es t hat Frank’s plan has failed and has cost Frank his j ob, Ed is already deep in a plot of his own. He’s in Davos because David had t o back out ; Ed is supposed t o deliver t he CEO’s rem arks in his st ead. But why not use t his opport unit y on t he world st age inst ead t o deal a part ing blow? A psychoanalyst , a psychiat rist , an execut ive coach, and a governance expert com m ent on Ed’s st at e of m ind and his best course of act ion. They are Kennet h Eisold, t he president of t he I nt ernat ional Societ y for t he Psychoanalyt ic St udy of Organizat ions; Dee Soder, t he founder and m anaging part ner of t he CEO Perspect ive Group; Jeffrey P. Kahn, t he CEO of WorkPsych Associat es; and Charles M. Elson, t he Edgar S. Woolard, Jr., Chair of Corporat e Governance at t he Universit y of Delaware.

Voice s Le a din g by Fe e l Reprint R0401B > | Read Ent ire Art icle

> | Purchase Reprint

Like it or not , leaders need t o m anage t he m ood of t heir organizat ions. The m ost gift ed leaders accom plish t hat by using a m yst erious blend of psychological abilit ies known as em ot ional int elligence. They are self- aware and em pat het ic. They can read and regulat e t heir own em ot ions while int uit ively grasping how ot hers feel and gauging t heir organizat ion’s em ot ional st at e. But where does em ot ional int elligence com e from , and how do leaders learn t o use it ? I n t his art icle, 18 leaders and scholars ( including business execut ives, leadership researchers, psychologist s, an aut ism expert , and a sym phony conduct or) explore t he nat ure and m anagem ent of em ot ional int elligence—it s sources, uses, and abuses. Their responses varied, but som e com m on t hem es em erged: t he im port ance of consciously— and conscient iously—honing one’s skills, t he double- edged nat ure of self- awareness, and t he danger of let t ing any one em ot ional int elligence skill dom inat e. Am ong t heir observat ions: Psychology professor John Mayer, who codeveloped t he concept of em ot ional int elligence, warns m anagers not t o be confused by popular definit ions of t he t erm , which suggest t hat if you have a cert ain set of personalit y t rait s t hen you aut om at ically possess em ot ional int elligence. Neuropsychologist Elkhonon Goldberg agrees wit h

Com in g in Fe br u a r y 2 0 0 4 M e a su r in g t h e St r a t e gic Re a din e ss of I n t a n gible Asse t s Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Nort on W or se Th a n En e m ie s: Th e CEO’s D e st r u ct ive Con fida n t Kerry J. Sulkowicz Ge t t in g I T Righ t Charlie S. Feld and Donna B. St oddard

H a r va r d Bu sin e ss Re vie w On Poin t a r t icle s a n d colle ct ion s Many art icles are available in H a r va r d Bu sin e ss Re vie w e n h a n ce d On Poin t e dit ion s, which include a sum m ary of key point s t o help you quickly absorb and apply t he concept s, t he full- t ext art icle, and a bibliography t o guide furt her explorat ion. Specially priced H a r va r d Bu sin e ss Re vie w On Poin t colle ct ion s include t hree OnPoint art icles wit h an overview com paring different perspect ives on a t opic.

professors Daniel Golem an and Robert Goffee t hat em ot ional int elligence can be learned —but only by people who already show an apt it ude for it . Cult expert Janj a Lalich point s out t hat leaders can use t heir em ot ional int elligence skills for ill in t he sam e way t hey can for good. “ Som et im es t he only difference is [ t he leader’s] int ent ,” she says. And business leaders Carol Bart z, William George, Sidney Harm an, and Andrea Jung ( of Aut odesk, Medt ronic, Harm an I nt ernat ional, and Avon respect ively) describe sit uat ions in which em ot ional int elligence t rait s such as self- awareness and em pat hy have helped t hem and t heir com panies perform at a higher level.

Th in k in g Abou t … Le a de r sh ip—W a r t s a n d All

Barbara Kellerm an Reprint R0401C > | Read Ent ire Art icle

> | Purchase Reprint

Does using Tyco’s funds t o purchase a $6,000 shower curt ain and a $15,000 dog- shaped um brella st and m ake Dennis Kozlowski a bad leader? I s Mart ha St ewart ’s career any less inst ruct ive because she m ay have sold som e shares on t he basis of a t ip- off? I s leadership synonym ous wit h m oral leadership? Before 1970, t he answer from m ost leadership t heorist s would cert ainly have been no. Look at Hit ler, St alin, Pol Pot , Mao Tse- t ung—great leaders all, but hardly good m en. I n fact , capricious, m urderous, high- handed, corrupt , and evil leaders are effect ive and com m onplace. Machiavelli celebrat ed t hem ; t he U.S. const it ut ion built in safeguards against t hem . Everywhere, power goes hand in hand wit h corrupt ion—everywhere, t hat is, except in t he lit erat ure of business leadership. To read Tom Pet ers, Jay Conger, John Kot t er, and m ost of t heir colleagues, leaders are, as Warren Bennis put s it , individuals who creat e shared m eaning, have a dist inct ive voice, have t he capacit y t o adapt , and have int egrit y. According t o t oday’s business lit erat ure, t o be a leader is, by definit ion, t o be benevolent . But leadership is not a m oral concept , and it is high t im e we acknowledge t hat fact . We have as m uch t o learn from t hose we would regard as bad exam ples as we do from t he far fewer good exam ples we’re present ed wit h t hese days. Leaders are like t he rest of us: t rust wort hy and deceit ful, cowardly and brave, greedy and generous. To assum e t hat all good leaders are good people is t o be willfully blind t o t he realit y of t he hum an condit ion, and it severely lim it s our abilit y t o becom e bet t er leaders. Worse, it m ay cause senior execut ives t o t hink t hat , because t hey are leaders, t hey are never deceit ful, cowardly, or greedy. That way lies disast er. For inform at ion on an audio conference wit h Barbara Kellerm an based on t he concept s in t his art icle, visit ht t p: / / conferences.harvardbusinessonline.org .

Fe a t u r e s Th e Se ve n Age s of t h e Le a de r

Warren G. Bennis Reprint R0401D > | Read Ent ire Art icle

> | Purchase Reprint

Leaders go t hrough m any t ransit ions in t heir careers. Each brings new crises and challenges—from t aking over a dam aged organizat ion t o having t o fire som ebody t o passing t he bat on t o t he next generat ion. These m om ent s can be wrenching—and can t hreat en your confidence—but t hey’re also predict able. Knowing what t o expect can help you get t hrough and perhaps em erge st ronger. I n t his engaging art icle, Warren G. Bennis, professor and founding chairm an of t he Universit y of Sout hern California’s Leadership I nst it ut e, reflect s on leadership, recount ing his own experiences as a young lieut enant in t he infant ry in World War I I , as t he new president of a universit y, and as t he m ent or t o a unique nursing st udent . Bennis also describes t he experiences of ot her leaders he has known t hroughout his career. Drawing on m ore t han 50 years of academ ic research and business expert ise—and borrowing from Shakespeare’s seven ages of m an—Bennis says t he leader’s life unfolds

in seven st ages. “ The infant execut ive” seeks t o recruit a m ent or for guidance. “ The schoolboy” m ust learn how t o do t he j ob in public, subj ect ed t o unset t ling scrut iny of every word and act . “ The lover wit h a woeful ballad” st ruggles wit h t he t sunam i of problem s every organizat ion present s. “ The bearded soldier” m ust be willing—even eager —t o hire people bet t er t han he is, because he knows t hat t alent ed underlings can help him shine. “ The general” m ust becom e adept at not sim ply allowing people t o speak t he t rut h but at act ually being able t o hear what t hey are saying. “ The st at esm an” is hard at work preparing t o pass on wisdom in t he int erest s of t he organizat ion. And, finally, “ t he sage” em braces t he role of m ent or t o young execut ives. For inform at ion on an audio conference wit h Warren Bennis based on t he concept s in t his art icle, visit ht t p: / / conferences.harvardbusinessonline.org.

W h e n Follow e r s Be com e Tox ic

Lynn R. Offerm ann Reprint R0401E > | Read Ent ire Art icle

> | Purchase Reprint

Leaders are vulnerable, t oo. That is, t hey can be led ast ray j ust as t heir followers can— act ually, by t heir followers. This happens in a variet y of ways. Som et im es, good leaders end up m aking poor decisions because well- m eaning followers are unit ed and persuasive about a course of act ion. This is a part icular problem for leaders who at t ract and em power st rong followers. These execut ives need t o becom e m ore skept ical of t he m aj orit y view and push followers t o exam ine t heir opinions m ore closely. At ot her t im es, leaders get int o t rouble because t hey are surrounded by followers who fool t hem wit h flat t ery and isolat e t hem from uncom fort able realit ies. Charism at ic leaders, who are m ost suscept ible t o t his problem , need t o m ake an ext ra effort t o uneart h disagreem ent and t o find followers who are not afraid t o pose hard quest ions. Organizat ional m echanism s like 360- degree feedback and execut ive coaching can help t hese leaders get at t he t rut h wit hin t heir com panies. Finally, unscrupulous and am bit ious followers m ay end up encroaching on t he aut horit y of t he leader t o such an ext ent t hat t he leader becom es lit t le m ore t han a figurehead who has responsibilit y but no power. There’s not m uch leaders can do t o com plet ely guard against a det erm ined corporat e I ago, but t hose who com m unicat e and live by a posit ive set of values will find t hem selves bet t er prot ect ed. And since followers t end t o m odel t hem selves aft er t heir leaders, t he st raight forward leader is less likely t o have m anipulat ive followers. I n t his art icle, George Washingt on Universit y professor Lynn Offerm ann explores each of t hese dynam ics in dept h, arguing t hat leaders need t o st ir debat e, look for friends who can deliver bad news, and com m unicat e and act on a solid set of values.

H BR I n t e r vie w Pu t t in g Le a de r s on t h e Cou ch : A Con ve r sa t ion w it h M a n fr e d F.R. Ke t s de Vr ie s

Diane L. Cout u Reprint R0401F > | Read Ent ire Art icle

> | Purchase Reprint

Much of t he business lit erat ure on leadership st art s wit h t he assum pt ion t hat leaders are rat ional beings. But irrat ionalit y is int egral t o hum an nat ure, and inner conflict oft en cont ribut es t o t he drive t o succeed. Alt hough a num ber of business scholars have explored t he psychology of execut ives, Manfred F.R. Ket s de Vries has m ade t he analysis of CEOs his life’s work. I n t his art icle, Ket s de Vries, a psychoanalyst , aut hor, and I nsead professor, draws on t hree decades of st udy t o describe t he psychological profile of successful CEOs. He explores senior execut ives’ vulnerabilit ies, which are oft en int ensified by followers’ at t em pt s t o m anipulat e t heir leaders. Leaders, he says, have an uncanny abilit y t o awaken t ransferent ial processes—in which people t ransfer t he dynam ics of past relat ionships ont o present int eract ions—am ong t heir em ployees and even in t hem selves. These processes can present t hem selves in a num ber of ways, som et im es negat ively. What ’s m ore, m any t op execut ives, being m iddle- aged, suffer from depression. Midlife

prom pt s a reappraisal of career ident it y, and by t he t im e a leader is a CEO, an exist ent ial crisis is oft en im m inent . This can happen wit h anyone, but t he probabilit y is higher wit h CEOs and senior execut ives because so m any have devot ed t hem selves exclusively t o work. Not all CEOs are psychologically unhealt hy, of course. Healt hy leaders are t alent ed in self- observat ion and self- analysis, Ket s de Vries says. The best are highly m ot ivat ed t o spend t im e on self- reflect ion. Their lives are in balance, t hey can play, t hey are creat ive and invent ive, and t hey have t he capacit y t o be nonconform ist . “ Those who accept t he m adness in t hem selves m ay be t he healt hiest leaders of all,” he concludes.

Be st of H BR M a n a ge r s a n d Le a de r s: Ar e Th e y D iffe r e n t ?

Abraham Zaleznik Reprint R0401G; Harvard Business Review OnPoint edit ion 8334; Harvard Business Review OnPoint collect ion 5402 “ Your Best Managers Lead and Manage” > | Read Ent ire Art icle > | Purchase Reprint > | Purchase Harvard Business Review OnPoint edit ion > | Purchase Harvard Business Review OnPoint collect ion

Managers and leaders are t wo very different t ypes of people. Managers’ goals arise out of necessit ies rat her t han desires; t hey excel at defusing conflict s bet ween individuals or depart m ent s, placat ing all sides while ensuring t hat an organizat ion’s day- t o- day business get s done. Leaders, on t he ot her hand, adopt personal, act ive at t it udes t oward goals. They look for t he opport unit ies and rewards t hat lie around t he corner, inspiring subordinat es and firing up t he creat ive process wit h t heir own energy. Their relat ionships wit h em ployees and coworkers are int ense, and t heir working environm ent is oft en chaot ic. I n t his art icle, first published in 1977, t he aut hor argues t hat businesses need bot h m anagers and leaders t o survive and succeed. But in t he larger U.S. organizat ions of t hat t im e, a “ m anagerial m yst ique” seem ed t o perpet uat e t he developm ent of m anagerial personalit ies—people who rely on, and st rive t o m aint ain, orderly work pat t erns. The m anagerial power et hic favors collect ive leadership and seeks t o avoid risk. That sam e m anagerial m yst ique can st ifle leaders’ developm ent —How can an ent repreneurial spirit develop when it is subm erged in a conservat ive environm ent and denied personal at t ent ion? Ment or relat ionships are crucial t o t he developm ent of leadership personalit ies, but in large, bureaucrat ic organizat ions, such relat ionships are not encouraged. Businesses m ust find ways t o t rain good m anagers and develop leaders at t he sam e t im e. Wit hout a solid organizat ional fram ework, even leaders wit h t he m ost brilliant ideas m ay spin t heir wheels, frust rat ing coworkers and accom plishing lit t le. But wit hout t he ent repreneurial cult ure t hat develops when a leader is at t he helm of an organizat ion, a business will st agnat e and rapidly lose com pet it ive power.

W h a t M a k e s a Le a de r ?

Daniel Golem an Reprint R0401H; Harvard Business Review OnPoint edit ion 3790; Harvard Business Review OnPoint collect ion 8156 “ Best of HBR on Leadership: Em ot ionally I nt elligent Leadership” > | Read Ent ire Art icle > | Purchase Reprint > | Purchase Harvard Business Review OnPoint edit ion > | Purchase Harvard Business Review OnPoint collect ion

When asked t o define t he ideal leader, m any would em phasize t rait s such as int elligence, t oughness, det erm inat ion, and vision—t he qualit ies t radit ionally associat ed wit h leadership. Such skills and sm art s are necessary but insufficient qualit ies for t he leader. Oft en left off t he list are soft er, m ore personal qualit ies—but t hey are also essent ial. Alt hough a cert ain degree of analyt ical and t echnical skill is a m inim um requirem ent for success, st udies indicat e t hat em ot ional int elligence m ay be t he key at t ribut e t hat dist inguishes out st anding perform ers from t hose who are m erely adequat e. Psychologist and aut hor Daniel Golem an first brought t he t erm “ em ot ional int elligence” t o a wide audience wit h his 1995 book of t he sam e nam e, and Golem an first applied t he concept t o business wit h t his 1998 classic HBR art icle. I n his research at nearly 200 large, global com panies, Golem an found t hat t ruly effect ive leaders are dist inguished by a high degree of em ot ional int elligence. Wit hout it , a person can have first - class t raining,

an incisive m ind, and an endless supply of good ideas, but he st ill won’t be a great leader. The chief com ponent s of em ot ional int elligence—self- awareness, self- regulat ion, m ot ivat ion, em pat hy, and social skill—can sound unbusinesslike, but Golem an, cochair of t he Consort ium for Research on Em ot ional I nt elligence in Organizat ions, based at Rut gers Universit y, found direct t ies bet ween em ot ional int elligence and m easurable business result s. The not ion of em ot ional int elligence and it s relevance t o business has cont inued t o spark debat e over t he past six years, but Golem an’s art icle rem ains t he definit ive reference on t he subj ect , wit h a det ailed discussion of each com ponent of em ot ional int elligence, how t o recognize it in pot ent ial leaders, how and why it connect s t o perform ance, and how it can be learned.

N a r cissist ic Le a de r s: Th e I n cr e dible Pr os, t h e I n e vit a ble Con s

Michael Maccoby Reprint R0401J; Harvard Business Review OnPoint edit ion 5904; Harvard Business Review OnPoint collect ion 5070 “ Ego Makes t he Leader, 2nd Edit ion” > | Read Ent ire Art icle > | Purchase Reprint > | Purchase Harvard Business Review OnPoint edit ion > | Purchase Harvard Business Review OnPoint collect ion

I n t he wint er of 2000, at t he height of t he dot - com boom , business leaders posed for t he covers of Tim e, BusinessWeek, and t he Econom ist wit h t he aplom b and confidence of rock st ars. These were a different breed from t heir count erpart s of j ust t en or 20 years before, who shunned t he press and whose com m ent s were carefully craft ed by corporat e PR depart m ent s. Such love of t he lim elight oft en st em s from what Freud called a narcissist ic personalit y, says psychoanalyst and ant hropologist Michael Maccoby in t his HBR classic first published in t he January–February 2000 issue. Narcissist s are good for com panies in ext raordinary t im es, t hose t hat need people wit h t he passion and daring t o t ake t hem in new direct ions. But narcissist s can also lead com panies int o disast er by refusing t o list en t o t he advice and warnings of t heir m anagers. I t ’s not always t rue, as Andy Grove fam ously put it , t hat only t he paranoid survive. Most business advice is focused on t he m ore analyt ic personalit y t hat obsessive. But recom m endat ions about creat ing t eam work and being subordinat es will not resonat e wit h narcissist s. They didn’t get where list ening t o ot hers, so why should t hey list en t o anyone when t hey’re gam e?

Freud labeled m ore recept ive t o t hey are by at t he t op of t heir

Narcissist s who want t o overcom e t he lim it s of t heir personalit ies m ust work as hard at t hat as t hey do at business success. One solut ion is t o find a t rust ed sidekick, who can point out t he operat ional requirem ent s of t he narcissist ic leader’s oft en overly grandiose vision and keep him root ed in realit y. Anot her is t o t ake a leap of fait h and go int o psychoanalysis, which can give t hese leaders t he t ools t o overcom e t heir som et im es fat al charact er flaws.

Un de r st a n din g Le a de r sh ip

W.C.H. Prent ice Reprint R0401K > | Read Ent ire Art icle

> | Purchase Reprint

The would- be analyst of leadership usually st udies popularit y, power, showm anship, or wisdom in long- range planning. But none of t hese qualit ies is t he essence of leadership. Leadership is t he accom plishm ent of a goal t hrough t he direct ion of hum an assist ant s—a hum an and social achievem ent t hat st em s from t he leader’s underst anding of his or her fellow workers and t he relat ionship of t heir individual goals t o t he group’s aim . To be successful, leaders m ust learn t wo basic lessons: People are com plex, and people are different . Hum an beings respond not only t o t he t radit ional carrot and st ick but also t o am bit ion, pat riot ism , love of t he good and t he beaut iful, boredom , self- doubt , and m any ot her desires and em ot ions. One person m ay find sat isfact ion in solving int ellect ual problem s but m ay never be given t he opport unit y t o explore how t hat sat isfact ion can be applied t o business. Anot her m ay need a friendly, adm iring relat ionship and m ay be const ant ly frust rat ed by t he failure of his superior t o recognize and t ake advant age of t hat need.

I n t his art icle, first published in HBR’s Sept em ber–Oct ober 1961 issue, W.C.H. Prent ice argues t hat by responding t o such individual pat t erns, t he leader will be able t o creat e genuinely int rinsic int erest in t he work. I deally, Prent ice says, m anagerial dom inions should be sm all enough t hat every supervisor can know t hose who report t o him or her as hum an beings. Prent ice calls for dem ocrat ic leadership t hat , wit hout creat ing anarchy, gives em ployees opport unit ies t o learn and grow. This concept , along wit h his rej ect ion of t he not ion t hat leadership is t he exercise of power or t he possession of ext raordinary analyt ical skill, foreshadows t he work of m ore recent aut hors such as Abraham Zaleznik and Daniel Golem an, who have fundam ent ally changed t he way we look at leadership.

I n Closin g Th e H igh w a y of t h e M in d

Thom as A. St ewart Reprint R0401L > | Read Ent ire Art icle

> | Purchase Reprint

Businesspeople t end t o be ext rovert s, t aking a lively int erest in ot hers and preferring act ion t o int rospect ion. But t o be fully effect ive as leaders, t hey m ust learn t o navigat e t he t wist s and t urns of t heir em ot ions and t hose of t he people around t hem .

> | Pr in t a ble Ve r sion > | E- m a il a Colle a gu e

View Back Issues Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. All right s reserved.

Click here t o visit :

View Back Issues | January 2004 > Left on a Mount ainside

> | Pu r ch a se Re pr in t > | Pr in t a ble Ve r sion

Left on a Mount ainside

> | E- m a il a Colle a gu e > | Ex e cu t ive Su m m a r y

Ed D a vidson is a t D a vos w h e n h e h e a r s t h a t h is CEO is n ot n a m in g h im pr e side n t . Bu t Ed k n ow s a n a st y se cr e t t h a t cou ld r u in t h e CEO’s r e pu t a t ion —sh ou ld h e u se it t o t r y t o sa lva ge h is ca r e e r ?

by Ju lia Kir by

Brilliant sunshine and brit t le cold snapped Ed Davidson awake as he em erged from Zurich Airport , t railing t he lim ousine driver who m om ent s before had m et him at t he securit y checkpoint . Aft er being herm et ically sealed in a j um bo j et for hours, focused on a lapt op, som e analyst report s, his clut t ered t ray t able—not hing m ore t han a few yards away—he shielded his wat ering eyes. But by t he t im e he reached t he car, he was grinning broadly. The skier in him rej oiced at t he January air and t he prospect of six days in t he Alps. He ducked int o t he backseat , pushing his briefcase ahead of him . He was on his way t o Davos. Not t hat he would be skiing m uch. Ot her t han on t he scheduled “ sport s day” on Sunday, part icipant s at t he World Econom ic Forum ’s annual conference were facing a packed schedule of sessions, recept ions, and dinners. Ed pulled out his conference folder and glanced over t he program again. His at t ent ion alt ernat ed bet ween t he scenery out side his window and t he people wit h whom he would soon be m ingling. His m ot her had been awed on t he phone t he evening before, hearing him rat t le off nam e aft er nam e fam iliar t o her from t he news and gossip colum ns. “ Eddie,” she’d said, “ t his is m y dream com e t rue for you. I ’m pinching m yself! ” He sm iled t o recall it , t hen quickly com posed his feat ures. Jut t ing his j aw slight ly forward, he rem inded him self t hat t hese people were no m ore t han his peers. Soon enough, anyway. Two hours int o t he drive, a loud crack by Ed’s right ear j olt ed him from t he doze he had drift ed int o. He sat up and t urned his head t oward t he noise, only t o be t hrown off balance as t he car accelerat ed. “ Very sorry, sir,” said t he driver, cat ching sight of Ed’s surprised expression in t he rearview m irror. “ Ant iglobalizat ion prot est ers. We are j ust a few m inut es from t he checkpoint .” Ed t urned t o st are out t he back of t he car and saw t he rock t hrower t aking aim at anot her black sedan behind t hem . Then it occurred t o him t o look forward. Through t he windshield he saw t he clust er of black- cost um ed act ivist s t he driver was hoping t o blow past .

“Le t m e ge t t h is st r a igh t .” Lu cy pe e r e d a t Ed. “D a vid Pa t e r n o pr om ise d you t h is posit ion ? An d n ow h e ’s r e n e gin g?” His phone rang. Annoyed at t he st art it gave him , Ed root ed his phone out of his briefcase and snapped it open. I t was Frank Maugham calling. Norm ally, t his would have been welcom e. Frank was CFO and a board m em ber at Carst on Wait e, and he had been a m ent or t o Ed for m ost of t he 14 years since Ed j oined t he com pany. I t wouldn’t have been unusual for Frank t o call on som e rout ine m at t er or j ust t o chat ; t hey had becom e t hat close. But Ed im m ediat ely det ect ed t he not e of anxiet y in Frank’s greet ing and knew t here was som et hing afoot . “ I t ’s a set back, I ’m afraid,” Frank explained. “ David j ust spoke wit h m e. He asked m e t o let you know you are not going t o be nam ed president of Carst on Wait e.” He paused. “ At least not yet . He’s planning t o m ake an announcem ent t hat he’s not appoint ing anyone for a while.” His voice t ook on a sardonic t one. “ He want s t o st ay close t o t he business.” Ed’s m ind was a blank—t he news had hit him alm ost wit h t he force of a physical blow— t hen he gradually becam e conscious of t he heat rising in his cheeks and forehead. His hand wit h t he phone in it had slipped down from his ear. He j erked it back up when he heard Frank’s voice again, saying, “ Are you t here?”

Ju lia Kir by is a senior edit or at HBR and can be reached at e dit or s@h bsp. h a r va r d.e du .

But now t he car was caught up in a swirl of agit at ed hum anit y. As t he car inched forward, prot est ers dressed in out rageous cost um es and carrying hand- let t ered signs pressed t oward it , a few get t ing close enough, despit e t he effort s of arm ed Swiss guards, t o leer disconcert ingly int o t he windows. Ed could hear t heir chant s t hrough t he t hick glass. He looked around wildly, t hen gripped t he phone t ight er. “ Look, Frank. This is a bizarre m om ent . Can I call you right back? I ’m alm ost at t he hot el.” “ Yes, absolut ely. Get set t led in. But first , j ust know t hat I have a plan,” Frank said. “ I ’m going t o call around t o t he rest of t he board m em bers and see if we can’t prevail upon David t o change his m ind.” “ You really t hink t hat could work?” Ed t ried t o focus. “ Who could argue wit h t he wisdom of having a succession plan? And who else but you could t he successor be?” The car lurched forward and passed t hrough a gat e in a high chain- link fence. The driver glanced back and raised his eyebrows expect ant ly. I t was t im e for Ed t o produce his passport and conference pass for inspect ion. “ I ’ll call you,” Ed said t o Frank and shoved t he phone back int o his briefcase. M a gic M ou n t a in Som e hours lat er, realizing he was hungry, Ed quickly shaved, dressed for dinner, and found his way t o t he Kongress Cent er, where t he inaugural recept ion was already in high gear. The room was a sea of gest iculat ing people, chat t ering in accent ed English or no English at all. Wait ers m oved sm oot hly am ong t hem , t rays laden wit h wineglasses and hors d’oeuvres, as a full orchest ra played Berlioz. Ed spied a row of whit e- clot hed t ables and began working his way t oward it . “ Edward Davidson! Well, I ’ll be dam ned.” Ed looked t oward t he voice and was am azed t o see his old B- school sect ion m at e, Lucy Keh. Lucy had m ade her m illions in a dot - com t hat went public, t hen had gone on t o found a nonprofit organizat ion. They’d long ago fallen out of t ouch, but Ed occasionally spot t ed her nam e in t he news. Now she was breaking away from t he group she’d been t alking wit h and com ing t oward him , her arm s ext ended for a hug. There was no one like Lucy. Back in school, she’d been brilliant , but she was also t he one who m ade you feel brilliant . She’d bring hom em ade brownies t o st udy sessions. She’d read Greek dram as—in t he original Greek, no less—t o unwind. She’d rem em ber your kid brot her’s nam e. She was fiercely loyal. Alm ost before he realized what was happening, Ed was out side t he ballroom , glass in hand, adm it t ing t o Lucy how he had t hat day been bet rayed. “ Let m e get t his st raight .” Lucy peered at Ed. “ David Pat erno prom ised you t his posit ion? And now he’s reneging?” Ed filled in t he det ails. A year ago, Carst on Wait e’s longt im e chairm an and CEO, Tom Tyrakowski, had announced he was leaving, and a t hree- way cont est am ong int ernal candidat es for t he spot had m oved quickly int o high gear. The t im ing wasn’t ideal, from Ed’s st andpoint . A few years lat er and he m ight have had a fair shot at t he j ob him self. As it was, he couldn’t com pet e, despit e his reput at ion as a rising st ar. And neit her was Frank in t he running. Already 60, Frank had m ade his own play for t he j ob m any years earlier—and done penance for it . The m an who had beat Frank out for t he j ob had prom pt ly exiled him t o one of t he com pany’s m ost m arginal divisions and left him running it for a good long t im e before let t ing him com e in from t he cold. Frank was a survivor, all right , and at t his point he had real influence. He had seen it all, and he knew where t he bodies were buried. Frank also t ruly believed t hat Ed should and would run t he com pany som eday. That ’s why he’d cooked up t his underst anding wit h David. He and Ed would t hrow t heir weight behind his candidacy, and once David got t he j ob, he would grant Frank a seat on t he board and m ake Ed president . Heir apparent . “ So you don’t t hink David would have got t he t op j ob if it weren’t for you guys backing him ?” Lucy had zeroed in on t he key quest ion.

“ We m ade t he difference,” Ed answered, wit hout elaborat ing. I n fact , Frank had m ade a few downright m isrepresent at ions t o t he board, m aking t he perform ance of David’s division look bet t er t han t he ot her guys’. Lucy didn’t need t o know t hat . Ed sipped his wine, t hen st udied it ; no bouquet , body, or flavor t o speak of. Was it Swiss?

Ed h a d be e n w r on ge d be for e a n d h a d fe lt be t t e r t h a n t h is. Bu t D a vid’s r e j e ct ion cu t m or e de e ply. “ What a t ragedy,” Lucy said. Ed glanced quickly at her face for any sign of irony, but it was all com passion. “ I ’m so sorry t o hear it .” Ed st raight ened up and looked away. Was it possible he had becom e an obj ect of pit y? A sick feeling cam e over him , and suddenly he want ed t o be far away from Lucy. “ Right ,” he said perem pt orily. “ But hey, I don’t m ean t o m onopolize you. I ’m sure—” “ Wait a m inut e. He’s supposed t o be here, right ? I sn’t he on a panel? On corporat e social responsibilit y or som et hing?” “ He was. At t he last m inut e he got hung up in som e negot iat ions. I ’m giving his speech on Friday.” Lucy’s eyebrows rose slight ly. “ I nt erest ing. You m ust be t em pt ed t o add a few choice words of your own.” Com ple x Con side r a t ion s Lat er t hat night , Ed crunched across t he snow past t he Hot el Belvedere, an im posing pile inst alled in t he m ount ain’s side. Passing under a lam ppost , he paused and, fishing a gloved finger int o his coat sleeve, uncovered his wat ch. He squint ed at t he swim m ing num bers. He had had lit t le t o eat and t oo m uch t o drink, t o t op off his j et lag. He considered calling Frank for an updat e but quickly realized t hat m ade no sense. The business day was j ust ending, and Frank’s plan had been t o reach m ost of t he board aft er hours, at hom e. I n fact , Ed realized, Frank m ight be on t he phone t hat very m inut e. Ed im agined how such a conversat ion would begin, and a fresh wave of m ort ificat ion cam e over him . I t wasn’t , aft er all, as sim ple as bet rayal. Ed had been wronged before and had felt bet t er t han t his; t hat t im e, he had at least been able t o indulge in som e right eous indignat ion and had com e away feeling superior t o his rival. But David’s rej ect ion cut m ore deeply t han t hat . For as close as his relat ionship had becom e wit h Frank, Ed had first been David’s prot égé. At 26, he had been recruit ed by Carst on Wait e for his form idable analyt ical skills and had quickly im pressed his superiors. David, t en years his senior, had spot t ed him early on, and his work had proved inst rum ent al t o som e of t he biggest deals David put t oget her. The t wo were very different —David was known as a charm ing salesm an, Ed as an incisive, if som ewhat arrogant , quant , but t he chem ist ry worked. David, Ed t hought , underst ood him . I n fact , Ed had revealed aspect s of him self t o David t hat no one else had been privy t o before or since. I n t he aft erm at h of t his or t hat celebrat ion of a closed deal, when enough alcohol had flowed for him t o claim m isint erpret at ion, if necessary, t he next day, Ed had opened up. I t had been a heady t im e. Even if t he t wo of t hem had worked less direct ly t oget her in recent years—David was given a division t o run; so was Ed, event ually—Ed ret ained t hat sense of connect ion and only occasionally felt pained by it . I t was a source of vulnerabilit y, he knew, but in so m any ot her respect s his work was m aking him invincible. He had developed selling skills of his own, t o augm ent his im pressive st ring of t echnical innovat ions. Client s clam ored for his t im e and at t ent ion. When he was given a division t o run, he was j ust 38—t he youngest in t he firm ’s hist ory—yet he m anaged t o engineer t he great est upt ick in profit abilit y am ong all t he divisions t hat year. He was golden. And at every t urn, David— wit h som e call or not e—had acknowledged t he achievem ent . Approved of it . Even adm ired it . And now t his. David knew Ed couldn’t cut it . Ed becam e conscious of voices and glanced t o his right . The group cam e past laughing, t he hologram s on t heir whit e badges glint ing in t he lam plight . Ed’s lips brushed against t he collar of his cashm ere coat , dam p from t he condensat ion of his breat h. How long had he been st anding here? He t ucked his chin down closer against his neck and t urned from t he light , as his face crum pled.

Er r or Appa r e n t Sit t ing in a packed room t he next aft ernoon, Ed t ried t o recall why he had regist ered for t his session out of t he m any t hat were running concurrent ly. The t opic was t im ely enough —corporat e governance reform —but t he speakers were dull. All were from com panies t hat had inst it ut ed new pract ices, yet all seem ed loat h t o t alk about t he abuses t hey were t rying t o prevent . Plat it ude aft er sanct im onious plat it ude. He wondered about him self: Would I have been so cynical about t his a week ago? Or am I st ill feeling t he effect s of t he sleeping pills? Ed’s phone vibrat ed in his breast pocket , and he escaped int o t he hallway. “ I t ’s Frank,” said t he voice on t he ot her end. Ed closed his eyes t o concent rat e over t he noise of a cat ering t rolley clat t ering past . “ We m ay be in t rouble. David knows about t he calls I m ade last night . And he’s calling an em ergency board m eet ing for t onight .” Ed’s heart skipped a beat . “ Already? Wait a m inut e, who did you get hold of? What ’s t he consensus?” “ I don’t know. I needed m ore t im e.” Frank sounded defeat ed. “ I t doesn’t look good.” “ When is t he board m eet ing happening t onight ?” Ed t hought about t he t im e difference. “ I m ean, obviously I want you t o call m e whenever you get out .” “ I would,” Frank said. “ But I ’m not invit ed.” Ch oice W or ds Ed st udied his face in t he m irror by t he elevat or bank as he wait ed t o ride down t o breakfast . His left eyelid had been t wit ching int erm it t ent ly since he woke up, but he couldn’t t ell if it was percept ible t o ot hers. He had j ust em erged from t he hot el room he had not left since t he day before, since right aft er Frank’s call. I t seem ed even longer t han t he 15 hours it had been. The first t wo of t hem , easily, had been spent in pure rage. On com ing t hrough t he door, Ed had been t hirst y and had reached for a m ineral wat er. But m om ent s lat er, cat ching sight of his face in t he m irror, he had hurled t he glass bot t le at it . What followed was t he m ost sust ained st ring of obscenit ies Ed had ever given voice t o. There was not hing he didn’t call David Pat erno, no out rageous act t he m an had not com m it t ed. Lat er, sit t ing on t he edge of his bed, his hands rubbing his face, he’d rem em bered Lucy’s phrase—“ choice words” —wit h a caust ic laugh. You want choice words? How ’bout t hose? And t hen he’d recalled t hat she’d been t alking about t he speech he was t o give t he next m orning: “ You m ust be t em pt ed t o add a few choice words of your own.” He had walked over t o t he desk and pulled out t he rem arks t he com m unicat ions VP had sent him . “ Hypocrit ical fluff,” he’d concluded, as he’d reread t he speech. And t hen he’d reached for his pen. Because, aft er all, he hadn’t been t he only one t o t ell secret s back in t hose days when he and David were close. How would t he Davos crowd react t o hearing his boss’s real t rack record on social responsibilit y? The idea m ight have been a vengeful fant asy at first , but it t ook on a whole new charact er aft er Ed, realizing how lat e t he hour had grown, had ordered room service. And when he’d got t en t he predawn call from Frank, it had fueled t he effort anew. Frank had been fired, of course. David had accused him of insubordinat ion and got t en t he rest of t he board t o agree t hat Frank’s act ions were not com pat ible wit h t he int erest s of t he business and it s shareholders. One of Frank’s friends on t he board had given him t he heads- up right aft er t he m eet ing ended, t o spare him t he hum iliat ion of being escort ed out by securit y t he next m orning. “ Apparent ly, t here was not hing said about you specifically,” Frank had offered. Ed knew what Frank was doing: allowing him t o believe t hat he m ight st ill hang on t o his own j ob—and even, as Frank had, cont inue t o advance up t he ladder. Suddenly, t he old m an seem ed pat het ic t o Ed. Taken for grant ed for years and now t hrown out , Frank st ill seem ed concerned t hat Carst on Wait e would lose a valuable em ployee. The elevat or bell rang. St epping t hrough t he open doors, Ed looked at his wat ch. Twent y m inut es t o showt im e. A slight queasiness rose in him . But he t ucked his speech under his arm and hit t he but t on for t he lobby.

H BR Ca se Com m e n t a r y

W h a t is Ed a bou t t o do? Fou r com m e n t a t or s offe r e x pe r t a dvice . Ke n n e t h Eisold is a psychoanalyst and organizat ional consult ant . He t eaches at t he William Alanson Whit e I nst it ut e in New York and is president of t he I nt ernat ional Societ y for t he Psychoanalyt ic St udy of Organizat ions. He can be reached at [email protected] . Ed Davidson is obviously angry, but underneat h t hat , he’s hurt . He want s t o be invincible, but he’s act ually vulnerable. We see t hat clearly when he reflect s on what has happened: Ed concludes t hat his CEO, David Pat erno, t hought he couldn’t cut it . That ’s his own insecurit y com ing t hrough, and he covers it up wit h anger and a wish t o ret aliat e, rat her t han adm it t ing he has t hese self- doubt s. The vignet t e wit h Lucy Keh, Ed’s form er classm at e, gives us furt her insight int o his int ernal conflict s. He longs t o unburden him self, j ust as early in his career he luxuriat ed in t he sym pat hy and underst anding of ot hers during t hose drunken lat e night s. But even t hough he recognizes and deeply appreciat es Lucy’s loyalt y, he is afraid t o show his neediness t o her. Throughout t he case, Ed reveals his desire t o be shepherded along. To som e ext ent , t hat ’s perfect ly norm al; we all have a dependent side. But here, it feels as t hough Ed has not worked t hrough it sufficient ly. Ed allows CFO Frank Maugham t o int ervene on his behalf. When Frank proposes a course of act ion, he goes for it right away. Ed seem s t o feel t hat he is as good as fired already, but all he has t o go on is Frank’s opinion—he’s put t ing t oo m uch st ock in t hat . All t hese are signs of a dependency, of Ed’s inabilit y t o st and back and m ake his own assessm ent . And isn’t it int erest ing t hat his m ot her com es int o t he st ory? He’s 40, but he’s st ill in t hat realm where he is t rying t o please his m ot her and, I would say, he is st ill looking for a fat her.

M ost pe ople e x pe r ie n ce t h e ir siblin gs, t h e ir fa t h e r s, t h e ir m ot h e r s, on t h e j ob. Eve r ybody h a s t r a n sfe r e n ce ; t h e qu e st ion is, H ow t r a ppe d a r e t h e y in t h ose pa t t e r n s? One of Freud’s great est insight s had t o do wit h t he phenom enon of t ransference. People t ransfer ont o current relat ionships t he conflict s and assum pt ions generat ed in childhood relat ionships. They keep assum ing t hat t hey’re in t he sam e const ellat ion of roles and so repeat pat t erns of behavior. Most people experience t heir siblings, t heir fat hers, t heir m ot hers, and so on, on t he j ob. Everybody has t ransference; t he quest ion is, How t rapped are t hey in t hose pat t erns? I f I were t o speculat e about Ed’s childhood, I would guess t hat he had an adoring m ot her and problem s wit h his fat her—he was aloof or in som e ot her way unavailable t o Ed. Those circum st ances left Ed wit h a sort of hunger we see played out in his relat ionships wit h Frank and David. Obviously, t his is a crude assum pt ion based on a few hint s, but if Ed cam e t o m e as a pat ient I would be probing in t hat area. To help him be bet t er equipped t o m ove beyond t hese issues, I would t ry t o get at what he was really feeling and get him t o be m ore in t ouch wit h his underlying insecurit y and vulnerabilit y. Would I be likely t o have t hat opport unit y? You m ight t hink t hat Ed’s unwillingness t o adm it failings would keep him from seeking help. But he looks t o ot hers for counsel, and he bonds wit h older m en, so it ’s not t hat im plausible. I f som eone Ed t rust ed said t o him , “ I know som eone you should t alk t o,” he m ight go along—t hough he wouldn’t if t hat person said, “ Look, you need a shrink.” That , I t hink, is why execut ives have coaches, not psychiat rist s. As som eone who has served in bot h capacit ies, I can report t hat t he conversat ions are t he sam e in a num ber of respect s; t he chief difference is t hat as a coach I focus on work relat ionships m ore t han on personal ones. But it ’s m ore socially accept able t o have a coach. People wit h coaches aren’t adm it t ing weakness. They j ust need som eone t o help t hem get t o t he t op of t heir form . Ed would probably respond well t o a coach. I f Ed’s ever going t o be a great leader, he will have t o reduce his dependence on t he opinions of ot hers. Effect ive leaders aren’t const ant ly looking around and saying, “ What will people t hink?” They need t he int ernal convict ion and hum ilit y t o accept t hat t hey don’t know all t he answers.

Dealing wit h t his set back is a crit ical t est for Ed. I f he survives it , he’ll becom e his own m an. D e e Sode r is t he founder and m anaging part ner of t he CEO Perspect ive Group, a New York–based execut ive assessm ent and coaching firm . She can be reached at dee@ceoperspect ive.com . Ed needs t o wake up fast ! This t im e, Pat erno was right . Frank was a subversive subordinat e, pushing Ed’s candidacy for his own benefit . Dism issal was appropriat e. Ed is not ready t o be CEO of Carst on Wait e or any ot her com pany. A vengeful, childish speech will only confirm t his t o t he leaders at Davos.

Ed w ou ld fa il m y CEO a sse ssm e n t in t w o r e spe ct s. H e ’s n ot in ch a r ge of t h e sit u a t ion or h im se lf. M or e im por t a n t , Ed flu n k s t h e e t h ics t e st . CEO assessm ent s and t op execut ive coaching have been m y sole focus for nearly t wo decades. Ed would fail m y CEO assessm ent in t wo respect s. For one, he’s not in charge of t he sit uat ion or him self. Frank’s in charge; Ed’s j ust being react ive. Prot est ers dist ract Ed from an im port ant phone call. The lim o driver is m ore in cont rol t han he is. Ed’s lack of cont rol and confidence are readily observable. The best leaders proj ect a calm confidence, regardless of t heir feelings. One of m y favorit e client s says about him self, “ I ’m like t he duck gliding across t he pond. To anyone on t he bank, t hings look serene. But under t he surface, I ’m paddling like m ad.” More im port ant , Ed flunks t he et hics t est . While Frank act ually lied t o t he board of direct ors t o get Pat erno int o office, Ed support ed t he decept ion. Ed chose badly in an unam biguous exam ple of right versus wrong. CEOs m ake et hical calls on com plex m at t ers const ant ly. Pat erno isn’t t he best role m odel, but Ed doesn’t recognize his own com plicit y or responsibilit y. One can only hope t his will be Ed’s wake- up call. He’ll do som e serious soul- searching and realize he needs t o work on his deficit s, st art ing wit h his isolat ionism . Am azingly, he was in his room for 15 hours and didn’t t alk t o anyone, nor did he check online news. He didn’t cont act Pat erno about t he governance speech; he didn’t m ake calls t o anyone prior t o Davos and isn’t t alking wit h anyone now. He’s not get t ing inform at ion from anyone. CEOs live on inform at ion. Ed needs t o be com m unicat ing const ant ly—up, down, and sideways. Allies are crucial in a corporat ion, especially in t oday’s rapidly changing organizat ions. Ed is naive t o rely on j ust one source, especially one wit h anot her agenda. I f caffeine rest ores his sanit y and precludes his divulging corporat e secret s, Ed will have t o quickly rebuild Pat erno’s fait h in him . His fut ure at Carst on Wait e can be rest ored, but it is cert ainly shaky. I f you were Pat erno, you would have t o quest ion Ed’s loyalt y and m ot ivat ions. He swit ched his allegiance, t o Frank, years ago. You were a m ent or and support er, but Ed hasn’t m aint ained cont act . You prom ot ed Ed, shared confidences, encouraged him t o develop his int erpersonal skills, and unofficially designat ed him your successor. Now you’ve had t o defuse Frank’s lobbying of t he board on Ed’s behalf, hold an em ergency board m eet ing, and fire Frank. The press is calling, but despit e t he com m ot ion, you haven’t heard from t he guy! Ed needs t o call Pat erno ASAP and t ry t o pat ch up t he relat ionship, plus develop a backup plan in case he’s asked t o resign or his fut ure rem ains t aint ed. When Ed speaks t o Pat erno, he should say som et hing like, “ Your speech went well, David, and several people sent t heir regards. I heard you needed t o t erm inat e Frank—what happened?” Ed’s t one is im port ant , and it should com e across as posit ive and concerned. What ever Pat erno says, Ed’s best m ove is t o respond wit h som et hing like, “ Frank was out - ofbounds. He has always been very posit ive about you t o m e, but t hen again he knows how highly I t hink of you. How dist urbing.” I f Pat erno asks Ed if Frank t old him what had t ranspired, Ed should not lie. I nst ead, he should say, “ Frank wasn’t m aking m uch sense, so I called you.” Pat erno’s not likely t o believe him , but Ed buys t im e t o prove his allegiance. Pat erno will probably say all t he right support ive t hings, but t hat shouldn’t lull Ed int o com placency. He has t o im prove his cont act and relat ionship wit h t he board as well as develop ot her essent ial leadership t rait s. I nsecurit y and drive ensured t hat Ed’s work perform ance is st ellar, but a j ob well done doesn’t m ake him or anyone invincible. These t rials are frequent ly t he im pet us individuals need in order t o change. I t is a pivot al t im e

for Ed—eit her for success or failure. Leaders play t he hand t hey’re dealt —and Ed’s not playing t his hand well. But he could. Je ffr e y P. Ka h n is t he CEO of WorkPsych Associat es in New York and a clinical associat e professor of psychiat ry at Weill Medical College of Cornell Universit y, also in Manhat t an. He is t he coedit or of Ment al Healt h and Product ivit y in t he Workplace: A Handbook for Organizat ions and Clinicians ( Jossey- Bass/ Wiley, 2003) . He can be reached at www. workpsychcorp.com . As Ed Davidson walks ont o t he st age at Davos, he needs t o realize t hat his problem m ay be m ore wit h CFO Frank Maugham t han wit h CEO David Pat erno. Ed is a highly capable m anager who had been t he com pany’s youngest division head. And if Ed didn’t have leadership skills, he would not be posit ioned as David’s heir apparent . I n fact , he likely would not even be at Davos. Even so, Ed has a reput at ion as an arrogant quant , and he passively allows Frank t o t ry an end run around David t o t he board.

Ex e cu t ive s n e e d t o se e sit u a t ion s for w h a t t h e y a r e , a n d Ed sor e ly n e e ds a fla sh of in sigh t be for e h e r e a ch e s t h e podiu m . Act ually, Ed m ay yet becom e CEO one day. All we really hear t o t he cont rary is t hat David is delaying t he appoint m ent of a successor. And David m ay well have good reasons t o “ st ay close t o t he business” ; perhaps he canceled his Davos t rip because he’s negot iat ing som e colossal deal t hat really will require him t o st ay close. Ed was David’s prot égé once, and t hough t hey m ay not have worked t oget her cont inuously over t he years, t hey go back a long t im e. Moreover, David has consist ent ly acknowledged, even adm ired, Ed’s skills and accom plishm ent s. Ed has always been a bit wary of David, but even now t here is no clear evidence of host ile com pet it ion. Since Ed does not know what is act ually going on in David’s m ind, he m ay be m ist aken about what he perceives as David’s bet rayal. He has inform at ion only from Frank, who present s t he news in a dist inct ly pessim ist ic way. Frank is a m anipulat ive sort , som eone who gains leverage by knowing where t he bodies are buried and by m isrepresent ing and select ively present ing inform at ion. Since Frank failed t o becom e t he com pany’s CEO a decade earlier, he has t ried t o achieve surrogat e success—first as t he kingm aker who support ed David in his bid t o becom e CEO ( while gaining a board seat him self) , and now as a prom ot er of Ed’s candidacy. This has allowed Frank a sense of cont rol over t he com pany from behind t he scenes. I n his lat est m aneuverings, t hough, he t ries t o act as a de fact o CEO and t hus get s him self fired. While Frank favors Ed on a rat ional level, he has m ixed feelings because of his own t hwart ed am bit ions t o becom e CEO. For inst ance, he m ay be bit t er t hat Ed is now t he heir apparent chosen t o st and in for David on t he world st age. Successful corporat ions clearly t hrive on int ernal com pet it ion, but not when host ile or dishonest com pet it ors respond t o perceived t hreat s by underm ining ot hers or t he firm . I n t his case, Frank feels t hreat ened by Ed, and so he fuels Ed’s wariness about David. Frank’s act ions could underm ine not only Ed’s relat ionships but also his perform ance at Davos. I find t hat t hese com plex kinds of em ot ional rivalry are com m on and dest ruct ive in far t oo m any organizat ions. For inst ance, I know of a com pany where a senior execut ive t ried t o t ake credit for a t alent ed subordinat e’s accom plishm ent s. Happily, t his was a good and successful organizat ion, and it s cult ure did not perm it such behavior. As a result , t he subordinat e felt com fort able speaking up about t he sit uat ion. Top m anagers t alked wit h t he execut ive t o rem edy t he problem , and t hey looked t o head off recurrences of t he issue by addressing it s underlying causes. Good com panies t ry t o creat e a support ive organizat ional cult ure for t heir em ployees. Rat her t han prom ot e execut ive coaching, som e encourage senior execut ives t o seek psychiat ric consult at ion. I t wouldn’t be surprising if anxiet y or depression cont ribut ed t o Frank’s problem at ic behavior. Execut ives need t o see sit uat ions for what t hey are, and Ed sorely needs a flash of insight before he reaches t he podium . Even as he st ruggles t o cont ain his m isplaced anger, Ed probably won’t underm ine David or him self. The speech could be Ed’s opport unit y t o t ake a leadership high road t hat even David would appreciat e. Ed could m ake t he point t hat corporat e social responsibilit y out side begins wit h t rue responsibilit y inside. That m eans t hat corporat ions m ust be profit able, well governed, concerned about all em ployees, and have a st rong and et hical cult ure. A speech like t hat m ight go over well in Davos. And if it led t o som e fort hright conversat ion back in t he St at es, it would help Ed renew his t ies t o t he com pany’s

direct ors and CEO. Ch a r le s M . Elson holds t he Edgar S. Woolard, Jr., Chair of Corporat e Governance and is t he direct or of t he John L. Weinberg Cent er for Corporat e Governance at t he Universit y of Delaware in Newark. He is also “ Of Counsel” t o t he law firm of Holland & Knight in Tam pa, Florida. He can be reached at [email protected]. The seeds of Ed’s problem were sown early on, in Carst on Wait e’s seriously flawed approach t o CEO succession. What do we know about it ? For one t hing, it feat ured a t hree- way horse race. The current CEO, David Pat erno, was able t o win his posit ion only because he could assem ble a fact ion of powerful int ernal people t o back him . I n ot her words, it was a polit ical process, not one designed for t he good of t he business. David’s own decision not t o nam e Ed his successor t ells us t hat succession planning at t his com pany is driven by t he CEO, not t he board. That ’s j ust not t he way t o ensure good succession decisions. Horse races for t he t op office are, of course, not uncom m on. The m ost fam ous one in recent hist ory was General Elect ric’s, t o fill Jack Welch’s shoes. That cont est produced a st rong leader, but it was at t he expense of Bob Nardelli’s and Jim McNerney’s t alent s, as t hey bot h left for greener past ures. The fallout can be even worse, because horse races height en t he polit ics when every at t em pt should be m ade t o m inim ize t hem . And t hat cont ribut es t o a broader polit icizat ion of t he organizat ion.

I f Ed w a n t s t o st a y, h e sh ou ldn ’t t r y t o sa ve h is j ob w it h som e su bve r sive m ove . H e sh ou ld give t h e spe e ch u n a lt e r e d, r e t u r n h om e , a n d con ce n t r a t e on doin g t h e be st w or k h e ca n do. I t would, of course, be asking t oo m uch t o dem and t hat polit ics be elim inat ed. Com panies are full of polit icians; it ’s part of t he hum an condit ion. But no one could deny t hat t he choice of a successor should be m ade purely on t he basis of who will effect ively generat e shareholder ret urns, not according t o who was prom ised what by whom . I ’m a firm believer t hat if you cont inually rem ind yourself of an aspirat ion, it will begin t o influence t he realit y. But such aspirat ions haven’t even occurred t o anyone at Carst on Wait e. Not once in t he case st udy is t he quest ion of shareholder value raised. And, not surprisingly, not one of t he charact ers in it is adm irable. To deal wit h t he t hreat of selfish, polit ical behavior in m anagem ent ranks, invest ors increasingly recognize t hey m ust have t ruly obj ect ive boards m ade up of long- t erm shareholders. Not hing about boards m akes t hem apolit ical per se—board m em bers are people, t oo. So, t o m ake good decisions, t hey m ust be sure t heir com m it m ent is t o t he ent erprise, not t o it s current m anagem ent . Under t hose circum st ances, a CFO like Frank Maugham would not be appoint ed t o t he board. Here, however, t he problem plays out in an odd way because Frank is ant im anagem ent . Typically, t he danger is t hat board insiders will m im ic m anagem ent t oo closely. All t his underscores t he im port ance of having boards m anage t he succession process. ( For m ore on t his, see t he Nat ional Associat ion of Corporat e Direct ors’ 1998 Report of t he NACD Blue Ribbon Com m ission on CEO Succession, which persuasively argues t he point .) But com panies t hat have CEO- dom inat ed boards also t radit ionally have a CEOdom inat ed succession process. Does t his m ean t hat Ed’s career at Carst on Wait e is over? Possibly. But if Ed want s t o st ay, he shouldn’t t ry t o save his j ob wit h som e subversive m ove. His challenge, inst ead, is t o rise above t he polit ics. He should give t he speech unalt ered, ret urn hom e, and concent rat e on doing t he best work he can do. Lot s of people m ake m ist akes, yet t hey go on t o succeed. Ed’s m ist ake here is playing polit ics. And his way out is t o play business. Ed could becom e a CEO. But if Ed cont inues t o value self- preservat ion or self- prom ot ion over t he ent erprise, he can kiss his career t here good- bye. Reprint Num ber R0401A

> | Ex e cu t ive Su m m a r y > | Pu r ch a se Re pr in t > | Pr in t a ble Ve r sion > | E- m a il a Colle a gu e

HBR's cases, which are fict ional, present com m on m anagerial dilem m as and offer concret e solut ions from expert s.

View Back Issues Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. All right s reserved.

Click here t o visit : > | ht t p: / / www.hbsp.org

Left on a Mount ainside Ed D a vidson is a t D a vos w h e n h e h e a r s t h a t h is CEO is n ot n a m in g h im pr e side n t . Bu t Ed k n ow s a n a st y se cr e t t h a t cou ld r u in t h e CEO’s r e pu t a t ion —sh ou ld h e u se it t o t r y t o sa lva ge h is ca r e e r ?

by Ju lia Kir by Ju lia Kir by is a senior edit or at HBR and can be reached at e dit or s@h bsp.h a r va r d.e du .

Brilliant sunshine and brit t le cold snapped Ed Davidson awake as he em erged from Zurich Airport , t railing t he lim ousine driver who m om ent s before had m et him at t he securit y checkpoint . Aft er being herm et ically sealed in a j um bo j et for hours, focused on a lapt op, som e analyst report s, his clut t ered t ray t able—not hing m ore t han a few yards away—he shielded his wat ering eyes. But by t he t im e he reached t he car, he was grinning broadly. The skier in him rej oiced at t he January air and t he prospect of six days in t he Alps. He ducked int o t he backseat , pushing his briefcase ahead of him . He was on his way t o Davos. Not t hat he would be skiing m uch. Ot her t han on t he scheduled “ sport s day” on Sunday, part icipant s at t he World Econom ic Forum ’s annual conference were facing a packed schedule of sessions, recept ions, and dinners. Ed pulled out his conference folder and glanced over t he program again. His at t ent ion alt ernat ed bet ween t he scenery out side his window and t he people wit h whom he would soon be m ingling. His m ot her had been awed on t he phone t he evening before, hearing him rat t le off nam e aft er nam e fam iliar t o her from t he news and gossip colum ns. “ Eddie,” she’d said, “ t his is m y dream com e t rue for you. I ’m pinching m yself! ” He sm iled t o recall it , t hen quickly com posed his feat ures. Jut t ing his j aw slight ly forward, he rem inded him self t hat t hese people were no m ore t han his peers. Soon enough, anyway. Two hours int o t he drive, a loud crack by Ed’s right ear j olt ed him from t he doze he had drift ed int o. He sat up and t urned his head t oward t he noise, only t o be t hrown off balance as t he car accelerat ed. “ Very sorry, sir,” said t he driver, cat ching sight of Ed’s surprised expression in t he rearview m irror. “ Ant iglobalizat ion prot est ers. We are j ust a few m inut es from t he checkpoint .” Ed t urned t o st are out t he back of t he car and saw t he rock t hrower t aking aim at anot her black sedan behind t hem . Then it occurred t o him t o look forward. Through t he windshield he saw t he clust er of black- cost um ed act ivist s t he driver was hoping t o blow past .

“Le t m e ge t t h is st r a igh t .” Lu cy pe e r e d a t Ed. “D a vid Pa t e r n o pr om ise d you t h is posit ion ? An d n ow h e ’s r e n e gin g?” His phone rang. Annoyed at t he st art it gave him , Ed root ed his phone out of his

briefcase and snapped it open. I t was Frank Maugham calling. Norm ally, t his would have been welcom e. Frank was CFO and a board m em ber at Carst on Wait e, and he had been a m ent or t o Ed for m ost of t he 14 years since Ed j oined t he com pany. I t wouldn’t have been unusual for Frank t o call on som e rout ine m at t er or j ust t o chat ; t hey had becom e t hat close. But Ed im m ediat ely det ect ed t he not e of anxiet y in Frank’s greet ing and knew t here was som et hing afoot . “ I t ’s a set back, I ’m afraid,” Frank explained. “ David j ust spoke wit h m e. He asked m e t o let you know you are not going t o be nam ed president of Carst on Wait e.” He paused. “ At least not yet . He’s planning t o m ake an announcem ent t hat he’s not appoint ing anyone for a while.” His voice t ook on a sardonic t one. “ He want s t o st ay close t o t he business.” Ed’s m ind was a blank—t he news had hit him alm ost wit h t he force of a physical blow— t hen he gradually becam e conscious of t he heat rising in his cheeks and forehead. His hand wit h t he phone in it had slipped down from his ear. He j erked it back up when he heard Frank’s voice again, saying, “ Are you t here?” But now t he car was caught up in a swirl of agit at ed hum anit y. As t he car inched forward, prot est ers dressed in out rageous cost um es and carrying hand- let t ered signs pressed t oward it , a few get t ing close enough, despit e t he effort s of arm ed Swiss guards, t o leer disconcert ingly int o t he windows. Ed could hear t heir chant s t hrough t he t hick glass. He looked around wildly, t hen gripped t he phone t ight er. “ Look, Frank. This is a bizarre m om ent . Can I call you right back? I ’m alm ost at t he hot el.” “ Yes, absolut ely. Get set t led in. But first , j ust know t hat I have a plan,” Frank said. “ I ’m going t o call around t o t he rest of t he board m em bers and see if we can’t prevail upon David t o change his m ind.” “ You really t hink t hat could work?” Ed t ried t o focus. “ Who could argue wit h t he wisdom of having a succession plan? And who else but you could t he successor be?” The car lurched forward and passed t hrough a gat e in a high chain- link fence. The driver glanced back and raised his eyebrows expect ant ly. I t was t im e for Ed t o produce his passport and conference pass for inspect ion. “ I ’ll call you,” Ed said t o Frank and shoved t he phone back int o his briefcase. M a gic M ou n t a in Som e hours lat er, realizing he was hungry, Ed quickly shaved, dressed for dinner, and found his way t o t he Kongress Cent er, where t he inaugural recept ion was already in high gear. The room was a sea of gest iculat ing people, chat t ering in accent ed English or no English at all. Wait ers m oved sm oot hly am ong t hem , t rays laden wit h wineglasses and hors d’oeuvres, as a full orchest ra played Berlioz. Ed spied a row of whit e- clot hed t ables and began working his way t oward it . “ Edward Davidson! Well, I ’ll be dam ned.” Ed looked t oward t he voice and was am azed t o see his old B- school sect ion m at e, Lucy Keh. Lucy had m ade her m illions in a dot - com t hat went public, t hen had gone on t o found a nonprofit organizat ion. They’d long ago fallen out of t ouch, but Ed occasionally spot t ed her nam e in t he news. Now she was breaking away from t he group she’d been t alking wit h and com ing t oward him , her arm s ext ended for a hug. There was no one like Lucy. Back in school, she’d been brilliant , but she was also t he one

who m ade you feel brilliant . She’d bring hom em ade brownies t o st udy sessions. She’d read Greek dram as—in t he original Greek, no less—t o unwind. She’d rem em ber your kid brot her’s nam e. She was fiercely loyal. Alm ost before he realized what was happening, Ed was out side t he ballroom , glass in hand, adm it t ing t o Lucy how he had t hat day been bet rayed. “ Let m e get t his st raight .” Lucy peered at Ed. “ David Pat erno prom ised you t his posit ion? And now he’s reneging?” Ed filled in t he det ails. A year ago, Carst on Wait e’s longt im e chairm an and CEO, Tom Tyrakowski, had announced he was leaving, and a t hree- way cont est am ong int ernal candidat es for t he spot had m oved quickly int o high gear. The t im ing wasn’t ideal, from Ed’s st andpoint . A few years lat er and he m ight have had a fair shot at t he j ob him self. As it was, he couldn’t com pet e, despit e his reput at ion as a rising st ar. And neit her was Frank in t he running. Already 60, Frank had m ade his own play for t he j ob m any years earlier—and done penance for it . The m an who had beat Frank out for t he j ob had prom pt ly exiled him t o one of t he com pany’s m ost m arginal divisions and left him running it for a good long t im e before let t ing him com e in from t he cold. Frank was a survivor, all right , and at t his point he had real influence. He had seen it all, and he knew where t he bodies were buried. Frank also t ruly believed t hat Ed should and would run t he com pany som eday. That ’s why he’d cooked up t his underst anding wit h David. He and Ed would t hrow t heir weight behind his candidacy, and once David got t he j ob, he would grant Frank a seat on t he board and m ake Ed president . Heir apparent . “ So you don’t t hink David would have got t he t op j ob if it weren’t for you guys backing him ?” Lucy had zeroed in on t he key quest ion. “ We m ade t he difference,” Ed answered, wit hout elaborat ing. I n fact , Frank had m ade a few downright m isrepresent at ions t o t he board, m aking t he perform ance of David’s division look bet t er t han t he ot her guys’. Lucy didn’t need t o know t hat . Ed sipped his wine, t hen st udied it ; no bouquet , body, or flavor t o speak of. Was it Swiss?

Ed h a d be e n w r on ge d be for e a n d h a d fe lt be t t e r t h a n t h is. Bu t D a vid’s r e j e ct ion cu t m or e de e ply. “ What a t ragedy,” Lucy said. Ed glanced quickly at her face for any sign of irony, but it was all com passion. “ I ’m so sorry t o hear it .” Ed st raight ened up and looked away. Was it possible he had becom e an obj ect of pit y? A sick feeling cam e over him , and suddenly he want ed t o be far away from Lucy. “ Right ,” he said perem pt orily. “ But hey, I don’t m ean t o m onopolize you. I ’m sure—” “ Wait a m inut e. He’s supposed t o be here, right ? I sn’t he on a panel? On corporat e social responsibilit y or som et hing?” “ He was. At t he last m inut e he got hung up in som e negot iat ions. I ’m giving his speech on Friday.” Lucy’s eyebrows rose slight ly. “ I nt erest ing. You m ust be t em pt ed t o add a few choice words of your own.”

Com ple x Con side r a t ion s Lat er t hat night , Ed crunched across t he snow past t he Hot el Belvedere, an im posing pile inst alled in t he m ount ain’s side. Passing under a lam ppost , he paused and, fishing a gloved finger int o his coat sleeve, uncovered his wat ch. He squint ed at t he swim m ing num bers. He had had lit t le t o eat and t oo m uch t o drink, t o t op off his j et lag. He considered calling Frank for an updat e but quickly realized t hat m ade no sense. The business day was j ust ending, and Frank’s plan had been t o reach m ost of t he board aft er hours, at hom e. I n fact , Ed realized, Frank m ight be on t he phone t hat very m inut e. Ed im agined how such a conversat ion would begin, and a fresh wave of m ort ificat ion cam e over him . I t wasn’t , aft er all, as sim ple as bet rayal. Ed had been wronged before and had felt bet t er t han t his; t hat t im e, he had at least been able t o indulge in som e right eous indignat ion and had com e away feeling superior t o his rival. But David’s rej ect ion cut m ore deeply t han t hat . For as close as his relat ionship had becom e wit h Frank, Ed had first been David’s prot égé. At 26, he had been recruit ed by Carst on Wait e for his form idable analyt ical skills and had quickly im pressed his superiors. David, t en years his senior, had spot t ed him early on, and his work had proved inst rum ent al t o som e of t he biggest deals David put t oget her. The t wo were very different —David was known as a charm ing salesm an, Ed as an incisive, if som ewhat arrogant , quant , but t he chem ist ry worked. David, Ed t hought , underst ood him . I n fact , Ed had revealed aspect s of him self t o David t hat no one else had been privy t o before or since. I n t he aft erm at h of t his or t hat celebrat ion of a closed deal, when enough alcohol had flowed for him t o claim m isint erpret at ion, if necessary, t he next day, Ed had opened up. I t had been a heady t im e. Even if t he t wo of t hem had worked less direct ly t oget her in recent years—David was given a division t o run; so was Ed, event ually—Ed ret ained t hat sense of connect ion and only occasionally felt pained by it . I t was a source of vulnerabilit y, he knew, but in so m any ot her respect s his work was m aking him invincible. He had developed selling skills of his own, t o augm ent his im pressive st ring of t echnical innovat ions. Client s clam ored for his t im e and at t ent ion. When he was given a division t o run, he was j ust 38—t he youngest in t he firm ’s hist ory—yet he m anaged t o engineer t he great est upt ick in profit abilit y am ong all t he divisions t hat year. He was golden. And at every t urn, David— wit h som e call or not e—had acknowledged t he achievem ent . Approved of it . Even adm ired it . And now t his. David knew Ed couldn’t cut it . Ed becam e conscious of voices and glanced t o his right . The group cam e past laughing, t he hologram s on t heir whit e badges glint ing in t he lam plight . Ed’s lips brushed against t he collar of his cashm ere coat , dam p from t he condensat ion of his breat h. How long had he been st anding here? He t ucked his chin down closer against his neck and t urned from t he light , as his face crum pled. Er r or Appa r e n t Sit t ing in a packed room t he next aft ernoon, Ed t ried t o recall why he had regist ered for t his session out of t he m any t hat were running concurrent ly. The t opic was t im ely enough —corporat e governance reform —but t he speakers were dull. All were from com panies t hat had inst it ut ed new pract ices, yet all seem ed loat h t o t alk about t he abuses t hey were t rying t o prevent . Plat it ude aft er sanct im onious plat it ude. He wondered about him self: Would I have been so cynical about t his a week ago? Or am I st ill feeling t he effect s of t he sleeping pills?

Ed’s phone vibrat ed in his breast pocket , and he escaped int o t he hallway. “ I t ’s Frank,” said t he voice on t he ot her end. Ed closed his eyes t o concent rat e over t he noise of a cat ering t rolley clat t ering past . “ We m ay be in t rouble. David knows about t he calls I m ade last night . And he’s calling an em ergency board m eet ing for t onight .” Ed’s heart skipped a beat . “ Already? Wait a m inut e, who did you get hold of? What ’s t he consensus?” “ I don’t know. I needed m ore t im e.” Frank sounded defeat ed. “ I t doesn’t look good.” “ When is t he board m eet ing happening t onight ?” Ed t hought about t he t im e difference. “ I m ean, obviously I want you t o call m e whenever you get out .” “ I would,” Frank said. “ But I ’m not invit ed.” Ch oice W or ds Ed st udied his face in t he m irror by t he elevat or bank as he wait ed t o ride down t o breakfast . His left eyelid had been t wit ching int erm it t ent ly since he woke up, but he couldn’t t ell if it was percept ible t o ot hers. He had j ust em erged from t he hot el room he had not left since t he day before, since right aft er Frank’s call. I t seem ed even longer t han t he 15 hours it had been. The first t wo of t hem , easily, had been spent in pure rage. On com ing t hrough t he door, Ed had been t hirst y and had reached for a m ineral wat er. But m om ent s lat er, cat ching sight of his face in t he m irror, he had hurled t he glass bot t le at it . What followed was t he m ost sust ained st ring of obscenit ies Ed had ever given voice t o. There was not hing he didn’t call David Pat erno, no out rageous act t he m an had not com m it t ed. Lat er, sit t ing on t he edge of his bed, his hands rubbing his face, he’d rem em bered Lucy’s phrase—“ choice words” —wit h a caust ic laugh. You want choice words? How ’bout t hose? And t hen he’d recalled t hat she’d been t alking about t he speech he was t o give t he next m orning: “ You m ust be t em pt ed t o add a few choice words of your own.” He had walked over t o t he desk and pulled out t he rem arks t he com m unicat ions VP had sent him . “ Hypocrit ical fluff,” he’d concluded, as he’d reread t he speech. And t hen he’d reached for his pen. Because, aft er all, he hadn’t been t he only one t o t ell secret s back in t hose days when he and David were close. How would t he Davos crowd react t o hearing his boss’s real t rack record on social responsibilit y? The idea m ight have been a vengeful fant asy at first , but it t ook on a whole new charact er aft er Ed, realizing how lat e t he hour had grown, had ordered room service. And when he’d got t en t he predawn call from Frank, it had fueled t he effort anew. Frank had been fired, of course. David had accused him of insubordinat ion and got t en t he rest of t he board t o agree t hat Frank’s act ions were not com pat ible wit h t he int erest s of t he business and it s shareholders. One of Frank’s friends on t he board had given him t he heads- up right aft er t he m eet ing ended, t o spare him t he hum iliat ion of being escort ed out by securit y t he next m orning. “ Apparent ly, t here was not hing said about you specifically,” Frank had offered. Ed knew what Frank was doing: allowing him t o believe t hat he m ight st ill hang on t o his own j ob—and even, as Frank had, cont inue t o advance up t he ladder. Suddenly, t he old m an seem ed pat het ic t o Ed. Taken for grant ed for years and now t hrown out , Frank st ill

seem ed concerned t hat Carst on Wait e would lose a valuable em ployee. The elevat or bell rang. St epping t hrough t he open doors, Ed looked at his wat ch. Twent y m inut es t o showt im e. A slight queasiness rose in him . But he t ucked his speech under his arm and hit t he but t on for t he lobby.

H BR Ca se Com m e n t a r y

W h a t is Ed a bou t t o do? Fou r com m e n t a t or s offe r e x pe r t a dvice . Ke n n e t h Eisold is a psychoanalyst and organizat ional consult ant . He t eaches at t he William Alanson Whit e I nst it ut e in New York and is president of t he I nt ernat ional Societ y for t he Psychoanalyt ic St udy of Organizat ions. He can be reached at [email protected] . Ed Davidson is obviously angry, but underneat h t hat , he’s hurt . He want s t o be invincible, but he’s act ually vulnerable. We see t hat clearly when he reflect s on what has happened: Ed concludes t hat his CEO, David Pat erno, t hought he couldn’t cut it . That ’s his own insecurit y com ing t hrough, and he covers it up wit h anger and a wish t o ret aliat e, rat her t han adm it t ing he has t hese self- doubt s. The vignet t e wit h Lucy Keh, Ed’s form er classm at e, gives us furt her insight int o his int ernal conflict s. He longs t o unburden him self, j ust as early in his career he luxuriat ed in t he sym pat hy and underst anding of ot hers during t hose drunken lat e night s. But even t hough he recognizes and deeply appreciat es Lucy’s loyalt y, he is afraid t o show his neediness t o her. Throughout t he case, Ed reveals his desire t o be shepherded along. To som e ext ent , t hat ’s perfect ly norm al; we all have a dependent side. But here, it feels as t hough Ed has not worked t hrough it sufficient ly. Ed allows CFO Frank Maugham t o int ervene on his behalf. When Frank proposes a course of act ion, he goes for it right away. Ed seem s t o feel t hat he is as good as fired already, but all he has t o go on is Frank’s opinion—he’s put t ing t oo m uch st ock in t hat . All t hese are signs of a dependency, of Ed’s inabilit y t o st and back and m ake his own assessm ent . And isn’t it int erest ing t hat his m ot her com es int o t he st ory? He’s 40, but he’s st ill in t hat realm where he is t rying t o please his m ot her and, I would say, he is st ill looking for a fat her.

M ost pe ople e x pe r ie n ce t h e ir siblin gs, t h e ir fa t h e r s, t h e ir m ot h e r s, on t h e j ob. Eve r ybody h a s t r a n sfe r e n ce ; t h e qu e st ion is, H ow t r a ppe d a r e t h e y in t h ose pa t t e r n s? One of Freud’s great est insight s had t o do wit h t he phenom enon of t ransference. People t ransfer ont o current relat ionships t he conflict s and assum pt ions generat ed in childhood relat ionships. They keep assum ing t hat t hey’re in t he sam e const ellat ion of roles and so repeat pat t erns of behavior. Most people experience t heir siblings, t heir fat hers, t heir m ot hers, and so on, on t he j ob. Everybody has t ransference; t he quest ion is, How t rapped are t hey in t hose pat t erns? I f I were t o speculat e about Ed’s childhood, I would guess t hat he had an adoring m ot her and problem s wit h his fat her—he was aloof or in som e ot her way unavailable t o Ed. Those circum st ances left Ed wit h a sort of hunger we see played out in his relat ionships wit h Frank and David. Obviously, t his is a crude assum pt ion based on a few hint s, but if

Ed cam e t o m e as a pat ient I would be probing in t hat area. To help him be bet t er equipped t o m ove beyond t hese issues, I would t ry t o get at what he was really feeling and get him t o be m ore in t ouch wit h his underlying insecurit y and vulnerabilit y. Would I be likely t o have t hat opport unit y? You m ight t hink t hat Ed’s unwillingness t o adm it failings would keep him from seeking help. But he looks t o ot hers for counsel, and he bonds wit h older m en, so it ’s not t hat im plausible. I f som eone Ed t rust ed said t o him , “ I know som eone you should t alk t o,” he m ight go along—t hough he wouldn’t if t hat person said, “ Look, you need a shrink.” That , I t hink, is why execut ives have coaches, not psychiat rist s. As som eone who has served in bot h capacit ies, I can report t hat t he conversat ions are t he sam e in a num ber of respect s; t he chief difference is t hat as a coach I focus on work relat ionships m ore t han on personal ones. But it ’s m ore socially accept able t o have a coach. People wit h coaches aren’t adm it t ing weakness. They j ust need som eone t o help t hem get t o t he t op of t heir form . Ed would probably respond well t o a coach. I f Ed’s ever going t o be a great leader, he will have t o reduce his dependence on t he opinions of ot hers. Effect ive leaders aren’t const ant ly looking around and saying, “ What will people t hink?” They need t he int ernal convict ion and hum ilit y t o accept t hat t hey don’t know all t he answers. Dealing wit h t his set back is a crit ical t est for Ed. I f he survives it , he’ll becom e his own m an. D e e Sode r is t he founder and m anaging part ner of t he CEO Perspect ive Group, a New York–based execut ive assessm ent and coaching firm . She can be reached at dee@ceoperspect ive.com . Ed needs t o wake up fast ! This t im e, Pat erno was right . Frank was a subversive subordinat e, pushing Ed’s candidacy for his own benefit . Dism issal was appropriat e. Ed is not ready t o be CEO of Carst on Wait e or any ot her com pany. A vengeful, childish speech will only confirm t his t o t he leaders at Davos.

Ed w ou ld fa il m y CEO a sse ssm e n t in t w o r e spe ct s. H e ’s n ot in ch a r ge of t h e sit u a t ion or h im se lf. M or e im por t a n t , Ed flu n k s t h e e t h ics t e st . CEO assessm ent s and t op execut ive coaching have been m y sole focus for nearly t wo decades. Ed would fail m y CEO assessm ent in t wo respect s. For one, he’s not in charge of t he sit uat ion or him self. Frank’s in charge; Ed’s j ust being react ive. Prot est ers dist ract Ed from an im port ant phone call. The lim o driver is m ore in cont rol t han he is. Ed’s lack of cont rol and confidence are readily observable. The best leaders proj ect a calm confidence, regardless of t heir feelings. One of m y favorit e client s says about him self, “ I ’m like t he duck gliding across t he pond. To anyone on t he bank, t hings look serene. But under t he surface, I ’m paddling like m ad.” More im port ant , Ed flunks t he et hics t est . While Frank act ually lied t o t he board of direct ors t o get Pat erno int o office, Ed support ed t he decept ion. Ed chose badly in an unam biguous exam ple of right versus wrong. CEOs m ake et hical calls on com plex m at t ers const ant ly. Pat erno isn’t t he best role m odel, but Ed doesn’t recognize his own com plicit y or responsibilit y. One can only hope t his will be Ed’s wake- up call. He’ll do som e serious soul- searching

and realize he needs t o work on his deficit s, st art ing wit h his isolat ionism . Am azingly, he was in his room for 15 hours and didn’t t alk t o anyone, nor did he check online news. He didn’t cont act Pat erno about t he governance speech; he didn’t m ake calls t o anyone prior t o Davos and isn’t t alking wit h anyone now. He’s not get t ing inform at ion from anyone. CEOs live on inform at ion. Ed needs t o be com m unicat ing const ant ly—up, down, and sideways. Allies are crucial in a corporat ion, especially in t oday’s rapidly changing organizat ions. Ed is naive t o rely on j ust one source, especially one wit h anot her agenda. I f caffeine rest ores his sanit y and precludes his divulging corporat e secret s, Ed will have t o quickly rebuild Pat erno’s fait h in him . His fut ure at Carst on Wait e can be rest ored, but it is cert ainly shaky. I f you were Pat erno, you would have t o quest ion Ed’s loyalt y and m ot ivat ions. He swit ched his allegiance, t o Frank, years ago. You were a m ent or and support er, but Ed hasn’t m aint ained cont act . You prom ot ed Ed, shared confidences, encouraged him t o develop his int erpersonal skills, and unofficially designat ed him your successor. Now you’ve had t o defuse Frank’s lobbying of t he board on Ed’s behalf, hold an em ergency board m eet ing, and fire Frank. The press is calling, but despit e t he com m ot ion, you haven’t heard from t he guy! Ed needs t o call Pat erno ASAP and t ry t o pat ch up t he relat ionship, plus develop a backup plan in case he’s asked t o resign or his fut ure rem ains t aint ed. When Ed speaks t o Pat erno, he should say som et hing like, “ Your speech went well, David, and several people sent t heir regards. I heard you needed t o t erm inat e Frank—what happened?” Ed’s t one is im port ant , and it should com e across as posit ive and concerned. What ever Pat erno says, Ed’s best m ove is t o respond wit h som et hing like, “ Frank was out - ofbounds. He has always been very posit ive about you t o m e, but t hen again he knows how highly I t hink of you. How dist urbing.” I f Pat erno asks Ed if Frank t old him what had t ranspired, Ed should not lie. I nst ead, he should say, “ Frank wasn’t m aking m uch sense, so I called you.” Pat erno’s not likely t o believe him , but Ed buys t im e t o prove his allegiance. Pat erno will probably say all t he right support ive t hings, but t hat shouldn’t lull Ed int o com placency. He has t o im prove his cont act and relat ionship wit h t he board as well as develop ot her essent ial leadership t rait s. I nsecurit y and drive ensured t hat Ed’s work perform ance is st ellar, but a j ob well done doesn’t m ake him or anyone invincible. These t rials are frequent ly t he im pet us individuals need in order t o change. I t is a pivot al t im e for Ed—eit her for success or failure. Leaders play t he hand t hey’re dealt —and Ed’s not playing t his hand well. But he could. Je ffr e y P. Ka h n is t he CEO of WorkPsych Associat es in New York and a clinical associat e professor of psychiat ry at Weill Medical College of Cornell Universit y, also in Manhat t an. He is t he coedit or of Ment al Healt h and Product ivit y in t he Workplace: A Handbook for Organizat ions and Clinicians ( Jossey- Bass/ Wiley, 2003) . He can be reached at www. workpsychcorp.com .

As Ed Davidson walks ont o t he st age at Davos, he needs t o realize t hat his problem m ay be m ore wit h CFO Frank Maugham t han wit h CEO David Pat erno. Ed is a highly capable m anager who had been t he com pany’s youngest division head. And if Ed didn’t have leadership skills, he would not be posit ioned as David’s heir apparent . I n fact , he likely would not even be at Davos. Even so, Ed has a reput at ion as an arrogant quant , and he passively allows Frank t o t ry an end run around David t o t he board.

Ex e cu t ive s n e e d t o se e sit u a t ion s for w h a t t h e y a r e , a n d Ed sor e ly n e e ds a fla sh of in sigh t be for e h e r e a ch e s t h e podiu m . Act ually, Ed m ay yet becom e CEO one day. All we really hear t o t he cont rary is t hat David is delaying t he appoint m ent of a successor. And David m ay well have good reasons t o “ st ay close t o t he business” ; perhaps he canceled his Davos t rip because he’s negot iat ing som e colossal deal t hat really will require him t o st ay close. Ed was David’s prot égé once, and t hough t hey m ay not have worked t oget her cont inuously over t he years, t hey go back a long t im e. Moreover, David has consist ent ly acknowledged, even adm ired, Ed’s skills and accom plishm ent s. Ed has always been a bit wary of David, but even now t here is no clear evidence of host ile com pet it ion. Since Ed does not know what is act ually going on in David’s m ind, he m ay be m ist aken about what he perceives as David’s bet rayal. He has inform at ion only from Frank, who present s t he news in a dist inct ly pessim ist ic way. Frank is a m anipulat ive sort , som eone who gains leverage by knowing where t he bodies are buried and by m isrepresent ing and select ively present ing inform at ion. Since Frank failed t o becom e t he com pany’s CEO a decade earlier, he has t ried t o achieve surrogat e success—first as t he kingm aker who support ed David in his bid t o becom e CEO ( while gaining a board seat him self) , and now as a prom ot er of Ed’s candidacy. This has allowed Frank a sense of cont rol over t he com pany from behind t he scenes. I n his lat est m aneuverings, t hough, he t ries t o act as a de fact o CEO and t hus get s him self fired. While Frank favors Ed on a rat ional level, he has m ixed feelings because of his own t hwart ed am bit ions t o becom e CEO. For inst ance, he m ay be bit t er t hat Ed is now t he heir apparent chosen t o st and in for David on t he world st age. Successful corporat ions clearly t hrive on int ernal com pet it ion, but not when host ile or dishonest com pet it ors respond t o perceived t hreat s by underm ining ot hers or t he firm . I n t his case, Frank feels t hreat ened by Ed, and so he fuels Ed’s wariness about David. Frank’s act ions could underm ine not only Ed’s relat ionships but also his perform ance at Davos. I find t hat t hese com plex kinds of em ot ional rivalry are com m on and dest ruct ive in far t oo m any organizat ions. For inst ance, I know of a com pany where a senior execut ive t ried t o t ake credit for a t alent ed subordinat e’s accom plishm ent s. Happily, t his was a good and successful organizat ion, and it s cult ure did not perm it such behavior. As a result , t he subordinat e felt com fort able speaking up about t he sit uat ion. Top m anagers t alked wit h t he execut ive t o rem edy t he problem , and t hey looked t o head off recurrences of t he issue by addressing it s underlying causes. Good com panies t ry t o creat e a support ive organizat ional cult ure for t heir em ployees. Rat her t han prom ot e execut ive coaching, som e encourage senior execut ives t o seek psychiat ric consult at ion. I t wouldn’t be surprising if anxiet y or depression cont ribut ed t o Frank’s problem at ic behavior. Execut ives need t o see sit uat ions for what t hey are, and Ed sorely needs a flash of insight before he reaches t he podium . Even as he st ruggles t o cont ain his m isplaced anger, Ed probably won’t underm ine David or him self. The speech could be Ed’s opport unit y t o t ake a leadership high road t hat even David would

appreciat e. Ed could m ake t he point t hat corporat e social responsibilit y out side begins wit h t rue responsibilit y inside. That m eans t hat corporat ions m ust be profit able, well governed, concerned about all em ployees, and have a st rong and et hical cult ure. A speech like t hat m ight go over well in Davos. And if it led t o som e fort hright conversat ion back in t he St at es, it would help Ed renew his t ies t o t he com pany’s direct ors and CEO. Ch a r le s M . Elson holds t he Edgar S. Woolard, Jr., Chair of Corporat e Governance and is t he direct or of t he John L. Weinberg Cent er for Corporat e Governance at t he Universit y of Delaware in Newark. He is also “ Of Counsel” t o t he law firm of Holland & Knight in Tam pa, Florida. He can be reached at [email protected]. The seeds of Ed’s problem were sown early on, in Carst on Wait e’s seriously flawed approach t o CEO succession. What do we know about it ? For one t hing, it feat ured a t hree- way horse race. The current CEO, David Pat erno, was able t o win his posit ion only because he could assem ble a fact ion of powerful int ernal people t o back him . I n ot her words, it was a polit ical process, not one designed for t he good of t he business. David’s own decision not t o nam e Ed his successor t ells us t hat succession planning at t his com pany is driven by t he CEO, not t he board. That ’s j ust not t he way t o ensure good succession decisions. Horse races for t he t op office are, of course, not uncom m on. The m ost fam ous one in recent hist ory was General Elect ric’s, t o fill Jack Welch’s shoes. That cont est produced a st rong leader, but it was at t he expense of Bob Nardelli’s and Jim McNerney’s t alent s, as t hey bot h left for greener past ures. The fallout can be even worse, because horse races height en t he polit ics when every at t em pt should be m ade t o m inim ize t hem . And t hat cont ribut es t o a broader polit icizat ion of t he organizat ion.

I f Ed w a n t s t o st a y, h e sh ou ldn ’t t r y t o sa ve h is j ob w it h som e su bve r sive m ove . H e sh ou ld give t h e spe e ch u n a lt e r e d, r e t u r n h om e , a n d con ce n t r a t e on doin g t h e be st w or k h e ca n do. I t would, of course, be asking t oo m uch t o dem and t hat polit ics be elim inat ed. Com panies are full of polit icians; it ’s part of t he hum an condit ion. But no one could deny t hat t he choice of a successor should be m ade purely on t he basis of who will effect ively generat e shareholder ret urns, not according t o who was prom ised what by whom . I ’m a firm believer t hat if you cont inually rem ind yourself of an aspirat ion, it will begin t o influence t he realit y. But such aspirat ions haven’t even occurred t o anyone at Carst on Wait e. Not once in t he case st udy is t he quest ion of shareholder value raised. And, not surprisingly, not one of t he charact ers in it is adm irable. To deal wit h t he t hreat of selfish, polit ical behavior in m anagem ent ranks, invest ors increasingly recognize t hey m ust have t ruly obj ect ive boards m ade up of long- t erm shareholders. Not hing about boards m akes t hem apolit ical per se—board m em bers are people, t oo. So, t o m ake good decisions, t hey m ust be sure t heir com m it m ent is t o t he ent erprise, not t o it s current m anagem ent . Under t hose circum st ances, a CFO like Frank Maugham would not be appoint ed t o t he board. Here, however, t he problem plays out in an odd way because Frank is ant im anagem ent . Typically, t he danger is t hat board insiders will m im ic m anagem ent t oo closely. All t his underscores t he im port ance of having boards m anage t he succession process. ( For m ore on t his, see t he Nat ional Associat ion of Corporat e Direct ors’ 1998 Report of t he NACD Blue Ribbon Com m ission on CEO Succession, which persuasively argues t he

point .) But com panies t hat have CEO- dom inat ed boards also t radit ionally have a CEOdom inat ed succession process. Does t his m ean t hat Ed’s career at Carst on Wait e is over? Possibly. But if Ed want s t o st ay, he shouldn’t t ry t o save his j ob wit h som e subversive m ove. His challenge, inst ead, is t o rise above t he polit ics. He should give t he speech unalt ered, ret urn hom e, and concent rat e on doing t he best work he can do. Lot s of people m ake m ist akes, yet t hey go on t o succeed. Ed’s m ist ake here is playing polit ics. And his way out is t o play business. Ed could becom e a CEO. But if Ed cont inues t o value self- preservat ion or self- prom ot ion over t he ent erprise, he can kiss his career t here good- bye. Reprint Num ber R0401A Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. This cont ent m ay not be reproduced or t ransm it t ed in any form or by any m eans, elect ronic or m echanical, including phot ocopy, recording, or any inform at ion st orage or ret rieval syst em , wit hout writ t en perm ission. Request s for perm ission should be direct ed t o perm [email protected], 1- 888- 500- 1020, or m ailed t o Perm issions, Harvard Business School Publishing, 60 Harvard Way, Bost on, MA 02163.

Click here t o visit :

View Back Issues | January 2004 > Leading by Feel

> | Pu r ch a se Re pr in t > | Pr in t a ble Ve r sion

Leading by Feel

> | E- m a il a Colle a gu e > | Ex e cu t ive Su m m a r y

Em pa t h y, in t u it ion , a n d se lf- a w a r e n e ss a r e e sse n t ia l t o good le a de r sh ip, bu t t h e y ca n be t r ick y t o h on e a n d da n ge r ou s t o u se . Eigh t e e n le a de r s a n d sch ola r s e x plor e h ow t o m a n a ge e m ot ion a l in t e llige n ce .

Like it or not , leaders need t o m anage t he m ood of t heir organizat ions. The m ost gift ed leaders accom plish t hat by using a m yst erious blend of psychological abilit ies known as em ot ional int elligence. They’re self- aware and em pat het ic. They can read and regulat e t heir own em ot ions while int uit ively grasping how ot hers feel and gauging t heir organizat ion’s em ot ional st at e. But where does em ot ional int elligence com e from ? And how do leaders learn t o use it ? The m anagem ent lit erat ure ( and even com m on sense) suggest s t hat bot h nat ure and nurt ure feed em ot ional int elligence. Part genet ic predisposit ion, part life experience, and part old- fashioned t raining, em ot ional int elligence em erges in varying degrees from one leader t o t he next , and m anagers apply it wit h varying skill. Wisely and com passionat ely deployed, em ot ional int elligence spurs leaders, t heir people, and t heir organizat ions t o superior perform ance; naively or m aliciously applied, it can paralyze leaders or allow t hem t o m anipulat e followers for personal gain. We invit ed 18 leaders and scholars ( including business execut ives, leadership researchers, psychologist s, a neurologist , a cult expert , and a sym phony conduct or) t o explore t he nat ure and m anagem ent of em ot ional int elligence—it s sources, uses, and abuses. Their responses differed dram at ically, but t here were som e com m on t hem es: t he im port ance of consciously—and conscient iously—honing one’s skills, t he doubleedged nat ure of self- awareness, and t he danger of let t ing any one em ot ional int elligence skill dom inat e.

Be Re a list ic Joh n D . M a ye r ( j ack.m [email protected]) is a professor of psychology at t he Universit y of New Ham pshire. He and Yale psychology professor Pet er Salovey are credit ed wit h first defining t he concept of em ot ional int elligence in t he early 1990s. This is a t im e of growing realism about em ot ional int elligence—especially concerning what it is and what it isn’t . The books and art icles t hat have helped popularize t he concept have defined it as a loose collect ion of personalit y t rait s, such as self- awareness, opt im ism , and t olerance. These popular definit ions have been accom panied by exaggerat ed claim s about t he im port ance of em ot ional int elligence. But diverse personalit y t rait s, however adm irable, don’t necessarily add up t o a single definit ion of em ot ional int elligence. I n fact , such t rait s are difficult t o collect ively evaluat e in a way t hat reveals t heir relat ionship t o success in business and in life. Even when t hey’re viewed in isolat ion, t he charact erist ics com m only associat ed wit h em ot ional int elligence and success m ay be m ore com plicat ed t han t hey seem . For exam ple, t he scient ific j ury is out on how im port ant self- awareness is t o successful leadership. I n fact , t oo m uch self- awareness can reduce self- est eem , which is oft en a crucial com ponent of great leadership. From a scient ific ( rat her t han a popular) st andpoint , em ot ional int elligence is t he abilit y t o accurat ely perceive your own and ot hers’ em ot ions; t o underst and t he signals t hat em ot ions send about relat ionships; and t o m anage your own and ot hers’ em ot ions. I t doesn’t necessarily include t he qualit ies ( like opt im ism , init iat ive, and self- confidence) t hat som e popular definit ions ascribe t o it . Researchers have used perform ance t est s t o m easure people’s accuracy at ident ifying

and underst anding em ot ions—for exam ple, asking t hem t o ident ify t he em ot ions conveyed by a face or which am ong several sit uat ions is m ost likely t o bring about happiness. People who get high scores on t hese t est s are indeed different from ot hers. I n t he business world, t hey appear bet t er able t o deal wit h cust om ers’ com plaint s or t o m ediat e disput es, and t hey m ay excel at m aking st rong and posit ive personal connect ions wit h subordinat es and cust om ers over t he long t erm . Of course, em ot ional int elligence isn’t t he only way t o at t ain success as a leader: A brilliant st rat egist who can m axim ize profit s m ay be able t o hire and keep t alent ed em ployees even if he or she doesn’t have st rong personal connect ions wit h t hem . I s t here value in scales t hat , based on popular concept ions, m easure qualit ies like opt im ism and self- confidence but label t hem em ot ional int elligence? Cert ainly t hese personalit y t rait s are im port ant in business, so m easuring and ( som et im es) enhancing t hem can be useful. But recent research m akes it clear t hat t hese charact erist ics are dist inct from em ot ional int elligence as it is scient ifically defined. A person high in em ot ional int elligence m ay be realist ic rat her t han opt im ist ic and insecure rat her t han confident . Conversely, a person m ay be highly self- confident and opt im ist ic but lack em ot ional int elligence. The danger lies in assum ing t hat because a person is opt im ist ic or confident , he or she is also em ot ionally int elligent , when, in fact , t he presence of t hose t rait s will t ell you not hing of t he sort . N e ve r St op Le a r n in g D a n ie l Gole m a n is t he cochair of t he Consort ium for Research on Em ot ional I nt elligence in Organizat ions based at Rut gers Universit y’s Graduat e School of Applied and Professional Psychology in Piscat away, New Jersey. You can be a successful leader wit hout m uch em ot ional int elligence if you’re ext rem ely lucky and you’ve got everyt hing else going for you: boom ing m arket s, bum bling com pet it ors, and clueless higher- ups. I f you’re incredibly sm art , you can cover for an absence of em ot ional int elligence unt il t hings get t ough for t he business. But at t hat point , you won’t have built up t he social capit al needed t o pull t he best out of people under t rem endous pressure. The art of sust ained leadership is get t ing ot hers t o produce superior work, and high I Q alone is insufficient t o t hat t ask. The good news is t hat em ot ional int elligence can be learned and im proved at any age. I n fact , dat a show t hat , on average, people’s em ot ional int elligence t ends t o increase as t hey age. But t he specific leadership com pet encies t hat are based on em ot ional int elligence don’t necessarily com e t hrough life experience. For exam ple, one of t he m ost com m on com plaint s I hear about leaders, part icularly newly prom ot ed ones, is t hat t hey lack em pat hy. The problem is t hat t hey were prom ot ed because t hey were out st anding individual perform ers, and being a solo achiever doesn’t t each you t he skills necessary t o underst and ot her people’s concerns. Leaders who are m ot ivat ed t o im prove t heir em ot ional int elligence can do so if t hey’re given t he right inform at ion, guidance, and support . The inform at ion t hey need is a candid assessm ent of t heir st rengt hs and lim it at ions from people who know t hem well and whose opinions t hey t rust . The guidance t hey need is a specific developm ent al plan t hat uses nat urally occurring workplace encount ers as t he laborat ory for learning. The support t hey need is som eone t o t alk t o as t hey pract ice how t o handle different sit uat ions, what t o do when t hey’ve blown it , and how t o learn from t hose set backs. I f leaders cult ivat e t hese resources and pract ice cont inually, t hey can develop specific em ot ional int elligence skills—skills t hat will last for years. W a t ch t h e La n gu a ge Colle e n Ba r r e t t is t he president and COO of Dallas- based Sout hwest Airlines. I ’ve always felt t hat m y int uit ion was pret t y darn good, and I t hink I can read people well. I rely a t on on m y gut . I know t he m ood of our different work groups. I know t he expect at ions of our em ployees. I t hink people are generally born wit h a predisposit ion for t his t ype of em ot ional awareness. But I cert ainly believe you can enhance your abilit y j ust from experience and learning. I ’ve probably got t en bet t er at it over t he years because I read and list en t o everyt hing, and I ’m const ant ly observing. I wat ch body language and how people int eract . The ot her day, I was t alking t o one of our officers, and he said, “ How do you do t hat ?” and I said, “ How do I do what ?” He was referring t o a m eet ing we’d bot h been at earlier. I ’d asked one of t he present ers at t he m eet ing, a fellow who report ed t o t his officer, if he was feeling OK. The officer t hought t he em ployee was fine, but , it t urns out , t he poor guy had had a pret t y t raum at ic experience in his personal life t he night before. His

present at ion went well, but he seem ed off t o m e, dist ract ed. I suppose in order t o have seen t hat , I m ust have been fairly at t uned t o what t his fellow’s present at ions were usually like. I oft en com m unicat e on a passionat e, em ot ional level—which can be a det rim ent , part icularly for a wom an in a predom inant ly m ale leadership group, as ours was for m any years. There were t im es when I ’d launch in on an issue and m ake gut - level assert ions like, “ Our cust om ers feel t his,” and “ Our em ployees feel t hat .” Though everyone in t he group would probably deny it , I know t hat part of t heir react ion t o m y out burst s was, “ Oh, t hat ’s j ust Colleen, and she’s on a t angent ,” and t hey would t end t o disregard what I was saying. I ’ve learned t o rely on calm er people around m e t o give m e t hose raised eyebrows t hat say, “ Lower t he passion a lit t le bit , and people will list en m ore.” When I ’m m aking m y argum ent s, I have t o really prepare and t ry t o be—and t his is very difficult for m e—fact ual and dispassionat e.

I r e ly on ca lm e r pe ople a r ou n d m e t o give m e t h ose r a ise d e ye br ow s t h a t sa y, “Low e r t h e pa ssion a lit t le bit .” Bu ild Pa t h w a ys St e ve n Gu t st e in ( gut st ein@connect ionscent er.com ) is a psychologist , aut ism expert , and codirect or of Connect ions Cent er for Fam ily and Personal Developm ent in Houst on. I work wit h aut ist ic children, a populat ion t ypically defined by it s lack of em ot ional int elligence. People wit h aut ism can’t connect —indeed, t hey aren’t really int erest ed in connect ing em ot ionally wit h ot hers. Tradit ionally, t he t herapeut ic approach wit h t hese kids has been t o t each t hem t o fake it . They are urged t o m ake eye cont act wit h ot hers, t o repress what ever dist ract ing behaviors t hey m ay have, and t o use social script s. Many of t hese t herapies have t he appearance of being successful. People wit h aut ism do learn t he script s, and som e even blend in. The problem is, faking it never ceases t o be work. So as aut ist ic children becom e adult s, t hey st op put t ing on t he show. Am ong adult s wit h Asperger’s syndrom e ( a form of aut ism m arked by average or above- average I Q) , fewer t han 12% hold j obs. Only 3% leave hom e. These findings m ake t he case profoundly t hat one get s only so far on I Q. People need t o connect em ot ionally, and wit h flexibilit y, in order t o succeed. These findings also dem onst rat e t hat t radit ional t herapies have not been successful at im proving qualit y of life for aut ist ic people. My approach t o t eaching em ot ional int elligence skills t o children wit h aut ism , which I call “ relat ionship developm ent int ervent ion” ( RDI ) , t akes a different t ack. I t begins wit h a belief t hat people wit h aut ism can be t aught t o value relat ionships, t o seek out int eract ions t hat are not m erely t ransact ional ( “ I will deal wit h you because t here is som et hing I want from you” ) but where t he whole point is t o enj oy t he shared experience. Nonaut ist ic people begin t o have t hese kinds of relat ionships early in life; at about t en m ont hs, m ost babies st art developing t he capacit y for social referencing, t he appreciat ion t hat m y act ions should t ake int o account your em ot ions. We now know from neuroim aging t hat at t his st age som e crit ical neural pat hways are being laid down am ong all t he st ruct ures in t he lim bic syst em , which regulat es em ot ion and m ot ivat ion. Aut ist ic children t ypically don’t develop t hose pat hways.

I f pe ople w it h a u t ism ca n le a r n e m ot ion a l in t e llige n ce , a n yon e ca n . But wit h RDI , which uses cognit ive exercises and act ivit ies t o m ot ivat e t he children t o learn specific behaviors rat her t han social script s, I t hink we can creat e t he neurological t raffic t o est ablish t hose pat hways. Mind you, we are not curing aut ism . But we are t eaching em ot ional int elligence. I f people wit h aut ism can learn em ot ional int elligence, anyone can. Ge t M ot iva t e d Rich a r d Boya t zis ( [email protected]) is a professor and t he chair of t he depart m ent of organizat ional behavior at Case West ern Reserve Universit y’s Weat herhead School of Managem ent in Cleveland. People can develop t heir em ot ional int elligence if t hey really want t o. But m any m anagers j um p t o t he conclusion t hat t heir com plem ent of em ot ional int elligence is predet erm ined. They t hink, “ I could never be good at t his, so why bot her?” The cent ral

issue isn’t a lack of abilit y t o change; it ’s t he lack of m ot ivat ion t o change. Leadership developm ent is not all t hat different from ot her areas in which people are t rying t o change t heir behaviors. Just look at t he t reat m ent s for alcoholism , drug addict ion, and weight loss: They all require t he desire t o change. More subt ly, t hey all require a posit ive, rat her t han a negat ive, m ot ivat ion. You have t o want t o change. I f you t hink you’ll lose your j ob because you’re not adequat ely t uned in t o your em ployees, you m ight becom e det erm inedly em pat het ic or com passionat e for a t im e. But change driven by fear or avoidance probably isn’t going t o last . Change driven by hopes and aspirat ions, t hat ’s pursued because it ’s desired, will be m ore enduring. There’s no such t hing as having t oo m uch em ot ional int elligence. But t here is a danger in being preoccupied wit h, or overusing, one aspect of it . For exam ple, if you overem phasize t he em ot ional int elligence com pet encies of init iat ive or achievem ent , you’ll always be changing t hings at your com pany. Nobody would know what you were going t o do next , which would be quit e dest abilizing for t he organizat ion. I f you overuse em pat hy, you m ight never fire anybody. I f you overuse t eam work, you m ight never build diversit y or list en t o a lone voice. Balance is essent ial. Tr a in t h e Gift e d Elk h on on Goldbe r g ( [email protected] ) is a clinical professor of neurology at New York Universit y School of Medicine and t he direct or of t he I nst it ut e of Neuropsychology and Cognit ive Perform ance in New York. I n t he past , neuropsychologist s were m ost ly concerned wit h cognit ive im pairm ent . Today, t hey are increasingly int erest ed in t he biological underpinnings of cognit ive differences in people wit hout im pairm ent s—including differences in people’s em ot ional int elligence. Em ot ional int elligence can be learned, t o a degree. I t ’s like m at hem at ical or m usical abilit y. Can you becom e a m usician if you lack nat ural apt it ude? Yes, you can, if you t ake lessons and pract ice enough. But will you ever be a Mozart ? Probably not . I n t he sam e way, em ot ional int elligence develops t hrough a com binat ion of biological endowm ent and t raining. And people who don’t have t hat endowm ent probably won’t becom e deeply em ot ionally int elligent j ust t hrough t raining. Trying t o drum em ot ional int elligence int o som eone wit h no apt it ude for it is an exercise in fut ilit y. I believe t he best way t o get em ot ionally int elligent leaders is t o select for people who already show t he basic qualit ies you want . Think about it : That ’s how at hlet ic coaches operat e. They don’t j ust work wit h anyone who want s t o play a sport ; t hey t rain t he nat urally gift ed. Business m anagers should do t he sam e. How do you ident ify t he nat urally gift ed? I ’d say you have t o look for t hose wit h a genuine, inst inct ive int erest in ot her people’s experiences and m ent al worlds. I t ’s an absolut e prerequisit e for developing em ot ional int elligence. I f a m anager lacks t his int erest , m aybe your t raining resources are bet t er direct ed elsewhere. Se e k Fr a n k Fe e dba ck An dr e a Ju n g is t he chair and CEO of Avon Product s, which is based in New York. Em ot ional int elligence is in our DNA here at Avon because relat ionships are crit ical at every st age of our business. I t st art s wit h t he relat ionships our 4.5 m illion independent sales reps have wit h t heir cust om ers and goes right up t hrough senior m anagem ent t o m y office. So t he em phasis on em ot ional int elligence is m uch great er here t han it was at ot her com panies in which I ’ve worked. We incorporat e em ot ional int elligence educat ion int o our developm ent t raining for senior m anagers, and we fact or in em ot ional int elligence com pet encies when we evaluat e em ployees’ perform ance. Of all a leader’s com pet encies, em ot ional and ot herwise, self- awareness is t he m ost im port ant . Wit hout it , you can’t ident ify t he im pact you have on ot hers. Self- awareness is very im port ant for m e as CEO. At m y level, few people are willing t o t ell m e t he t hings t hat are hardest t o hear. We have a CEO advisory counsel—t en people chosen each year from Avon offices t hroughout t he world—and t hey t ell m e t he good, t he bad, and t he ugly about t he com pany. Anyt hing can be said. I t helps keep m e connect ed t o what people really t hink and how m y act ions affect t hem . I also rely on m y children for honest appraisals. You can get a huge dose of realit y by seeing yourself t hrough your children’s eyes, not icing t he ways t hey react t o and reflect what you say and do. My kids are part of m y 360- degree feedback. They’re t he m ost honest of all.

M y k ids a r e pa r t of m y 3 6 0 - de gr e e fe e dba ck . Th e y’r e t h e m ost h on e st of a ll. I grew up in a very t radit ional Chinese fam ily. My parent s were concerned t hat t he way I ’d been raised—subm issive, caring, and averse t o conflict —would hinder m y abilit y t o succeed in t he Fort une 500 environm ent . They were afraid I couldn’t m ake t he t ough decisions. But I ’ve learned how t o be em pat het ic and st ill m ake hard decisions t hat are right for t he com pany. These are not incom pat ible abilit ies. When Avon has had t o close plant s, for exam ple, I ’ve t ried t o act wit h com passion for t he people involved. And I ’ve got t en let t ers from som e of t he associat es who were affect ed, expressing sadness but also saying t hanks for t he fair t reat m ent . Leaders’ use of em ot ional int elligence when m aking t ough decisions is im port ant t o t heir success—and t o t he success of t heir organizat ions. Ga u ge You r Aw a r e n e ss H ow a r d Book ( hbwork@net surf.net ) is an associat e professor in t he depart m ent of psychiat ry at t he Universit y of Toront o and an organizat ional consult ant . Self- awareness is t he key em ot ional int elligence skill behind good leadership. I t ’s oft en t hought of as t he abilit y t o know how you’re feeling and why, and t he im pact your feelings have on your behavior. But it also involves a capacit y t o m onit or and cont rol t hose st rong but sublim inal biases t hat all of us harbor and t hat can skew our decision m aking. Consider, for exam ple, a vice president who com plained t o m e recent ly about his new hire, t he head of sales. He found her t o be unassert ive, indecisive, unsure—hardly leadership m at erial. When I t alked t o her, however, it t urned out she felt her boss was sabot aging her career. The vice president had been hired only five m ont hs before she had, and he was oblivious t o how his anxiet y t o please t he CEO was causing him t o m icrom anage. I n doing so, t he VP was undercut t ing t he sales direct or’s independence and confidence. His lack of self- awareness direct ly im paired her perform ance.

W h e r e a s cogn it ive in t e llige n ce is fix e d by a bou t t h e a ge of t e n , e m ot ion a l in t e llige n ce in cr e a se s w it h a ge . Experience and lit erat ure on t he subj ect suggest t hat while bot h nat ure and nurt ure influence em ot ional int elligence, nurt ure is t he m ore im port ant fact or. I ndeed, t his em phasis on environm ent is one of t he hallm arks t hat different iat es em ot ional int elligence from cognit ive int elligence, or I Q. Whereas cognit ive int elligence is fixed by about t he age of t en, em ot ional int elligence increases wit h age. So you can act ually learn em ot ional int elligence skills like self- awareness. One sim ple way t o m easure your selfawareness is t o ask a t rust ed friend or colleague t o draw up a list of your st rengt hs and weaknesses while you do t he sam e. I t can be an uncom fort able exercise, but t he bigger t he gap bet ween your list and your helper’s, t he m ore work you probably have t o do. Sn iff Ou t Sign a ls Robe r t Goffe e ( [email protected]) is a professor of organizat ional behavior at London Business School and a cofounder of Creat ive Managem ent Associat es, an organizat ional consult ing firm in London. You need som e degree of em ot ional int elligence t o be an effect ive leader, but you do see som e one- hit wonders out t here—people who have lim it ed em ot ional int elligence but can st ill excit e a part icular group. The problem is, t hey can’t t ransfer t heir success t o anot her organizat ion. They got lucky and landed in a sit uat ion in which t heir passions happened t o connect wit h t he organizat ion’s passions, but t hey probably wouldn’t be able t o replicat e t hat at anot her com pany. By cont rast , t rue leaders can connect wit h different groups of people in a variet y of cont ext s. To som e ext ent , t hese one- hit wonders can learn how t o be em ot ionally int elligent . One com ponent of em ot ional int elligence is “ sit uat ion sensing” —t he abilit y t o sniff out t he signals in an environm ent and figure out what ’s going on wit hout being t old. You can develop t his skill t hrough j obs in which you’re exposed t o a wide range of people and have a m ot ive for wat ching t heir react ions. For inst ance, Roche CEO Franz Hum er is highly skilled at det ect ing subt le cues and underlying shift s of opinion. Hum er t old m e and m y colleague Garet h Jones t hat he developed t he skill while working as a t our guide in his m id- t went ies. Because he relied solely on t ips for his pay, Hum er quickly learned how t o size up a group of as m any as 100 people and figure out who was likely t o give him a t ip. That way, he’d know where t o focus his at t ent ion. ( For m ore on t his exam ple,

see “ Why Should Anyone Be Led By You?” HBR Sept em ber–Oct ober 2000.)

I f t h e se sk ills a r e de ve lope d dispr opor t ion a t e ly, t h e y ca n in t e r fe r e w it h you r r e la t ion sh ips. I ’d caut ion against overem phasizing any one aspect of em ot ional int elligence; if t hese skills are developed disproport ionat ely, t hey can int erfere wit h your relat ionships. I f you’re ext rem ely self- aware but short on em pat hy, you m ight com e off as self- obsessed. I f you’re excessively em pat het ic, you risk being t oo hard t o read. I f you’re great at selfm anagem ent but not very t ransparent , you m ight seem inaut hent ic. Finally, at t im es leaders have t o deliberat ely avoid get t ing t oo close t o t he t roops in order t o ensure t hat t hey’re seeing t he bigger pict ure. Em ot ionally int elligent leaders know when t o rein it in. En ga ge You r D e m on s D a vid Ge r ge n direct s t he Cent er for Public Leadership at Harvard Universit y’s John F. Kennedy School of Governm ent in Cam bridge, Massachuset t s. He served as an adviser t o president s Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clint on. Am erican hist ory suggest s not only t hat em ot ional int elligence is an indispensable ingredient of polit ical leadership but also t hat it can be enhanced t hrough sust ained effort . George Washingt on had t o work hard t o cont rol his fiery t em per before he becam e a role m odel for t he republic, and Abraham Lincoln had t o overcom e deep m elancholia t o display t he brave and warm count enance t hat m ade him a m agnet for ot hers. Franklin Delano Roosevelt provides an even m ore graphic exam ple: I n his early adult years, FDR seem ed carefree and condescending. Then, at 39, he was st ricken wit h polio. By m ost account s, he t ransform ed him self over t he next seven years of st ruggle int o a leader of em pat hy, pat ience, and keen self- awareness. Richard Nixon t hought he m ight t ransform him self t hrough his own years in t he wilderness, and he did m ake progress. But he could never fully cont rol his dem ons, and t hey event ually brought him down. Bill Clint on, t oo, has st ruggled for self- m ast ery and has m ade progress, but he could not fully close t he cracks in his charact er, and he paid a st iff price. Not all people succeed, t hen, in achieving self- awareness and self- cont rol. What we have been t old since t he t im e of t he Greeks is t hat every leader m ust t ry t o cont rol his own passions before he can hope t o com m and t he passions of ot hers. Best - selling aut hor Rabbi Harold Kushner argues persuasively t hat t he elem ent s of selfishness and aggression t hat are in m ost of us—and our st ruggles t o overcom e t hem — are exact ly what m ake for bet t er leadership. I n Living a Life That Mat t ers, Kushner writ es of t he personal t orm ent s of leaders from Jacob, who wrest led all night wit h an angel, t o Mart in Lut her King, Jr., who t ried t o cleanse him self of weakness even as he cleansed t he nat ion’s soul. “ Good people do bad t hings,” Kushner concludes, “ I f t hey weren’t m ight ily t em pt ed by t heir yet zer ha’ra [ will t o do evil] , t hey m ight not be capable of t he m ight ily good t hings t hey do.” Le t You r Gu a r d D ow n Sidn e y H a r m a n ( sharm an@harm an.com ) is t he execut ive chairm an and founder of Harm an I nt ernat ional I ndust ries in Washingt on, DC. Eight years ago, we acquired Becker Radio ( now Harm an/ Becker) t o help us develop t he dashboard navigat ion and m edia syst em s t hat are now t he m aj or part of our business. I n a m eet ing at Becker, several of t he engineers t here argued t hat t he only way for us t o t ake t he lead in t he em erging field of “ infot ainm ent ” was t o abandon t ried- and- t rue analog syst em s and design and build t ot ally new digit al syst em s—a very risky proposit ion for our com pany. Back hom e, I sat down wit h our key execut ives t o t alk about t his disrupt ive idea. I went int o t he m eet ing wit h only a rough not ion of how we should proceed. There was clearly anxiet y and skept icism in t he group, concern t hat we would be bet t ing t he com pany if we went digit al. I realized t hat t o provoke t he creat ive t hinking we needed, I would have t o let m y guard down and be willing t o em barrass m yself by float ing unform ed—and even uninform ed—ideas. I assured t he group t hat anyt hing we said in t he m eet ing st ayed wit h us. Our discussion went on for six or seven hours. By opening up t o m y colleagues, and by encouraging t hem t o t hink freely and im provise, I helped generat e a novel perspect ive t hat no one of us had brought t o t he m eet ing: Com m it all t he com pany’s resources t o t his digit al direct ion, facilit at e t he t ransform at ion by elim inat ing hierarchies and silos, and rem ove barriers bet ween funct ions.

Today, our sales are approaching $3 billion, and our st ock price is at an all- t im e high. We wouldn’t be here if we hadn’t t aken t he radical st eps conceived in t hat m eet ing. And t hat plan would not have em erged had I failed t o recognize and respond t o t he group’s apprehension and elicit it s collect ive creat ive t hinking. The leader who uses em ot ional int elligence t o cat alyze creat ive t hinking subordinat es him self t o t he t eam but elevat es t he com pany t o achieve goals it ot herwise couldn’t . W a t ch You r Cu lt u r e Ja n j a La lich ( j [email protected]) is an assist ant professor of sociology at California St at e Universit y, Chico, and an expert on cult s. Cult leaders don’t do anyt hing m yst erious; t hey j ust know how t o package t hem selves and t heir prom ises well and how t o t arget responsive audiences. They’re very good at influencing, or, t o be m ore precise, m anipulat ing, followers. To do t his, t hey rely on a keen abilit y t o perceive ot hers’ vulnerabilit ies and longings—t o know what people want . One way a cult leader m anipulat es is by exploit ing followers’ eagerness t o be part of som et hing bigger t han t hem selves. That desire oft en prom pt s followers t o assign t o a leader at t ribut es t hat he doesn’t act ually possess. A t ype of group cont agion can t ake hold—a “ t rue- believerism ” m ent alit y. Then followers can fall int o what I call uncrit ical obedience, never quest ioning t he leader’s claim s. When followers give a leader t his power, t here are obvious dangers. Cult leaders are also skillful at convincing followers t hat t he leader’s ideas are t heir own. Once followers own t he ideas, it ’s difficult for t hem t o ext ricat e t hem selves from t he leader’s m essage. For exam ple, a leader m ay exaggerat e his own im port ance. I n t he 1980s, Bhagwan Shree Raj neesh, a wildly popular Oregon- based East ern guru, always surrounded him self wit h arm ed guards. That height ened sense of need for securit y led som e of his followers t o perform dangerous, ant isocial act ivit ies in t heir desire t o prot ect and defend t heir ashram and Raj neesh him self.

Th e diffe r e n ce s be t w e e n h ow cu lt le a de r s a n d con ve n t ion a l le a de r s in flu e n ce t h e ir follow e r s ca n be su bt le . Cult leaders also m ake it difficult for people t o leave. They set up int erlocking syst em s of influence and cont rol t hat keep followers obedient and prevent t hem from t hinking about t heir own needs. Cult leaders m ay offer “ rewards” —som et im es m at erial, m ore oft en ephem eral—t hat keep followers com m it t ed t o t he leader and t o t he organizat ion’s goals. The differences bet ween how a convent ional leader influences followers and how cult leaders m anipulat e t hem can be subt le. Som et im es t he only difference is t heir int ent . And som et im es t here is no difference. Fin d You r Voice W illia m Ge or ge is t he form er chairm an and CEO of Medt ronic, a m edical t echnology com pany in Minneapolis. Aut hent ic leadership begins wit h self- awareness, or knowing yourself deeply. Selfawareness is not a t rait you are born wit h but a capacit y you develop t hroughout your lifet im e. I t ’s your underst anding of your st rengt hs and weaknesses, your purpose in life, your values and m ot ivat ions, and how and why you respond t o sit uat ions in a part icular way. I t requires a great deal of int rospect ion and t he abilit y t o int ernalize feedback from ot hers. No one is born a leader; we have t o consciously develop int o t he leader we want t o becom e. I t t akes m any years of hard work and t he abilit y t o learn from ext rem e difficult ies and disappoint m ent s. But in t heir scram ble t o get ahead, m any would- be leaders at t em pt t o skip t his crucial developm ent al st age. Som e of t hese people do get t o t he t op of com panies t hrough sheer det erm inat ion and aggressiveness. However, when t hey finally reach t he leader’s chair, t hey can be very dest ruct ive because t hey haven’t focused on t he hard work of personal developm ent . To m ask t heir inadequacies, t hese leaders t end t o close t hem selves off, cult ivat ing an im age or persona rat her t han opening up t o ot hers. They oft en adopt t he st yles of ot her leaders t hey have observed. Leaders who are driven t o achieve by short com ings in t heir charact er, for exam ple, or a desire for self- aggrandizem ent , m ay t ake inordinat e risks on behalf of t he organizat ion.

They m ay even com e t o believe t hey are so im port ant t hat t hey place t heir int erest s above t hose of t he organizat ion. Self- awareness and ot her em ot ional int elligence skills com e nat urally t o som e, less so t o ot hers—but t hese skills can be learned. One of t he t echniques I have found m ost useful in gaining deeper self- awareness is m edit at ion. I n 1975, m y wife dragged m e, kicking and scream ing, t o a weekend course in Transcendent al Medit at ion. I have m edit at ed 20 m inut es, t wice a day, ever since. Medit at ion m akes m e calm er, m ore focused, and bet t er able t o discern what ’s really im port ant . Leaders, by t he very nat ure of t heir posit ions, are under ext rem e pressure t o keep up wit h t he m any voices clam oring for t heir at t ent ion. I ndeed, m any leaders lose t heir way. I t is only t hrough a deep self- awareness t hat you can find your inner voice and list en t o it . Kn ow t h e Scor e M ich a e l Tilson Th om a s is t he m usic direct or of t he San Francisco Sym phony. A conduct or’s aut horit y rest s on t wo t hings: t he orchest ra’s confidence in t he conduct or’s insight ful knowledge of t he whole score; and t he orchest ra’s fait h in t he conduct or’s good heart , which seeks t o inspire everyone t o m ake m usic t hat is excellent , generous, and sincere. Old- school conduct ors liked t o hold t he lead in t heir hands at all t im es. I do not . Som et im es I lead. Ot her t im es I ’ll say, “ Violas, I ’m giving you t he lead. List en t o one anot her, and find your way wit h t his phrase.” I ’m not t rying t o drill people, m ilit ary st yle, t o play m usic exact ly t oget her. I ’m t rying t o encourage t hem t o play as one, which is a different t hing. I ’m guiding t he perform ance, but I ’m aware t hat t hey’re execut ing it . I t ’s t heir sinews, t heir heart st rings. I ’m t here t o help t hem do it in a way t hat is convincing and nat ural for t hem but also a part of t he larger design. My approach is t o be in t une wit h t he people wit h whom I ’m working. I f I ’m conduct ing an ensem ble for t he first t im e, I will relat e what it is I want t hem t o do t o t he great t hings t hey’ve already done. I f I ’m conduct ing m y own orchest ra, I can see in t he m usicians’ bodies and faces how t hey’re feeling t hat day, and it becom es very clear who m ay need encouragem ent and who m ay need caut ioning. The obj ect ivit y and perspect ive I have as t he only person who is j ust list ening is a powerful t hing. I t ry t o use t his perspect ive t o help t he ensem ble reach it s goals. Ke e p I t H on e st Ca r ol Ba r t z ( carol.bart z@aut odesk.com ) is t he chairm an, president , and CEO of Aut odesk, a design soft ware and digit al cont ent com pany in San Rafael, California. A friend needed t o t ake a six- m ont h assignm ent in a different part of t he count ry. She had an ancient , ill, balding but beloved dog t hat she could not t ake wit h her. Her choices boiled down t o boarding t he poor anim al, at enorm ous expense, or put t ing it out of it s obvious m isery. Friends said, “ Board t he dog,” t hough behind m y friend’s back, t hey ridiculed t hat opt ion. She asked m e what I t hought , and I t old her, kindly but clearly, t hat I t hought she should have t he dog put t o sleep rat her t han spend her m oney keeping it in an environm ent where it would be m iserable and perhaps die anyway. My friend was furious wit h m e for saying t his. She boarded t he dog and went away on her assignm ent . When she ret urned, t he dog was at deat h’s door and had t o be put t o sleep. Not long aft er t hat , m y friend cam e around t o say t hanks. “ You were t he only person who t old m e t he t rut h,” she said. She cam e t o appreciat e t hat I had cared enough t o t ell her what I t hought was best , even if what I said hurt at t he t im e. That event validat ed a hunch t hat has st ood m e in good st ead as I ’ve led m y com pany. Em pat hy and com passion have t o be balanced wit h honest y. I have pulled people int o m y office and t old t hem t o deal wit h cert ain issues for t he sake of t hem selves and t heir t eam s. I f t hey are willing t o learn, t hey will say, “ Gee, no one ever t old m e.” I f t hey are unwilling, t hey’re not right for t his organizat ion. And I m ust let t hem go for t he sake of t he great er good. Go for t h e Ge m ba H ir ot a k a Ta k e u ch i is t he dean of Hit ot subashi Universit y’s Graduat e School of I nt ernat ional Corporat e St rat egy in Tokyo. Self- awareness, self- cont rol, em pat hy, hum ilit y, and ot her such em ot ional int elligence t rait s are part icularly im port ant in Asia. They are part of our Confucian em phasis on

wah, or social harm ony. When books on em ot ional int elligence were first t ranslat ed int o Japanese, people said, “ We already know t hat . We’re act ually t rying t o get beyond t hat .” We’ve been so focused on wah t hat we’ve built up a supersensit ive st ruct ure of social nicet ies, where everyone seeks consensus. I n t he Japanese hierarchy, everyone knows his or her place so no one is ever hum iliat ed. This social supersensit ivit y—it self a form of em ot ional int elligence—can lead people t o shy away from conflict . But conflict is oft en t he only way t o get t o t he gem ba—t he front line, where t he act ion really is, where t he t rut h lies. Thus, effect ive m anagem ent oft en depends not on coolly and expert ly resolving conflict , or sim ply avoiding it , but on em bracing it at t he gem ba. Japan’s m ost effect ive leaders do bot h. The best exam ple is Nissan’s Carlos Ghosn. He not only had t he social skills t o list en t o people and win t hem over t o his ideas, but he also dared t o lift t he lid on t he corporat e hierarchy and encourage people at all levels of t he organizat ion t o offer suggest ions t o operat ional, organizat ional, and even int erpersonal problem s—even if t hat creat ed conflict . People were no longer suppressed, so solut ions t o t he com pany’s problem s bubbled up. Ba la n ce t h e Loa d Lin da St on e ( linda@lindast one.net ) is t he form er vice president of corporat e and indust ry init iat ives at Microsoft in Redm ond, Washingt on. Em ot ional int elligence is powerful—which is precisely why it can be dangerous. For exam ple, em pat hy is an ext raordinary relat ionship- building t ool, but it m ust be used skillfully or it can do serious dam age t o t he person doing t he em pat hizing. I n m y case, overdoing em pat hy t ook a physical t oll. I n May 2000, St eve Ballm er charged m e wit h rebuilding Microsoft ’s indust ry relat ionships, a posit ion t hat I som et im es referred t o as chief list ening officer. The j ob was part om budsperson, part new- init iat ives developer, part pat t ern recognizer, and part rapid- response person. I n t he first few m ont hs of t he j ob—when crit icism of t he com pany was at an all- t im e high—it becam e clear t hat t his posit ion was a light ning rod. I t hrew m yself int o list ening and repairing wherever I could. Wit hin a few m ont hs, I was exhaust ed from t he effort . I gained a significant am ount of weight , which, t est s finally revealed, was probably caused by a horm one im balance part ially brought on by st ress and lack of sleep. I n absorbing everyone’s com plaint s, perhaps t o t he ext rem e, I had com prom ised m y healt h. This was a wake- up call; I needed t o refram e t he j ob. I focused on connect ing t he people who needed t o work t oget her t o resolve problem s rat her t han t aking on each repair m yself. I persuaded key people inside t he com pany t o list en and work direct ly wit h im port ant people out side t he com pany, even in cases where t he int ernal folks were skept ical at first about t he need for t his direct connect ion. I n a sense, I t em pered m y em pat hy and rat chet ed up relat ionship building. Ult im at ely, wit h a wiser and m ore balanced use of em pat hy, I becam e m ore effect ive and less st ressed in m y role. Qu e st ion Au t h or it y Ron a ld H e ife t z ( ronald_heifet [email protected]) is a cofounder of t he Cent er for Public Leadership at Harvard Universit y’s John F. Kennedy School of Governm ent in Cam bridge, Massachuset t s, and a part ner at Cam bridge Leadership Associat es, a consult ancy in Cam bridge. Em ot ional int elligence is necessary for leadership but not sufficient . Many people have som e degree of em ot ional int elligence and can indeed em pat hize wit h and rouse followers; a few of t hem can even generat e great charism at ic aut horit y. But I would argue t hat if t hey are using em ot ional int elligence solely t o gain form al or inform al aut horit y, t hat ’s not leadership at all. They are using t heir em ot ional int elligence t o grasp what people want , only t o pander t o t hose desires in order t o gain aut horit y and influence. Easy answers sell. Leadership couples em ot ional int elligence wit h t he courage t o raise t he t ough quest ions, challenge people’s assum pt ions about st rat egy and operat ions—and risk losing t heir goodwill. I t dem ands a com m it m ent t o serving ot hers; skill at diagnost ic, st rat egic, and t act ical reasoning; t he gut s t o get beneat h t he surface of t ough realit ies; and t he heart t o t ake heat and grief. For exam ple, David Duke did an ext raordinary j ob of convincing Ku Klux Klan m em bers t o get out of t heir backyards and int o hot el conference room s. He brought his considerable em ot ional int elligence t o bear, his capacit y t o em pat hize wit h his followers,

t o pluck t heir heart st rings in a powerful way t hat m obilized t hem . But he avoided asking his people t he t ough quest ions: Does our program act ually solve our problem ? How will creat ing a social st ruct ure of whit e suprem acy give us t he self- est eem we lack? How will it solve t he problem s of povert y, alcoholism , and fam ily violence t hat corrode our sense of self- wort h? Like Duke, m any people wit h high em ot ional int elligence and charism at ic aut horit y aren’t int erest ed in asking t he deeper quest ions, because t hey get so m uch em ot ional gain from t he adoring crowd. For t hem , t hat ’s t he end in it self. They’re sat isfying t heir own hungers and vulnerabilit ies: t heir need t o be liked; t heir need for power and cont rol; or t heir need t o be needed, t o feel im port ant , which renders t hem vulnerable t o grandiosit y. But t hat ’s not prim al leadership. I t ’s prim al hunger for aut horit y.

M a n y pe ople w it h h igh e m ot ion a l in t e llige n ce a r e n ’t in t e r e st e d in a sk in g t h e de e pe r qu e st ion s. Maint aining one’s prim acy or posit ion is not , in and of it self, leadership, however inspiring it m ay seem t o be. Gaining prim al aut horit y is relat ively easy. Reprint Num ber R0401B

> | Ex e cu t ive Su m m a r y > | Pu r ch a se Re pr in t > | Pr in t a ble Ve r sion > | E- m a il a Colle a gu e

View Back Issues Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. All right s reserved.

Click here t o visit : > | ht t p: / / www.hbsp.org

Leading by Feel Em pa t h y, in t u it ion , a n d se lf- a w a r e n e ss a r e e sse n t ia l t o good le a de r sh ip, bu t t h e y ca n be t r ick y t o h on e a n d da n ge r ou s t o u se . Eigh t e e n le a de r s a n d sch ola r s e x plor e h ow t o m a n a ge e m ot ion a l in t e llige n ce .

Like it or not , leaders need t o m anage t he m ood of t heir organizat ions. The m ost gift ed leaders accom plish t hat by using a m yst erious blend of psychological abilit ies known as em ot ional int elligence. They’re self- aware and em pat het ic. They can read and regulat e t heir own em ot ions while int uit ively grasping how ot hers feel and gauging t heir organizat ion’s em ot ional st at e. But where does em ot ional int elligence com e from ? And how do leaders learn t o use it ? The m anagem ent lit erat ure ( and even com m on sense) suggest s t hat bot h nat ure and nurt ure feed em ot ional int elligence. Part genet ic predisposit ion, part life experience, and part old- fashioned t raining, em ot ional int elligence em erges in varying degrees from one leader t o t he next , and m anagers apply it wit h varying skill. Wisely and com passionat ely deployed, em ot ional int elligence spurs leaders, t heir people, and t heir organizat ions t o superior perform ance; naively or m aliciously applied, it can paralyze leaders or allow t hem t o m anipulat e followers for personal gain. We invit ed 18 leaders and scholars ( including business execut ives, leadership researchers, psychologist s, a neurologist , a cult expert , and a sym phony conduct or) t o explore t he nat ure and m anagem ent of em ot ional int elligence—it s sources, uses, and abuses. Their responses differed dram at ically, but t here were som e com m on t hem es: t he im port ance of consciously—and conscient iously—honing one’s skills, t he doubleedged nat ure of self- awareness, and t he danger of let t ing any one em ot ional int elligence skill dom inat e.

Be Re a list ic Joh n D . M a ye r ( j ack.m [email protected]) is a professor of psychology at t he Universit y of New Ham pshire. He and Yale psychology professor Pet er Salovey are credit ed wit h first defining t he concept of em ot ional int elligence in t he early 1990s. This is a t im e of growing realism about em ot ional int elligence—especially concerning what it is and what it isn’t . The books and art icles t hat have helped popularize t he concept have defined it as a loose collect ion of personalit y t rait s, such as self- awareness, opt im ism , and t olerance. These popular definit ions have been accom panied by exaggerat ed claim s about t he im port ance of em ot ional int elligence. But diverse personalit y t rait s, however adm irable, don’t necessarily add up t o a single definit ion of em ot ional int elligence. I n fact , such t rait s are difficult t o collect ively evaluat e in a way t hat reveals t heir relat ionship t o success in business and in life.

Even when t hey’re viewed in isolat ion, t he charact erist ics com m only associat ed wit h em ot ional int elligence and success m ay be m ore com plicat ed t han t hey seem . For exam ple, t he scient ific j ury is out on how im port ant self- awareness is t o successful leadership. I n fact , t oo m uch self- awareness can reduce self- est eem , which is oft en a crucial com ponent of great leadership. From a scient ific ( rat her t han a popular) st andpoint , em ot ional int elligence is t he abilit y t o accurat ely perceive your own and ot hers’ em ot ions; t o underst and t he signals t hat em ot ions send about relat ionships; and t o m anage your own and ot hers’ em ot ions. I t doesn’t necessarily include t he qualit ies ( like opt im ism , init iat ive, and self- confidence) t hat som e popular definit ions ascribe t o it . Researchers have used perform ance t est s t o m easure people’s accuracy at ident ifying and underst anding em ot ions—for exam ple, asking t hem t o ident ify t he em ot ions conveyed by a face or which am ong several sit uat ions is m ost likely t o bring about happiness. People who get high scores on t hese t est s are indeed different from ot hers. I n t he business world, t hey appear bet t er able t o deal wit h cust om ers’ com plaint s or t o m ediat e disput es, and t hey m ay excel at m aking st rong and posit ive personal connect ions wit h subordinat es and cust om ers over t he long t erm . Of course, em ot ional int elligence isn’t t he only way t o at t ain success as a leader: A brilliant st rat egist who can m axim ize profit s m ay be able t o hire and keep t alent ed em ployees even if he or she doesn’t have st rong personal connect ions wit h t hem . I s t here value in scales t hat , based on popular concept ions, m easure qualit ies like opt im ism and self- confidence but label t hem em ot ional int elligence? Cert ainly t hese personalit y t rait s are im port ant in business, so m easuring and ( som et im es) enhancing t hem can be useful. But recent research m akes it clear t hat t hese charact erist ics are dist inct from em ot ional int elligence as it is scient ifically defined. A person high in em ot ional int elligence m ay be realist ic rat her t han opt im ist ic and insecure rat her t han confident . Conversely, a person m ay be highly self- confident and opt im ist ic but lack em ot ional int elligence. The danger lies in assum ing t hat because a person is opt im ist ic or confident , he or she is also em ot ionally int elligent , when, in fact , t he presence of t hose t rait s will t ell you not hing of t he sort . N e ve r St op Le a r n in g D a n ie l Gole m a n is t he cochair of t he Consort ium for Research on Em ot ional I nt elligence in Organizat ions based at Rut gers Universit y’s Graduat e School of Applied and Professional Psychology in Piscat away, New Jersey. You can be a successful leader wit hout m uch em ot ional int elligence if you’re ext rem ely lucky and you’ve got everyt hing else going for you: boom ing m arket s, bum bling com pet it ors, and clueless higher- ups. I f you’re incredibly sm art , you can cover for an absence of em ot ional int elligence unt il t hings get t ough for t he business. But at t hat point , you won’t have built up t he social capit al needed t o pull t he best out of people under t rem endous pressure. The art of sust ained leadership is get t ing ot hers t o produce superior work, and high I Q alone is insufficient t o t hat t ask. The good news is t hat em ot ional int elligence can be learned and im proved at any age. I n fact , dat a show t hat , on average, people’s em ot ional int elligence t ends t o increase as t hey age. But t he specific leadership com pet encies t hat are based on em ot ional int elligence don’t necessarily com e t hrough life experience. For exam ple, one of t he m ost com m on com plaint s I hear about leaders, part icularly newly prom ot ed ones, is t hat t hey lack em pat hy. The problem is t hat t hey were prom ot ed because t hey were out st anding individual perform ers, and being a solo achiever doesn’t t each you t he skills necessary t o

underst and ot her people’s concerns. Leaders who are m ot ivat ed t o im prove t heir em ot ional int elligence can do so if t hey’re given t he right inform at ion, guidance, and support . The inform at ion t hey need is a candid assessm ent of t heir st rengt hs and lim it at ions from people who know t hem well and whose opinions t hey t rust . The guidance t hey need is a specific developm ent al plan t hat uses nat urally occurring workplace encount ers as t he laborat ory for learning. The support t hey need is som eone t o t alk t o as t hey pract ice how t o handle different sit uat ions, what t o do when t hey’ve blown it , and how t o learn from t hose set backs. I f leaders cult ivat e t hese resources and pract ice cont inually, t hey can develop specific em ot ional int elligence skills—skills t hat will last for years. W a t ch t h e La n gu a ge Colle e n Ba r r e t t is t he president and COO of Dallas- based Sout hwest Airlines. I ’ve always felt t hat m y int uit ion was pret t y darn good, and I t hink I can read people well. I rely a t on on m y gut . I know t he m ood of our different work groups. I know t he expect at ions of our em ployees. I t hink people are generally born wit h a predisposit ion for t his t ype of em ot ional awareness. But I cert ainly believe you can enhance your abilit y j ust from experience and learning. I ’ve probably got t en bet t er at it over t he years because I read and list en t o everyt hing, and I ’m const ant ly observing. I wat ch body language and how people int eract . The ot her day, I was t alking t o one of our officers, and he said, “ How do you do t hat ?” and I said, “ How do I do what ?” He was referring t o a m eet ing we’d bot h been at earlier. I ’d asked one of t he present ers at t he m eet ing, a fellow who report ed t o t his officer, if he was feeling OK. The officer t hought t he em ployee was fine, but , it t urns out , t he poor guy had had a pret t y t raum at ic experience in his personal life t he night before. His present at ion went well, but he seem ed off t o m e, dist ract ed. I suppose in order t o have seen t hat , I m ust have been fairly at t uned t o what t his fellow’s present at ions were usually like. I oft en com m unicat e on a passionat e, em ot ional level—which can be a det rim ent , part icularly for a wom an in a predom inant ly m ale leadership group, as ours was for m any years. There were t im es when I ’d launch in on an issue and m ake gut - level assert ions like, “ Our cust om ers feel t his,” and “ Our em ployees feel t hat .” Though everyone in t he group would probably deny it , I know t hat part of t heir react ion t o m y out burst s was, “ Oh, t hat ’s j ust Colleen, and she’s on a t angent ,” and t hey would t end t o disregard what I was saying. I ’ve learned t o rely on calm er people around m e t o give m e t hose raised eyebrows t hat say, “ Lower t he passion a lit t le bit , and people will list en m ore.” When I ’m m aking m y argum ent s, I have t o really prepare and t ry t o be—and t his is very difficult for m e—fact ual and dispassionat e.

I r e ly on ca lm e r pe ople a r ou n d m e t o give m e t h ose r a ise d e ye br ow s t h a t sa y, “Low e r t h e pa ssion a lit t le bit .” Bu ild Pa t h w a ys St e ve n Gu t st e in ( gut st ein@connect ionscent er.com ) is a psychologist , aut ism expert , and codirect or of Connect ions Cent er for Fam ily and Personal Developm ent in Houst on. I work wit h aut ist ic children, a populat ion t ypically defined by it s lack of em ot ional int elligence. People wit h aut ism can’t connect —indeed, t hey aren’t really int erest ed in

connect ing em ot ionally wit h ot hers. Tradit ionally, t he t herapeut ic approach wit h t hese kids has been t o t each t hem t o fake it . They are urged t o m ake eye cont act wit h ot hers, t o repress what ever dist ract ing behaviors t hey m ay have, and t o use social script s. Many of t hese t herapies have t he appearance of being successful. People wit h aut ism do learn t he script s, and som e even blend in. The problem is, faking it never ceases t o be work. So as aut ist ic children becom e adult s, t hey st op put t ing on t he show. Am ong adult s wit h Asperger’s syndrom e ( a form of aut ism m arked by average or above- average I Q) , fewer t han 12% hold j obs. Only 3% leave hom e. These findings m ake t he case profoundly t hat one get s only so far on I Q. People need t o connect em ot ionally, and wit h flexibilit y, in order t o succeed. These findings also dem onst rat e t hat t radit ional t herapies have not been successful at im proving qualit y of life for aut ist ic people. My approach t o t eaching em ot ional int elligence skills t o children wit h aut ism , which I call “ relat ionship developm ent int ervent ion” ( RDI ) , t akes a different t ack. I t begins wit h a belief t hat people wit h aut ism can be t aught t o value relat ionships, t o seek out int eract ions t hat are not m erely t ransact ional ( “ I will deal wit h you because t here is som et hing I want from you” ) but where t he whole point is t o enj oy t he shared experience. Nonaut ist ic people begin t o have t hese kinds of relat ionships early in life; at about t en m ont hs, m ost babies st art developing t he capacit y for social referencing, t he appreciat ion t hat m y act ions should t ake int o account your em ot ions. We now know from neuroim aging t hat at t his st age som e crit ical neural pat hways are being laid down am ong all t he st ruct ures in t he lim bic syst em , which regulat es em ot ion and m ot ivat ion. Aut ist ic children t ypically don’t develop t hose pat hways.

I f pe ople w it h a u t ism ca n le a r n e m ot ion a l in t e llige n ce , a n yon e ca n . But wit h RDI , which uses cognit ive exercises and act ivit ies t o m ot ivat e t he children t o learn specific behaviors rat her t han social script s, I t hink we can creat e t he neurological t raffic t o est ablish t hose pat hways. Mind you, we are not curing aut ism . But we are t eaching em ot ional int elligence. I f people wit h aut ism can learn em ot ional int elligence, anyone can. Ge t M ot iva t e d Rich a r d Boya t zis ( [email protected]) is a professor and t he chair of t he depart m ent of organizat ional behavior at Case West ern Reserve Universit y’s Weat herhead School of Managem ent in Cleveland. People can develop t heir em ot ional int elligence if t hey really want t o. But m any m anagers j um p t o t he conclusion t hat t heir com plem ent of em ot ional int elligence is predet erm ined. They t hink, “ I could never be good at t his, so why bot her?” The cent ral issue isn’t a lack of abilit y t o change; it ’s t he lack of m ot ivat ion t o change. Leadership developm ent is not all t hat different from ot her areas in which people are t rying t o change t heir behaviors. Just look at t he t reat m ent s for alcoholism , drug addict ion, and weight loss: They all require t he desire t o change. More subt ly, t hey all require a posit ive, rat her t han a negat ive, m ot ivat ion. You have t o want t o change. I f you t hink you’ll lose your j ob because you’re not adequat ely t uned in t o your em ployees, you m ight becom e det erm inedly em pat het ic or com passionat e for a t im e. But change driven by fear or avoidance probably isn’t going t o last . Change driven by hopes and aspirat ions, t hat ’s pursued because it ’s desired, will be m ore enduring.

There’s no such t hing as having t oo m uch em ot ional int elligence. But t here is a danger in being preoccupied wit h, or overusing, one aspect of it . For exam ple, if you overem phasize t he em ot ional int elligence com pet encies of init iat ive or achievem ent , you’ll always be changing t hings at your com pany. Nobody would know what you were going t o do next , which would be quit e dest abilizing for t he organizat ion. I f you overuse em pat hy, you m ight never fire anybody. I f you overuse t eam work, you m ight never build diversit y or list en t o a lone voice. Balance is essent ial. Tr a in t h e Gift e d Elk h on on Goldbe r g ( [email protected] ) is a clinical professor of neurology at New York Universit y School of Medicine and t he direct or of t he I nst it ut e of Neuropsychology and Cognit ive Perform ance in New York. I n t he past , neuropsychologist s were m ost ly concerned wit h cognit ive im pairm ent . Today, t hey are increasingly int erest ed in t he biological underpinnings of cognit ive differences in people wit hout im pairm ent s—including differences in people’s em ot ional int elligence. Em ot ional int elligence can be learned, t o a degree. I t ’s like m at hem at ical or m usical abilit y. Can you becom e a m usician if you lack nat ural apt it ude? Yes, you can, if you t ake lessons and pract ice enough. But will you ever be a Mozart ? Probably not . I n t he sam e way, em ot ional int elligence develops t hrough a com binat ion of biological endowm ent and t raining. And people who don’t have t hat endowm ent probably won’t becom e deeply em ot ionally int elligent j ust t hrough t raining. Trying t o drum em ot ional int elligence int o som eone wit h no apt it ude for it is an exercise in fut ilit y. I believe t he best way t o get em ot ionally int elligent leaders is t o select for people who already show t he basic qualit ies you want . Think about it : That ’s how at hlet ic coaches operat e. They don’t j ust work wit h anyone who want s t o play a sport ; t hey t rain t he nat urally gift ed. Business m anagers should do t he sam e. How do you ident ify t he nat urally gift ed? I ’d say you have t o look for t hose wit h a genuine, inst inct ive int erest in ot her people’s experiences and m ent al worlds. I t ’s an absolut e prerequisit e for developing em ot ional int elligence. I f a m anager lacks t his int erest , m aybe your t raining resources are bet t er direct ed elsewhere. Se e k Fr a n k Fe e dba ck An dr e a Ju n g is t he chair and CEO of Avon Product s, which is based in New York. Em ot ional int elligence is in our DNA here at Avon because relat ionships are crit ical at every st age of our business. I t st art s wit h t he relat ionships our 4.5 m illion independent sales reps have wit h t heir cust om ers and goes right up t hrough senior m anagem ent t o m y office. So t he em phasis on em ot ional int elligence is m uch great er here t han it was at ot her com panies in which I ’ve worked. We incorporat e em ot ional int elligence educat ion int o our developm ent t raining for senior m anagers, and we fact or in em ot ional int elligence com pet encies when we evaluat e em ployees’ perform ance. Of all a leader’s com pet encies, em ot ional and ot herwise, self- awareness is t he m ost im port ant . Wit hout it , you can’t ident ify t he im pact you have on ot hers. Self- awareness is very im port ant for m e as CEO. At m y level, few people are willing t o t ell m e t he t hings t hat are hardest t o hear. We have a CEO advisory counsel—t en people chosen each year from Avon offices t hroughout t he world—and t hey t ell m e t he good, t he bad, and t he ugly about t he com pany. Anyt hing can be said. I t helps keep m e connect ed t o what people really t hink and how m y act ions affect t hem . I also rely on m y children for honest appraisals. You can get a huge dose of realit y by seeing yourself t hrough your children’s

eyes, not icing t he ways t hey react t o and reflect what you say and do. My kids are part of m y 360- degree feedback. They’re t he m ost honest of all.

M y k ids a r e pa r t of m y 3 6 0 - de gr e e fe e dba ck . Th e y’r e t h e m ost h on e st of a ll. I grew up in a very t radit ional Chinese fam ily. My parent s were concerned t hat t he way I ’d been raised—subm issive, caring, and averse t o conflict —would hinder m y abilit y t o succeed in t he Fort une 500 environm ent . They were afraid I couldn’t m ake t he t ough decisions. But I ’ve learned how t o be em pat het ic and st ill m ake hard decisions t hat are right for t he com pany. These are not incom pat ible abilit ies. When Avon has had t o close plant s, for exam ple, I ’ve t ried t o act wit h com passion for t he people involved. And I ’ve got t en let t ers from som e of t he associat es who were affect ed, expressing sadness but also saying t hanks for t he fair t reat m ent . Leaders’ use of em ot ional int elligence when m aking t ough decisions is im port ant t o t heir success—and t o t he success of t heir organizat ions. Ga u ge You r Aw a r e n e ss H ow a r d Book ( hbwork@net surf.net ) is an associat e professor in t he depart m ent of psychiat ry at t he Universit y of Toront o and an organizat ional consult ant . Self- awareness is t he key em ot ional int elligence skill behind good leadership. I t ’s oft en t hought of as t he abilit y t o know how you’re feeling and why, and t he im pact your feelings have on your behavior. But it also involves a capacit y t o m onit or and cont rol t hose st rong but sublim inal biases t hat all of us harbor and t hat can skew our decision m aking. Consider, for exam ple, a vice president who com plained t o m e recent ly about his new hire, t he head of sales. He found her t o be unassert ive, indecisive, unsure—hardly leadership m at erial. When I t alked t o her, however, it t urned out she felt her boss was sabot aging her career. The vice president had been hired only five m ont hs before she had, and he was oblivious t o how his anxiet y t o please t he CEO was causing him t o m icrom anage. I n doing so, t he VP was undercut t ing t he sales direct or’s independence and confidence. His lack of self- awareness direct ly im paired her perform ance.

W h e r e a s cogn it ive in t e llige n ce is fix e d by a bou t t h e a ge of t e n , e m ot ion a l in t e llige n ce in cr e a se s w it h a ge . Experience and lit erat ure on t he subj ect suggest t hat while bot h nat ure and nurt ure influence em ot ional int elligence, nurt ure is t he m ore im port ant fact or. I ndeed, t his em phasis on environm ent is one of t he hallm arks t hat different iat es em ot ional int elligence from cognit ive int elligence, or I Q. Whereas cognit ive int elligence is fixed by about t he age of t en, em ot ional int elligence increases wit h age. So you can act ually learn em ot ional int elligence skills like self- awareness. One sim ple way t o m easure your selfawareness is t o ask a t rust ed friend or colleague t o draw up a list of your st rengt hs and weaknesses while you do t he sam e. I t can be an uncom fort able exercise, but t he bigger t he gap bet ween your list and your helper’s, t he m ore work you probably have t o do. Sn iff Ou t Sign a ls Robe r t Goffe e ( [email protected]) is a professor of organizat ional behavior at London Business School and a cofounder of Creat ive Managem ent Associat es, an organizat ional consult ing firm in London.

You need som e degree of em ot ional int elligence t o be an effect ive leader, but you do see som e one- hit wonders out t here—people who have lim it ed em ot ional int elligence but can st ill excit e a part icular group. The problem is, t hey can’t t ransfer t heir success t o anot her organizat ion. They got lucky and landed in a sit uat ion in which t heir passions happened t o connect wit h t he organizat ion’s passions, but t hey probably wouldn’t be able t o replicat e t hat at anot her com pany. By cont rast , t rue leaders can connect wit h different groups of people in a variet y of cont ext s. To som e ext ent , t hese one- hit wonders can learn how t o be em ot ionally int elligent . One com ponent of em ot ional int elligence is “ sit uat ion sensing” —t he abilit y t o sniff out t he signals in an environm ent and figure out what ’s going on wit hout being t old. You can develop t his skill t hrough j obs in which you’re exposed t o a wide range of people and have a m ot ive for wat ching t heir react ions. For inst ance, Roche CEO Franz Hum er is highly skilled at det ect ing subt le cues and underlying shift s of opinion. Hum er t old m e and m y colleague Garet h Jones t hat he developed t he skill while working as a t our guide in his m id- t went ies. Because he relied solely on t ips for his pay, Hum er quickly learned how t o size up a group of as m any as 100 people and figure out who was likely t o give him a t ip. That way, he’d know where t o focus his at t ent ion. ( For m ore on t his exam ple, see “ Why Should Anyone Be Led By You?” HBR Sept em ber–Oct ober 2000.)

I f t h e se sk ills a r e de ve lope d dispr opor t ion a t e ly, t h e y ca n in t e r fe r e w it h you r r e la t ion sh ips. I ’d caut ion against overem phasizing any one aspect of em ot ional int elligence; if t hese skills are developed disproport ionat ely, t hey can int erfere wit h your relat ionships. I f you’re ext rem ely self- aware but short on em pat hy, you m ight com e off as self- obsessed. I f you’re excessively em pat het ic, you risk being t oo hard t o read. I f you’re great at selfm anagem ent but not very t ransparent , you m ight seem inaut hent ic. Finally, at t im es leaders have t o deliberat ely avoid get t ing t oo close t o t he t roops in order t o ensure t hat t hey’re seeing t he bigger pict ure. Em ot ionally int elligent leaders know when t o rein it in. En ga ge You r D e m on s D a vid Ge r ge n direct s t he Cent er for Public Leadership at Harvard Universit y’s John F. Kennedy School of Governm ent in Cam bridge, Massachuset t s. He served as an adviser t o president s Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clint on. Am erican hist ory suggest s not only t hat em ot ional int elligence is an indispensable ingredient of polit ical leadership but also t hat it can be enhanced t hrough sust ained effort . George Washingt on had t o work hard t o cont rol his fiery t em per before he becam e a role m odel for t he republic, and Abraham Lincoln had t o overcom e deep m elancholia t o display t he brave and warm count enance t hat m ade him a m agnet for ot hers. Franklin Delano Roosevelt provides an even m ore graphic exam ple: I n his early adult years, FDR seem ed carefree and condescending. Then, at 39, he was st ricken wit h polio. By m ost account s, he t ransform ed him self over t he next seven years of st ruggle int o a leader of em pat hy, pat ience, and keen self- awareness. Richard Nixon t hought he m ight t ransform him self t hrough his own years in t he wilderness, and he did m ake progress. But he could never fully cont rol his dem ons, and t hey event ually brought him down. Bill Clint on, t oo, has st ruggled for self- m ast ery and has m ade progress, but he could not fully close t he cracks in his charact er, and he paid a st iff price. Not all people succeed, t hen, in achieving self- awareness and self- cont rol. What we have been t old since t he t im e of t he Greeks is t hat every leader m ust t ry t o cont rol his own passions before he can hope t o com m and t he passions of ot hers.

Best - selling aut hor Rabbi Harold Kushner argues persuasively t hat t he elem ent s of selfishness and aggression t hat are in m ost of us—and our st ruggles t o overcom e t hem — are exact ly what m ake for bet t er leadership. I n Living a Life That Mat t ers, Kushner writ es of t he personal t orm ent s of leaders from Jacob, who wrest led all night wit h an angel, t o Mart in Lut her King, Jr., who t ried t o cleanse him self of weakness even as he cleansed t he nat ion’s soul. “ Good people do bad t hings,” Kushner concludes, “ I f t hey weren’t m ight ily t em pt ed by t heir yet zer ha’ra [ will t o do evil] , t hey m ight not be capable of t he m ight ily good t hings t hey do.” Le t You r Gu a r d D ow n Sidn e y H a r m a n ( sharm an@harm an.com ) is t he execut ive chairm an and founder of Harm an I nt ernat ional I ndust ries in Washingt on, DC. Eight years ago, we acquired Becker Radio ( now Harm an/ Becker) t o help us develop t he dashboard navigat ion and m edia syst em s t hat are now t he m aj or part of our business. I n a m eet ing at Becker, several of t he engineers t here argued t hat t he only way for us t o t ake t he lead in t he em erging field of “ infot ainm ent ” was t o abandon t ried- and- t rue analog syst em s and design and build t ot ally new digit al syst em s—a very risky proposit ion for our com pany. Back hom e, I sat down wit h our key execut ives t o t alk about t his disrupt ive idea. I went int o t he m eet ing wit h only a rough not ion of how we should proceed. There was clearly anxiet y and skept icism in t he group, concern t hat we would be bet t ing t he com pany if we went digit al. I realized t hat t o provoke t he creat ive t hinking we needed, I would have t o let m y guard down and be willing t o em barrass m yself by float ing unform ed—and even uninform ed—ideas. I assured t he group t hat anyt hing we said in t he m eet ing st ayed wit h us. Our discussion went on for six or seven hours. By opening up t o m y colleagues, and by encouraging t hem t o t hink freely and im provise, I helped generat e a novel perspect ive t hat no one of us had brought t o t he m eet ing: Com m it all t he com pany’s resources t o t his digit al direct ion, facilit at e t he t ransform at ion by elim inat ing hierarchies and silos, and rem ove barriers bet ween funct ions. Today, our sales are approaching $3 billion, and our st ock price is at an all- t im e high. We wouldn’t be here if we hadn’t t aken t he radical st eps conceived in t hat m eet ing. And t hat plan would not have em erged had I failed t o recognize and respond t o t he group’s apprehension and elicit it s collect ive creat ive t hinking. The leader who uses em ot ional int elligence t o cat alyze creat ive t hinking subordinat es him self t o t he t eam but elevat es t he com pany t o achieve goals it ot herwise couldn’t . W a t ch You r Cu lt u r e Ja n j a La lich ( j [email protected]) is an assist ant professor of sociology at California St at e Universit y, Chico, and an expert on cult s. Cult leaders don’t do anyt hing m yst erious; t hey j ust know how t o package t hem selves and t heir prom ises well and how t o t arget responsive audiences. They’re very good at influencing, or, t o be m ore precise, m anipulat ing, followers. To do t his, t hey rely on a keen abilit y t o perceive ot hers’ vulnerabilit ies and longings—t o know what people want . One way a cult leader m anipulat es is by exploit ing followers’ eagerness t o be part of som et hing bigger t han t hem selves. That desire oft en prom pt s followers t o assign t o a leader at t ribut es t hat he doesn’t act ually possess. A t ype of group cont agion can t ake hold—a “ t rue- believerism ” m ent alit y. Then followers can fall int o what I call uncrit ical obedience, never quest ioning t he leader’s claim s. When followers give a leader t his power, t here are obvious dangers.

Cult leaders are also skillful at convincing followers t hat t he leader’s ideas are t heir own. Once followers own t he ideas, it ’s difficult for t hem t o ext ricat e t hem selves from t he leader’s m essage. For exam ple, a leader m ay exaggerat e his own im port ance. I n t he 1980s, Bhagwan Shree Raj neesh, a wildly popular Oregon- based East ern guru, always surrounded him self wit h arm ed guards. That height ened sense of need for securit y led som e of his followers t o perform dangerous, ant isocial act ivit ies in t heir desire t o prot ect and defend t heir ashram and Raj neesh him self.

Th e diffe r e n ce s be t w e e n h ow cu lt le a de r s a n d con ve n t ion a l le a de r s in flu e n ce t h e ir follow e r s ca n be su bt le . Cult leaders also m ake it difficult for people t o leave. They set up int erlocking syst em s of influence and cont rol t hat keep followers obedient and prevent t hem from t hinking about t heir own needs. Cult leaders m ay offer “ rewards” —som et im es m at erial, m ore oft en ephem eral—t hat keep followers com m it t ed t o t he leader and t o t he organizat ion’s goals. The differences bet ween how a convent ional leader influences followers and how cult leaders m anipulat e t hem can be subt le. Som et im es t he only difference is t heir int ent . And som et im es t here is no difference. Fin d You r Voice W illia m Ge or ge is t he form er chairm an and CEO of Medt ronic, a m edical t echnology com pany in Minneapolis. Aut hent ic leadership begins wit h self- awareness, or knowing yourself deeply. Selfawareness is not a t rait you are born wit h but a capacit y you develop t hroughout your lifet im e. I t ’s your underst anding of your st rengt hs and weaknesses, your purpose in life, your values and m ot ivat ions, and how and why you respond t o sit uat ions in a part icular way. I t requires a great deal of int rospect ion and t he abilit y t o int ernalize feedback from ot hers. No one is born a leader; we have t o consciously develop int o t he leader we want t o becom e. I t t akes m any years of hard work and t he abilit y t o learn from ext rem e difficult ies and disappoint m ent s. But in t heir scram ble t o get ahead, m any would- be leaders at t em pt t o skip t his crucial developm ent al st age. Som e of t hese people do get t o t he t op of com panies t hrough sheer det erm inat ion and aggressiveness. However, when t hey finally reach t he leader’s chair, t hey can be very dest ruct ive because t hey haven’t focused on t he hard work of personal developm ent . To m ask t heir inadequacies, t hese leaders t end t o close t hem selves off, cult ivat ing an im age or persona rat her t han opening up t o ot hers. They oft en adopt t he st yles of ot her leaders t hey have observed. Leaders who are driven t o achieve by short com ings in t heir charact er, for exam ple, or a desire for self- aggrandizem ent , m ay t ake inordinat e risks on behalf of t he organizat ion. They m ay even com e t o believe t hey are so im port ant t hat t hey place t heir int erest s above t hose of t he organizat ion. Self- awareness and ot her em ot ional int elligence skills com e nat urally t o som e, less so t o ot hers—but t hese skills can be learned. One of t he t echniques I have found m ost useful in gaining deeper self- awareness is m edit at ion. I n 1975, m y wife dragged m e, kicking and scream ing, t o a weekend course in Transcendent al Medit at ion. I have m edit at ed 20 m inut es, t wice a day, ever since. Medit at ion m akes m e calm er, m ore focused, and bet t er

able t o discern what ’s really im port ant . Leaders, by t he very nat ure of t heir posit ions, are under ext rem e pressure t o keep up wit h t he m any voices clam oring for t heir at t ent ion. I ndeed, m any leaders lose t heir way. I t is only t hrough a deep self- awareness t hat you can find your inner voice and list en t o it . Kn ow t h e Scor e M ich a e l Tilson Th om a s is t he m usic direct or of t he San Francisco Sym phony. A conduct or’s aut horit y rest s on t wo t hings: t he orchest ra’s confidence in t he conduct or’s insight ful knowledge of t he whole score; and t he orchest ra’s fait h in t he conduct or’s good heart , which seeks t o inspire everyone t o m ake m usic t hat is excellent , generous, and sincere. Old- school conduct ors liked t o hold t he lead in t heir hands at all t im es. I do not . Som et im es I lead. Ot her t im es I ’ll say, “ Violas, I ’m giving you t he lead. List en t o one anot her, and find your way wit h t his phrase.” I ’m not t rying t o drill people, m ilit ary st yle, t o play m usic exact ly t oget her. I ’m t rying t o encourage t hem t o play as one, which is a different t hing. I ’m guiding t he perform ance, but I ’m aware t hat t hey’re execut ing it . I t ’s t heir sinews, t heir heart st rings. I ’m t here t o help t hem do it in a way t hat is convincing and nat ural for t hem but also a part of t he larger design. My approach is t o be in t une wit h t he people wit h whom I ’m working. I f I ’m conduct ing an ensem ble for t he first t im e, I will relat e what it is I want t hem t o do t o t he great t hings t hey’ve already done. I f I ’m conduct ing m y own orchest ra, I can see in t he m usicians’ bodies and faces how t hey’re feeling t hat day, and it becom es very clear who m ay need encouragem ent and who m ay need caut ioning. The obj ect ivit y and perspect ive I have as t he only person who is j ust list ening is a powerful t hing. I t ry t o use t his perspect ive t o help t he ensem ble reach it s goals. Ke e p I t H on e st Ca r ol Ba r t z ( carol.bart z@aut odesk.com ) is t he chairm an, president , and CEO of Aut odesk, a design soft ware and digit al cont ent com pany in San Rafael, California. A friend needed t o t ake a six- m ont h assignm ent in a different part of t he count ry. She had an ancient , ill, balding but beloved dog t hat she could not t ake wit h her. Her choices boiled down t o boarding t he poor anim al, at enorm ous expense, or put t ing it out of it s obvious m isery. Friends said, “ Board t he dog,” t hough behind m y friend’s back, t hey ridiculed t hat opt ion. She asked m e what I t hought , and I t old her, kindly but clearly, t hat I t hought she should have t he dog put t o sleep rat her t han spend her m oney keeping it in an environm ent where it would be m iserable and perhaps die anyway. My friend was furious wit h m e for saying t his. She boarded t he dog and went away on her assignm ent . When she ret urned, t he dog was at deat h’s door and had t o be put t o sleep. Not long aft er t hat , m y friend cam e around t o say t hanks. “ You were t he only person who t old m e t he t rut h,” she said. She cam e t o appreciat e t hat I had cared enough t o t ell her what I t hought was best , even if what I said hurt at t he t im e. That event validat ed a hunch t hat has st ood m e in good st ead as I ’ve led m y com pany. Em pat hy and com passion have t o be balanced wit h honest y. I have pulled people int o m y office and t old t hem t o deal wit h cert ain issues for t he sake of t hem selves and t heir t eam s. I f t hey are willing t o learn, t hey will say, “ Gee, no one ever t old m e.” I f t hey are unwilling, t hey’re not right for t his organizat ion. And I m ust let t hem go for t he sake of t he great er good.

Go for t h e Ge m ba H ir ot a k a Ta k e u ch i is t he dean of Hit ot subashi Universit y’s Graduat e School of I nt ernat ional Corporat e St rat egy in Tokyo. Self- awareness, self- cont rol, em pat hy, hum ilit y, and ot her such em ot ional int elligence t rait s are part icularly im port ant in Asia. They are part of our Confucian em phasis on wah, or social harm ony. When books on em ot ional int elligence were first t ranslat ed int o Japanese, people said, “ We already know t hat . We’re act ually t rying t o get beyond t hat .” We’ve been so focused on wah t hat we’ve built up a supersensit ive st ruct ure of social nicet ies, where everyone seeks consensus. I n t he Japanese hierarchy, everyone knows his or her place so no one is ever hum iliat ed. This social supersensit ivit y—it self a form of em ot ional int elligence—can lead people t o shy away from conflict . But conflict is oft en t he only way t o get t o t he gem ba—t he front line, where t he act ion really is, where t he t rut h lies. Thus, effect ive m anagem ent oft en depends not on coolly and expert ly resolving conflict , or sim ply avoiding it , but on em bracing it at t he gem ba. Japan’s m ost effect ive leaders do bot h. The best exam ple is Nissan’s Carlos Ghosn. He not only had t he social skills t o list en t o people and win t hem over t o his ideas, but he also dared t o lift t he lid on t he corporat e hierarchy and encourage people at all levels of t he organizat ion t o offer suggest ions t o operat ional, organizat ional, and even int erpersonal problem s—even if t hat creat ed conflict . People were no longer suppressed, so solut ions t o t he com pany’s problem s bubbled up. Ba la n ce t h e Loa d Lin da St on e ( linda@lindast one.net ) is t he form er vice president of corporat e and indust ry init iat ives at Microsoft in Redm ond, Washingt on. Em ot ional int elligence is powerful—which is precisely why it can be dangerous. For exam ple, em pat hy is an ext raordinary relat ionship- building t ool, but it m ust be used skillfully or it can do serious dam age t o t he person doing t he em pat hizing. I n m y case, overdoing em pat hy t ook a physical t oll. I n May 2000, St eve Ballm er charged m e wit h rebuilding Microsoft ’s indust ry relat ionships, a posit ion t hat I som et im es referred t o as chief list ening officer. The j ob was part om budsperson, part new- init iat ives developer, part pat t ern recognizer, and part rapid- response person. I n t he first few m ont hs of t he j ob—when crit icism of t he com pany was at an all- t im e high—it becam e clear t hat t his posit ion was a light ning rod. I t hrew m yself int o list ening and repairing wherever I could. Wit hin a few m ont hs, I was exhaust ed from t he effort . I gained a significant am ount of weight , which, t est s finally revealed, was probably caused by a horm one im balance part ially brought on by st ress and lack of sleep. I n absorbing everyone’s com plaint s, perhaps t o t he ext rem e, I had com prom ised m y healt h. This was a wake- up call; I needed t o refram e t he j ob. I focused on connect ing t he people who needed t o work t oget her t o resolve problem s rat her t han t aking on each repair m yself. I persuaded key people inside t he com pany t o list en and work direct ly wit h im port ant people out side t he com pany, even in cases where t he int ernal folks were skept ical at first about t he need for t his direct connect ion. I n a sense, I t em pered m y em pat hy and rat chet ed up relat ionship building. Ult im at ely, wit h a wiser and m ore balanced use of em pat hy, I becam e m ore effect ive and less st ressed in m y role. Qu e st ion Au t h or it y

Ron a ld H e ife t z ( ronald_heifet [email protected]) is a cofounder of t he Cent er for Public Leadership at Harvard Universit y’s John F. Kennedy School of Governm ent in Cam bridge, Massachuset t s, and a part ner at Cam bridge Leadership Associat es, a consult ancy in Cam bridge. Em ot ional int elligence is necessary for leadership but not sufficient . Many people have som e degree of em ot ional int elligence and can indeed em pat hize wit h and rouse followers; a few of t hem can even generat e great charism at ic aut horit y. But I would argue t hat if t hey are using em ot ional int elligence solely t o gain form al or inform al aut horit y, t hat ’s not leadership at all. They are using t heir em ot ional int elligence t o grasp what people want , only t o pander t o t hose desires in order t o gain aut horit y and influence. Easy answers sell. Leadership couples em ot ional int elligence wit h t he courage t o raise t he t ough quest ions, challenge people’s assum pt ions about st rat egy and operat ions—and risk losing t heir goodwill. I t dem ands a com m it m ent t o serving ot hers; skill at diagnost ic, st rat egic, and t act ical reasoning; t he gut s t o get beneat h t he surface of t ough realit ies; and t he heart t o t ake heat and grief. For exam ple, David Duke did an ext raordinary j ob of convincing Ku Klux Klan m em bers t o get out of t heir backyards and int o hot el conference room s. He brought his considerable em ot ional int elligence t o bear, his capacit y t o em pat hize wit h his followers, t o pluck t heir heart st rings in a powerful way t hat m obilized t hem . But he avoided asking his people t he t ough quest ions: Does our program act ually solve our problem ? How will creat ing a social st ruct ure of whit e suprem acy give us t he self- est eem we lack? How will it solve t he problem s of povert y, alcoholism , and fam ily violence t hat corrode our sense of self- wort h? Like Duke, m any people wit h high em ot ional int elligence and charism at ic aut horit y aren’t int erest ed in asking t he deeper quest ions, because t hey get so m uch em ot ional gain from t he adoring crowd. For t hem , t hat ’s t he end in it self. They’re sat isfying t heir own hungers and vulnerabilit ies: t heir need t o be liked; t heir need for power and cont rol; or t heir need t o be needed, t o feel im port ant , which renders t hem vulnerable t o grandiosit y. But t hat ’s not prim al leadership. I t ’s prim al hunger for aut horit y.

M a n y pe ople w it h h igh e m ot ion a l in t e llige n ce a r e n ’t in t e r e st e d in a sk in g t h e de e pe r qu e st ion s. Maint aining one’s prim acy or posit ion is not , in and of it self, leadership, however inspiring it m ay seem t o be. Gaining prim al aut horit y is relat ively easy.

Reprint Num ber R0401B Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. This cont ent m ay not be reproduced or t ransm it t ed in any form or by any m eans, elect ronic or m echanical, including phot ocopy, recording, or any inform at ion st orage or ret rieval syst em , wit hout writ t en perm ission. Request s for perm ission should be direct ed t o perm [email protected], 1- 888- 500- 1020, or m ailed t o Perm issions, Harvard Business School Publishing, 60 Harvard Way, Bost on, MA 02163.

Click here t o visit : > | ht t p: / / www.hbsp.org

Execut ive Sum m aries H BR Ca se St u dy Le ft on a M ou n t a in side

Julia Kirby Reprint R0401A

Ed Davidson is on t op of t he world, lit erally and figurat ively, at t he beginning of t his fict ional case st udy. He’s in t he Swiss Alps, headed for Davos and his first experience as a delegat e t o t he World Econom ic Forum ’s annual conference. And he has reason t o believe he is about t o be m ade president of his com pany, Carst on Wait e—and t herefore heir apparent t o t he CEO posit ion. Then his phone rings. I t ’s his m ent or, Frank Maugham , t he CFO and a board m em ber at Carst on Wait e, calling t o inform him of a m aj or set back. “ David asked m e t o let you know you are not going t o be nam ed president ,” he says. “ At least not yet . He want s t o st ay close t o t he business.” But Frank has a plan t o change t he CEO’s m ind. Meanwhile, Ed feels bet rayed and hum iliat ed—and his desire for revenge against t he CEO m ount s. When t he news com es t hat Frank’s plan has failed and has cost Frank his j ob, Ed is already deep in a plot of his own. He’s in Davos because David had t o back out ; Ed is supposed t o deliver t he CEO’s rem arks in his st ead. But why not use t his opport unit y on t he world st age inst ead t o deal a part ing blow? A psychoanalyst , a psychiat rist , an execut ive coach, and a governance expert com m ent on Ed’s st at e of m ind and his best course of act ion. They are Kennet h Eisold, t he president of t he I nt ernat ional Societ y for t he Psychoanalyt ic St udy of Organizat ions; Dee Soder, t he founder and m anaging part ner of t he CEO Perspect ive Group; Jeffrey P. Kahn, t he CEO of WorkPsych Associat es; and Charles M. Elson, t he Edgar S. Woolard, Jr., Chair of Corporat e Governance at t he Universit y of Delaware.

Voice s Le a din g by Fe e l Reprint R0401B

Like it or not , leaders need t o m anage t he m ood of t heir organizat ions. The m ost gift ed leaders accom plish t hat by using a m yst erious blend of psychological abilit ies known as em ot ional int elligence. They are self- aware and em pat het ic. They can read and regulat e t heir own em ot ions while int uit ively grasping how ot hers feel and gauging t heir organizat ion’s em ot ional st at e. But where does em ot ional int elligence com e from , and how do leaders learn t o use it ? I n t his art icle, 18 leaders and scholars ( including business execut ives, leadership researchers, psychologist s, an aut ism expert , and a sym phony conduct or) explore t he nat ure and m anagem ent of em ot ional int elligence—it s sources, uses, and abuses. Their responses varied, but som e com m on t hem es em erged: t he im port ance of consciously— and conscient iously—honing one’s skills, t he double- edged nat ure of self- awareness, and t he danger of let t ing any one em ot ional int elligence skill dom inat e. Am ong t heir observat ions: Psychology professor John Mayer, who codeveloped t he concept of em ot ional int elligence, warns m anagers not t o be confused by popular definit ions of t he t erm , which suggest t hat if you have a cert ain set of personalit y t rait s t hen you aut om at ically possess em ot ional int elligence. Neuropsychologist Elkhonon Goldberg agrees wit h professors Daniel Golem an and Robert Goffee t hat em ot ional int elligence can be learned —but only by people who already show an apt it ude for it . Cult expert Janj a Lalich point s out t hat leaders can use t heir em ot ional int elligence skills for ill in t he sam e way t hey can for good. “ Som et im es t he only difference is [ t he leader’s] int ent ,” she says. And business leaders Carol Bart z, William George, Sidney Harm an, and Andrea Jung ( of Aut odesk, Medt ronic, Harm an I nt ernat ional, and Avon respect ively) describe sit uat ions in which em ot ional int elligence t rait s such as self- awareness and em pat hy have helped t hem and t heir com panies perform at a higher level.

Th in k in g Abou t … Le a de r sh ip—W a r t s a n d All

Barbara Kellerm an Reprint R0401C

Does using Tyco’s funds t o purchase a $6,000 shower curt ain and a $15,000 dog- shaped um brella st and m ake Dennis Kozlowski a bad leader? I s Mart ha St ewart ’s career any less inst ruct ive because she m ay have sold som e shares on t he basis of a t ip- off? I s leadership synonym ous wit h m oral leadership? Before 1970, t he answer from m ost leadership t heorist s would cert ainly have been no. Look at Hit ler, St alin, Pol Pot , Mao Tse- t ung—great leaders all, but hardly good m en. I n fact , capricious, m urderous, high- handed, corrupt , and evil leaders are effect ive and com m onplace. Machiavelli celebrat ed t hem ; t he U.S. const it ut ion built in safeguards against t hem . Everywhere, power goes hand in hand wit h corrupt ion—everywhere, t hat is, except in t he lit erat ure of business leadership. To read Tom Pet ers, Jay Conger, John Kot t er, and m ost of t heir colleagues, leaders are, as Warren Bennis put s it , individuals who creat e shared m eaning, have a dist inct ive voice, have t he capacit y t o adapt , and have int egrit y. According t o t oday’s business lit erat ure, t o be a leader is, by definit ion, t o be benevolent . But leadership is not a m oral concept , and it is high t im e we acknowledge t hat fact . We have as m uch t o learn from t hose we would regard as bad exam ples as we do from t he far fewer good exam ples we’re present ed wit h t hese days.

Leaders are like t he rest of us: t rust wort hy and deceit ful, cowardly and brave, greedy and generous. To assum e t hat all good leaders are good people is t o be willfully blind t o t he realit y of t he hum an condit ion, and it severely lim it s our abilit y t o becom e bet t er leaders. Worse, it m ay cause senior execut ives t o t hink t hat , because t hey are leaders, t hey are never deceit ful, cowardly, or greedy. That way lies disast er. For inform at ion on an audio conference wit h Barbara Kellerm an based on t he concept s in t his art icle, visit ht t p: / / conferences.harvardbusinessonline.org

Fe a t u r e s Th e Se ve n Age s of t h e Le a de r

Warren G. Bennis Reprint R0401D

Leaders go t hrough m any t ransit ions in t heir careers. Each brings new crises and challenges—from t aking over a dam aged organizat ion t o having t o fire som ebody t o passing t he bat on t o t he next generat ion. These m om ent s can be wrenching—and can t hreat en your confidence—but t hey’re also predict able. Knowing what t o expect can help you get t hrough and perhaps em erge st ronger. I n t his engaging art icle, Warren G. Bennis, professor and founding chairm an of t he Universit y of Sout hern California’s Leadership I nst it ut e, reflect s on leadership, recount ing his own experiences as a young lieut enant in t he infant ry in World War I I , as t he new president of a universit y, and as t he m ent or t o a unique nursing st udent . Bennis also describes t he experiences of ot her leaders he has known t hroughout his career. Drawing on m ore t han 50 years of academ ic research and business expert ise—and borrowing from Shakespeare’s seven ages of m an—Bennis says t he leader’s life unfolds in seven st ages. “ The infant execut ive” seeks t o recruit a m ent or for guidance. “ The schoolboy” m ust learn how t o do t he j ob in public, subj ect ed t o unset t ling scrut iny of every word and act . “ The lover wit h a woeful ballad” st ruggles wit h t he t sunam i of problem s every organizat ion present s. “ The bearded soldier” m ust be willing—even eager —t o hire people bet t er t han he is, because he knows t hat t alent ed underlings can help him shine. “ The general” m ust becom e adept at not sim ply allowing people t o speak t he t rut h but at act ually being able t o hear what t hey are saying. “ The st at esm an” is hard at work preparing t o pass on wisdom in t he int erest s of t he organizat ion. And, finally, “ t he sage” em braces t he role of m ent or t o young execut ives. For inform at ion on an audio conference wit h Warren Bennis based on t he concept s in t his art icle, visit ht t p: / / conferences.harvardbusinessonline.org.

W h e n Follow e r s Be com e Tox ic

Lynn R. Offerm ann Reprint R0401E

Leaders are vulnerable, t oo. That is, t hey can be led ast ray j ust as t heir followers can— act ually, by t heir followers. This happens in a variet y of ways. Som et im es, good leaders end up m aking poor decisions because well- m eaning followers are unit ed and persuasive about a course of act ion. This is a part icular problem for leaders who at t ract and em power st rong followers. These execut ives need t o becom e m ore skept ical of t he m aj orit y view and push followers t o exam ine t heir opinions m ore closely. At ot her t im es, leaders get int o t rouble because t hey are surrounded by followers who fool t hem wit h flat t ery and isolat e t hem from uncom fort able realit ies. Charism at ic leaders, who are m ost suscept ible t o t his problem , need t o m ake an ext ra effort t o uneart h disagreem ent and t o find followers who are not afraid t o pose hard quest ions. Organizat ional m echanism s like 360- degree feedback and execut ive coaching can help t hese leaders get at t he t rut h wit hin t heir com panies. Finally, unscrupulous and am bit ious followers m ay end up encroaching on t he aut horit y of t he leader t o such an ext ent t hat t he leader becom es lit t le m ore t han a figurehead who has responsibilit y but no power. There’s not m uch leaders can do t o com plet ely guard against a det erm ined corporat e I ago, but t hose who com m unicat e and live by a posit ive set of values will find t hem selves bet t er prot ect ed. And since followers t end t o m odel t hem selves aft er t heir leaders, t he st raight forward leader is less likely t o have m anipulat ive followers. I n t his art icle, George Washingt on Universit y professor Lynn Offerm ann explores each of t hese dynam ics in dept h, arguing t hat leaders need t o st ir debat e, look for friends who can deliver bad news, and com m unicat e and act on a solid set of values.

H BR I n t e r vie w Pu t t in g Le a de r s on t h e Cou ch : A Con ve r sa t ion w it h M a n fr e d F.R. Ke t s de Vr ie s

Diane L. Cout u Reprint R0401F

Much of t he business lit erat ure on leadership st art s wit h t he assum pt ion t hat leaders are rat ional beings. But irrat ionalit y is int egral t o hum an nat ure, and inner conflict oft en cont ribut es t o t he drive t o succeed. Alt hough a num ber of business scholars have explored t he psychology of execut ives, Manfred F.R. Ket s de Vries has m ade t he analysis of CEOs his life’s work. I n t his art icle, Ket s de Vries, a psychoanalyst , aut hor, and I nsead professor, draws on t hree decades of st udy t o describe t he psychological profile of successful CEOs. He explores senior execut ives’ vulnerabilit ies, which are oft en int ensified by followers’ at t em pt s t o m anipulat e t heir leaders. Leaders, he says, have an uncanny abilit y t o awaken t ransferent ial processes—in which people t ransfer t he dynam ics of past relat ionships ont o present int eract ions—am ong t heir em ployees and even in t hem selves. These processes can present t hem selves in a num ber of ways, som et im es negat ively. What ’s m ore, m any t op execut ives, being m iddle- aged, suffer from depression. Midlife prom pt s a reappraisal of career ident it y, and by t he t im e a leader is a CEO, an exist ent ial crisis is oft en im m inent . This can happen wit h anyone, but t he probabilit y is higher wit h CEOs and senior execut ives because so m any have devot ed t hem selves exclusively t o work.

Not all CEOs are psychologically unhealt hy, of course. Healt hy leaders are t alent ed in self- observat ion and self- analysis, Ket s de Vries says. The best are highly m ot ivat ed t o spend t im e on self- reflect ion. Their lives are in balance, t hey can play, t hey are creat ive and invent ive, and t hey have t he capacit y t o be nonconform ist . “ Those who accept t he m adness in t hem selves m ay be t he healt hiest leaders of all,” he concludes.

Be st of H BR M a n a ge r s a n d Le a de r s: Ar e Th e y D iffe r e n t ?

Abraham Zaleznik Reprint R0401G; Harvard Business Review OnPoint edit ion 8334; Harvard Business Review OnPoint collect ion 5402 “ Your Best Managers Lead and Manage”

Managers and leaders are t wo very different t ypes of people. Managers’ goals arise out of necessit ies rat her t han desires; t hey excel at defusing conflict s bet ween individuals or depart m ent s, placat ing all sides while ensuring t hat an organizat ion’s day- t o- day business get s done. Leaders, on t he ot her hand, adopt personal, act ive at t it udes t oward goals. They look for t he opport unit ies and rewards t hat lie around t he corner, inspiring subordinat es and firing up t he creat ive process wit h t heir own energy. Their relat ionships wit h em ployees and coworkers are int ense, and t heir working environm ent is oft en chaot ic. I n t his art icle, first published in 1977, t he aut hor argues t hat businesses need bot h m anagers and leaders t o survive and succeed. But in t he larger U.S. organizat ions of t hat t im e, a “ m anagerial m yst ique” seem ed t o perpet uat e t he developm ent of m anagerial personalit ies—people who rely on, and st rive t o m aint ain, orderly work pat t erns. The m anagerial power et hic favors collect ive leadership and seeks t o avoid risk. That sam e m anagerial m yst ique can st ifle leaders’ developm ent —How can an ent repreneurial spirit develop when it is subm erged in a conservat ive environm ent and denied personal at t ent ion? Ment or relat ionships are crucial t o t he developm ent of leadership personalit ies, but in large, bureaucrat ic organizat ions, such relat ionships are not encouraged. Businesses m ust find ways t o t rain good m anagers and develop leaders at t he sam e t im e. Wit hout a solid organizat ional fram ework, even leaders wit h t he m ost brilliant ideas m ay spin t heir wheels, frust rat ing coworkers and accom plishing lit t le. But wit hout t he ent repreneurial cult ure t hat develops when a leader is at t he helm of an organizat ion, a business will st agnat e and rapidly lose com pet it ive power.

W h a t M a k e s a Le a de r ?

Daniel Golem an Reprint R0401H; Harvard Business Review OnPoint edit ion 3790; Harvard Business Review OnPoint collect ion 8156 “ Best of HBR on Leadership: Em ot ionally I nt elligent Leadership”

When asked t o define t he ideal leader, m any would em phasize t rait s such as int elligence, t oughness, det erm inat ion, and vision—t he qualit ies t radit ionally associat ed wit h leadership. Such skills and sm art s are necessary but insufficient qualit ies for t he leader. Oft en left off t he list are soft er, m ore personal qualit ies—but t hey are also essent ial. Alt hough a cert ain degree of analyt ical and t echnical skill is a m inim um requirem ent for success, st udies indicat e t hat em ot ional int elligence m ay be t he key at t ribut e t hat dist inguishes out st anding perform ers from t hose who are m erely adequat e. Psychologist and aut hor Daniel Golem an first brought t he t erm “ em ot ional int elligence” t o a wide audience wit h his 1995 book of t he sam e nam e, and Golem an first applied t he concept t o business wit h t his 1998 classic HBR art icle. I n his research at nearly 200 large, global com panies, Golem an found t hat t ruly effect ive leaders are dist inguished by a high degree of em ot ional int elligence. Wit hout it , a person can have first - class t raining, an incisive m ind, and an endless supply of good ideas, but he st ill won’t be a great leader. The chief com ponent s of em ot ional int elligence—self- awareness, self- regulat ion, m ot ivat ion, em pat hy, and social skill—can sound unbusinesslike, but Golem an, cochair of t he Consort ium for Research on Em ot ional I nt elligence in Organizat ions, based at Rut gers Universit y, found direct t ies bet ween em ot ional int elligence and m easurable business result s. The not ion of em ot ional int elligence and it s relevance t o business has cont inued t o spark debat e over t he past six years, but Golem an’s art icle rem ains t he definit ive reference on t he subj ect , wit h a det ailed discussion of each com ponent of em ot ional int elligence, how t o recognize it in pot ent ial leaders, how and why it connect s t o perform ance, and how it can be learned.

N a r cissist ic Le a de r s: Th e I n cr e dible Pr os, t h e I n e vit a ble Con s

Michael Maccoby Reprint R0401J; Harvard Business Review OnPoint edit ion 5904; Harvard Business Review OnPoint collect ion 5070 “ Ego Makes t he Leader, 2nd Edit ion”

I n t he wint er of 2000, at t he height of t he dot - com boom , business leaders posed for t he covers of Tim e, BusinessWeek, and t he Econom ist wit h t he aplom b and confidence of rock st ars. These were a different breed from t heir count erpart s of j ust t en or 20 years before, who shunned t he press and whose com m ent s were carefully craft ed by corporat e PR depart m ent s. Such love of t he lim elight oft en st em s from what Freud called a narcissist ic personalit y, says psychoanalyst and ant hropologist Michael Maccoby in t his HBR classic first published in t he January–February 2000 issue. Narcissist s are good for com panies in ext raordinary t im es, t hose t hat need people wit h t he passion and daring t o t ake t hem in new direct ions. But narcissist s can also lead com panies int o disast er by refusing t o list en t o t he advice and warnings of t heir m anagers. I t ’s not always t rue, as Andy Grove fam ously put it , t hat only t he paranoid survive. Most business advice is focused on t he m ore analyt ic personalit y t hat obsessive. But recom m endat ions about creat ing t eam work and being subordinat es will not resonat e wit h narcissist s. They didn’t get where list ening t o ot hers, so why should t hey list en t o anyone when t hey’re gam e?

Freud labeled m ore recept ive t o t hey are by at t he t op of t heir

Narcissist s who want t o overcom e t he lim it s of t heir personalit ies m ust work as hard at t hat as t hey do at business success. One solut ion is t o find a t rust ed sidekick, who can

point out t he operat ional requirem ent s of t he narcissist ic leader’s oft en overly grandiose vision and keep him root ed in realit y. Anot her is t o t ake a leap of fait h and go int o psychoanalysis, which can give t hese leaders t he t ools t o overcom e t heir som et im es fat al charact er flaws.

Un de r st a n din g Le a de r sh ip

W.C.H. Prent ice Reprint R0401K

The would- be analyst of leadership usually st udies popularit y, power, showm anship, or wisdom in long- range planning. But none of t hese qualit ies is t he essence of leadership. Leadership is t he accom plishm ent of a goal t hrough t he direct ion of hum an assist ant s—a hum an and social achievem ent t hat st em s from t he leader’s underst anding of his or her fellow workers and t he relat ionship of t heir individual goals t o t he group’s aim . To be successful, leaders m ust learn t wo basic lessons: People are com plex, and people are different . Hum an beings respond not only t o t he t radit ional carrot and st ick but also t o am bit ion, pat riot ism , love of t he good and t he beaut iful, boredom , self- doubt , and m any ot her desires and em ot ions. One person m ay find sat isfact ion in solving int ellect ual problem s but m ay never be given t he opport unit y t o explore how t hat sat isfact ion can be applied t o business. Anot her m ay need a friendly, adm iring relat ionship and m ay be const ant ly frust rat ed by t he failure of his superior t o recognize and t ake advant age of t hat need. I n t his art icle, first published in HBR’s Sept em ber–Oct ober 1961 issue, W.C.H. Prent ice argues t hat by responding t o such individual pat t erns, t he leader will be able t o creat e genuinely int rinsic int erest in t he work. I deally, Prent ice says, m anagerial dom inions should be sm all enough t hat every supervisor can know t hose who report t o him or her as hum an beings. Prent ice calls for dem ocrat ic leadership t hat , wit hout creat ing anarchy, gives em ployees opport unit ies t o learn and grow. This concept , along wit h his rej ect ion of t he not ion t hat leadership is t he exercise of power or t he possession of ext raordinary analyt ical skill, foreshadows t he work of m ore recent aut hors such as Abraham Zaleznik and Daniel Golem an, who have fundam ent ally changed t he way we look at leadership.

I n Closin g Th e H igh w a y of t h e M in d

Thom as A. St ewart Reprint R0401L

Businesspeople t end t o be ext rovert s, t aking a lively int erest in ot hers and preferring act ion t o int rospect ion. But t o be fully effect ive as leaders, t hey m ust learn t o navigat e t he t wist s and t urns of t heir em ot ions and t hose of t he people around t hem .

Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. This cont ent m ay not be reproduced or t ransm it t ed in any form or by any m eans, elect ronic or m echanical, including phot ocopy, recording, or any inform at ion st orage or ret rieval syst em , wit hout writ t en perm ission. Request s for perm ission should be direct ed t o perm [email protected], 1- 888- 500- 1020, or m ailed t o Perm issions, Harvard Business School Publishing, 60 Harvard Way, Bost on, MA 02163.

Click here t o visit :

View Back Issues | January 2004 > Leadership—Wart s and All

> | Pu r ch a se Re pr in t > | Pr in t a ble Ve r sion

Leadership—Wart s and All

> | E- m a il a Colle a gu e > | Ex e cu t ive Su m m a r y

I f you look t h r ou gh t h e a ca de m ic lit e r a t u r e on le a de r sh ip, you m igh t con clu de t h a t e ve r y le a de r is good, or a t le a st w e ll in t e n t ion e d. W e cou ld a ll be n e fit fr om a dose of r e a lism .

by Ba r ba r a Ke lle r m a n

“ We t ell ourselves st ories in order t o live,” Joan Didion once wrot e, t o explain t he unfounded opt im ism hum an beings display. Good st ories m ake t he world m ore bearable. I nevit ably, t herefore, we want t o t ell—and be t old—st ories t hat m ake us feel bet t er, even if t hat m eans t hat we don’t get as com plet e a pict ure as we need. People who st udy leaders have fallen vict im t o t his inst inct in a big way. I n t he leadership lit erat ure of t he past several decades, alm ost all successful aut hors have fed int o t heir readers’ ( and perhaps t heir own) yearnings for feel- good st ories. Just reflect on som e of t he best sellers of t he last 20 t o 30 years: Thom as J. Pet ers and Robert H. Wat erm an, Jr.’s I n Search of Excellence; Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus’s Leaders: St rat egies for Taking Charge; John P. Kot t er’s A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Managem ent ; and Jay A. Conger and Bet h Benj am in’s Building Leaders. Alt hough a few aut hors have recent ly t aken except ion t o t he blind belief in t he inherent goodness of leadership—not ably Sydney Finkelst ein in his book Why Sm art Execut ives Fail and What You Can Learn from Their Mist akes—m ost of t he hugely successful scholars argue, oft en wit h passion, t hat effect ive leaders are persons of m erit , or at least of good int ent ions. I t alm ost seem s t hat by definit ion bad people cannot be good leaders. I f m ost leaders were wort hy people, it would be easy t o underst and why we accent uat e t he posit ive. But t he realit y is, of course, t hat flawed leaders are everywhere. I n corporat ions, overweening personal am bit ion and greed have driven m any a CEO t o run afoul of t he law. I n t he last couple of years alone, scores of powerful and successful execut ives have been indict ed for financial wrongdoing of various kinds. Think of Andy Fast ow of Enron and Dennis Kozlowski at Tyco. Even hom em aking diva Mart ha St ewart has j oined t he ranks of t he indict ed. As t he New York Tim es wryly quipped, it now “ t akes a scorecard t o keep up wit h corporat e scandals in Am erica.” Of course, corporat ions don’t have a corner on t he m arket in bad leaders. Polit ics is replet e wit h t he m ost ext rem e of exam ples. Hit ler, St alin, and Pol Pot com e im m ediat ely t o m ind: all power- m ad and evil but nonet heless highly effect ive as leaders. These ext rem e cases aside, st ories about t he failings of m ore reasonable public officials lit t er t he newspaper headlines. Consider Pet er Mandelson, a m em ber of Tony Blair’s cabinet , respect ed bot h for his polit ical skills and his underst anding of public policy. I n 1998, Mandelson was forced t o resign from t he cabinet aft er it was revealed t hat he had accept ed an im proper loan of £373,000 t o help buy a swanky hom e in London’s Not t ing Hill. And, cert ainly, it doesn’t end t here. Account s of t he “ wayward shepherds” in t he Rom an Cat holic Church, as one j ournalist put it , cont inue t o m ount . To nam e j ust t wo of t he highest profile exam ples: I n 2003, a grand j ury alleged t hat Rom an Cat holic aut horit ies on Long I sland, New York, had long conspired t o prot ect 58 “ rogue clergym en” from facing charges of sexual abuse. And in Bost on, no fewer t han 86 people filed civil lawsuit s against John J. Geoghan, t he convict ed child m olest er who was lat er m urdered in prison. Again and again, t he suit s alleged Cardinal Bernard F. Law, archbishop of t he Bost on Cat holic Archdiocese for 18 years, ret urned Geoghan t o parish work alt hough Law had evidence t hat Geoghan repeat edly m olest ed boys. I t is im possible t o deny t hat bad or at least unwort hy people oft en occupy and successfully fill t op leadership posit ions, and it is high t im e leadership expert s

Ba r ba r a Ke lle r m a n is t he research direct or of t he Cent er for Public Leadership and a lect urer in public policy at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Governm ent in Cam bridge, Massachuset t s. Form erly t he direct or of t he Cent er for t he Advanced St udy of Leadership at t he Universit y of Maryland, she has writ t en and edit ed m any books on leadership, including her fort hcom ing Bad Leadership ( Harvard Business School Press, 2004) .

acknowledge t he fact . For, cont rary t o t he expect at ions of t hese expert s, we have as m uch t o learn from people we would regard as bad exam ples as we do from t he far less num erous good exam ples we’re present ed wit h t hese days. I s Mart ha St ewart ’s career as a successful ent repreneur any t he less inst ruct ive because she m ay have once sold som e shares on t he basis of a t ip- off? Does Law’s gross negligence on t he issue of child abuse negat e t he fact t hat during his years in Bost on he effect ively m anaged t o balance his t radit ional view of t he church wit h progressive posit ions on discrim inat ion and povert y? I n t he following pages, I shall at t em pt t o explain how we cam e t o accept such a skewed, m oralist ic underst anding of leadership and in doing so I hope t o put t he wart s— and t he realit y—back int o t he pict ure. Le a de r s W e r e n ’t Alw a ys N ice Alt hough m ost cont em porary scholarship is focused on leaders who are blem ish- free, it was not always t hat way. Throughout hist ory nearly all t he great polit ical t heorist s have recognized t he realit y of bad leaders, oft en accent uat ing t he need t o cont rol t heir m alicious t endencies. I nfluenced by religious t radit ions t hat focus on good and evil, and oft en personally affect ed by t he t raum a of war and int ernal disorder, polit ical t hinkers in form er t im es t ook rat her a j aundiced view of hum an nat ure. Consider Machiavelli, a player in fift eent h- and sixt eent h- cent ury Florent ine polit ics and oft en a wit ness t o brut al warfare. Fam ous for his advice t o polit ical players in his classic book The Prince, Machiavelli out lined opport unit ies associat ed wit h forceful leadership. For m ost of us, coercive leadership alm ost by definit ion equals bad leadership. But as som eone who was fam iliar bot h wit h t he ways of t he world and wit h t he hum an psyche, Machiavelli argued t hat t he only t ruly bad leadership is weak leadership. His philosophy was predicat ed on t he assum pt ion t hat som e leaders need t o use force t o hold personal power and t o m aint ain public order. Machiavelli, t herefore, act ually adm ired unscrupulous leaders who exercised power and aut horit y wit h an iron fist . And in The Prince, he wrot e wit h apparent calm about t he occasional need j udiciously t o apply “ cruelt ies” : “ When he seizes a st at e, t he new ruler ought t o det erm ine all t he inj uries t hat he will need t o inflict .…Whoever act s ot herwise, eit her t hrough t im idit y or bad advice, is always forced t o have t he knife ready in his hand, and he can never depend on his subj ect s because t hey, suffering fresh and cont inuous violence, can never feel secure wit h regard t o him .” Like Machiavelli, t he Founding Fat hers of t he Unit ed St at es had personal experience of bad leadership, and t hey t hought about it a great deal. I ndeed, t hey were som e of t he great est st udent s of leadership of all t im e. But t heir react ion t o bad leadership could hardly have been furt her from t hat of t he aut hor of The Prince. They underst ood t hat leadership is easily corrupt ed and oft en m align, and t herefore t hey went t o ext raordinary lengt hs t o const ruct a const it ut ion t hat m akes it hard for leaders t o accom plish m uch wit hout t he negot iat ed consent of t heir followers. Thus, in cont rast t o m odern leadership expert s who focus on how leaders can be m ore effect ive, t he Founding Fat hers looked for ways t o rein leaders in, t o ensure t hat leaders could act only aft er building a coalit ion of part ners. I n The Federalist , for exam ple, Alexander Ham ilt on dedicat ed an ent ire paper t o exploring t he differences bet ween t he proposed presidency and t he dist ant , det est ed m onarchy wit h which his Am erican audience had st ruggled. The king of Great Brit ain was a dreaded heredit ary m onarch; by cont rast , t he Am erican president would be elect ed for only four years. The king’s posit ion was sacred and inviolable, but t he president could be im peached, t ried, and, under cert ain condit ions, even rem oved from office. I n short , t he U.S. Const it ut ion was creat ed t o preclude t he possibilit y t hat bad leadership could becom e ent renched. The very idea of checks and balances grew out of t he fram ers’ suspicion t hat unless t he proposed governm ent had a balance of power, t hen power would alm ost cert ainly be abused. We know t his. How could we not , aft er t he t went iet h cent ury, wit h not j ust St alin, Hit ler, and Pol Pot but I di Am in, Mao Tse- t ung, and Sloboban Milosevic? As t he lat e Leo St rauss, a professor of polit ical philosophy at t he Universit y of Chicago, bit t erly put it in his classic t reat ise On Tyranny, t he t yrannies of t he t went iet h cent ury are so horrendous t hat t hey “ surpass t he boldest im aginat ion of t he m ost powerful t hinkers of t he past .” Having barely escaped t he Holocaust , St rauss recognized what our leadership expert s seem t o have forgot t en: Capricious, m urderous, high- handed, corrupt , and evil leaders are effect ive and everywhere—except in t he lit erat ure of business leadership. W h e r e t h e Th e or y W e n t W r on g To grasp how dram at ically we have m oved in our t hinking on leadership from Machiavelli

and Ham ilt on, it is helpful t o see how t he words “ leader” and “ leadership” in everyday language have acquired an inherent ly posit ive bias. Consider Lawrence Sum m ers’s speech when he assum ed t he presidency of Harvard Universit y in 2001: “ I n t his new cent ury, not hing will m at t er m ore t han t he educat ion of fut ure leaders.” Harvard’s “ St at em ent of Values,” published in August 2002, picks up t his sam e opt im ism when it says t hat t he universit y “ aspires…t o prepare individuals for life, work, and leadership.” I n bot h cases, t he words “ leader” and “ leadership” have been t ransform ed from t heir Ham ilt onian sense. Of course, Harvard is not alone in equat ing t he word “ leader” wit h out st anding hum an qualit ies. Yale president Richard Levin claim s t hat t he universit y’s goal is t o becom e t ruly global by “ educat ing leaders.” As we have already seen, m ost popular books on business leadership also equat e t he t erm wit h good leadership, and m any books on polit ical leadership follow suit . The st art of t he t ransform at ion of leadership int o som et hing overwhelm ingly posit ive can be t raced in part t o Jam es MacGregor Burns. A biographer of Franklin Delano Roosevelt , Burns is a Pulit zer Prize–winning hist orian and polit ical scient ist of im peccable reput e. I n 1978, Burns published Leadership, an analysis and dist illat ion of what he had learned about t he subj ect in his lifelong st udy of polit ics. The book had a m aj or im pact bot h because of Burns’s st at ure and because it appeared j ust before t he t eaching and st udy of leadership began it s rapid growt h. I n it , Burns different iat ed bet ween “ leaders,” who by definit ion t ake t he m ot ives and goals of followers int o account , and lesser m ort als whom he labeled “ power wielders.” Burns’s posit ion was uncom prom ising: “ Power wielders m ay t reat people as t hings. Leaders m ay not .” Burns’s definit ion of leadership cont inues t o dom inat e t he field. For exam ple, in t he 2003 int roduct ion t o his widely read book On Becom ing a Leader, Warren Bennis rest at es t he posit ion he t ook when t he book first cam e out in 1989: Leaders creat e shared m eaning, have a dist inct ive voice, have t he capacit y t o adapt , and have int egrit y. I n ot her words, for bot h Bennis and Burns—and indeed for m ost of t heir colleagues—t o be a leader is, by definit ion, t o be benevolent . At about t he sam e t im e as Burns’s book appeared, anot her group of leadership t heorist s, led by Abraham Zaleznik, a psychoanalyst on t he facult y of Harvard Business School, st art ed t o draw a dist inct ion bet ween “ leaders” and “ m anagers.” I n t his const ruct ion, t he leader is an inspirat ional and aspirat ional figure, while t he m anager handles t he duller t asks of adm inist rat ion and m aint ains organizat ional discipline. ( Zaleznik’s classic HBR art icle, “ Managers and Leaders: Are They Different ?” is reprint ed in t his issue.) But by cast ing t he leader in such a heroic light , t hese leadership t heorist s only st rengt hened t he confusion bet ween leadership and goodness.

Som e le a de r s a ch ie ve gr e a t t h in gs by ca pit a lizin g on t h e da r k side s of t h e ir sou ls. Business gurus were as m uch responding t o m arket forces as propounding a new doct rine. During t he last 25 years, t he leadership field developed prim arily in response t o t he needs of Am erican corporat ions, which by t he m id- 1970s were running int o t rouble. As Rosabet h Moss Kant er put it in her book The Change Mast ers, published in 1983, “ Not long ago, Am erican com panies seem ed t o cont rol t he world in which t hey operat ed.” Now, she said, t hey are in a m uch scarier place, in which t he cont rol of oil by OPEC, foreign com pet it ion ( t hen prim arily from Japan) , inflat ion, and regulat ion “ dist urb t he sm oot h workings of corporat e m achines and t hreat en t o overwhelm us.” I n response t o t his growing concern, Am erican com panies t urned t o business schools for concret e help in fixing what was wrong, and it is around t his t im e t hat t he leadership indust ry m ay be said t o have begun in earnest . I n 1982, funds were pledged t o Harvard Business School t o endow t he Konosuke Mat sushit a Professor of Leadership, and t here are now sim ilar leadership chairs at ot her universit ies, including Colum bia and t he Universit y of Michigan. The fact t hat t he cont em porary leadership field is an Am erican product —an Am erican seed plant ed in Am erican soil and harvest ed by Am erican scholars, educat ors, and consult ant s—has profound im plicat ions for how we underst and leaders. For one t hing, current views of leaders have t aken on aspect s of t he Am erican nat ional charact er. I n part icular, t he posit ive t hinking t hat infuses our nat ional spirit finds it s way int o our leadership t raining. So, t oo, does t he Am erican dedicat ion t o self- im provem ent . Alm ost wit hout except ion, Am erica’s m ost popular leaders have personified t his sense of possibilit y. Ronald Reagan capt ured t he sent im ent during one of t he 1980 president ial debat es. Evoking Thom as Paine and John Wint hrop, he declared: “ I believe…t oget her we can begin t he world over again. We can m eet our dest iny—and t hat dest iny is t o build a land here t hat will be, for all m ankind, a shining cit y on a hill.” W h a t W e Ca n Le a r n fr om Ba d Le a de r s

While t he opt im ism of a Ronald Reagan can be highly inspirat ional—and even effect ive— as Reagan’s own presidency showed, it can also lead t o sim plist ic ideas about who leaders are and what t hey can do. Reagan him self provides us wit h m any exam ples. Biographer Lou Cannon point ed out one: “ The president was so cut off from t he counsel of black Am ericans t hat he som et im es did not even realize when he was offending t hem .” People can easily accept t he idea t hat t here are lessons t o be found in success st ories. But it ’s a m ist ake t o assum e t hat we can learn not hing from fallen leaders. I ndeed, som e leaders achieve great t hings by capit alizing on t he dark sides of t heir souls. Richard Nixon —relegat ed by m any t o t he realm of m ere “ power wielder” aft er Wat ergat e—was able t o inaugurat e diplom at ic relat ions wit h China by capit alizing on his fam ous paranoia. No one t hought t hat a suspicious and obsessed Nixon would be soft on Com m unism ! Even m onst ers can t each us som et hing about how t o lead people. Hit ler, for exam ple, was a m ast er of m anipulat ing com m unicat ions. Likewise, m any a lesson can be learned from business leaders’ blunders and even from t heir m alfeasance. Take t he case of Howell Raines, t he form er execut ive edit or of t he New York Tim es. I n t he last several years, no leader has fallen furt her fast er t han Raines, who was forced t o resign aft er only 21 m ont hs on t he j ob. According t o popular analysis, Raines had t o go because report er Jayson Blair com m it t ed m ult iple t ransgressions on Raines’s wat ch. Raines m ight have survived his t rial by fire if only he had not had a reput at ion for being high- handed and callous. No one who worked for Raines loved him ; som e people even considered him t yrannical. But in all t he post m ort em s about what Raines did wrong, few people have st opped t o ask what he did right . We can safely assum e t hat a m an like Howell Raines did not get offered t he m ost prest igious j ob in Am erican j ournalism wit hout being prodigiously gift ed. The fact is t hat Raines was one of t he great t alent s in t he newspaper business. He had experience and expert ise ( he won his own Pulit zer Prize) , and he had a st unning record of accom plishm ent . Under his leadership, t he New York Tim es won an unprecedent ed seven Pulit zers for it s coverage of t he issues relat ing t o t he t errorist at t acks of Sept em ber 11, 2001. Som eday, when t he st ory is dissect ed m ore dispassionat ely, I believe t hat we will find som et hing t o learn from Howell Raines’s failure. Raines was a m an of first - rat e funct ional t alent —an excellent writ er, accom plished edit or, a m an wit h an unparalleled news sense and knowledge of how t o cover a big st ory. What he failed t o recognize, it seem s, is t hat expert ise is only one dim ension of leadership and can even be a m isleading one. Rewarding only t echnical m erit and am bit ion, as Raines did, leads t o a dist ort ed kind of m anagem ent and a lack of checks and balances on t he t eam . Raines, of course, isn’t t he only fallen leader from whom we can learn. On June 4, 2002, Manhat t an Dist rict At t orney Robert Morgent hau announced t he indict m ent of form er Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski for allegedly evading m ore t han $1 m illion in t axes on purchases of fine art . I t was not t hat Kozlowski needed t o short change t he governm ent ; in 1999, his t ot al pay was around $170 m illion. Rat her, it was t hat aft er a rem arkably successful run as a corporat e leader, Kozlowski’s im pudence caught up wit h him . Much has been m ade in t he press of Kozlowski’s lavish purchases—his $6,000 shower curt ain, $17,000 t raveling t oilet t e box, $1,650 appoint m ent book, and his $15,000 dogshaped um brella st and. But t here was anot her side t o t he m an. For in addit ion t o t hrowing a m ult im illion- dollar birt hday part y for his wife on com pany m oney, Kozlowski was a very gift ed CEO whom businesspeople once t alked about as a second Jack Welch. Since 1992, Kozlowski oversaw an am bit ious cam paign in which Tyco acquired m ore t han $50 billion in new businesses. I ndeed, t he habit of successfully swallowing up com panies landed Kozlowski on t he cover of several business m agazines, one of which dubbed him “ The Most Aggressive CEO.” As wit h Raines, Kozlowski’s st rengt hs and weaknesses were inext ricably linked. A leader who was driven by a high- st akes m ent alit y, Kozlowski showed alm ost no fear when t aking enorm ous risks, a t act ic t hat oft en paid off in his acquisit ion st rat egy. But t hat sam e m ind- set led t o excruciat ing m isj udgm ent s in his personal life, event ually ruining his career. Could Kozlowski have had t he good side of leadership wit hout t he bad? Probably not , for m ost leaders have bot h. I t is when t hey are unaware of t heir darker sides, and so fail t o guard against t hem , t hat t hey fall from grace. Once again, t he real problem is not so m uch t hat leaders have t heir dark side; rat her it is t hat t hey—and everyone else—choose t o pret end t hey don’t .

Sch ola r s sh ou ld r e m in d u s t h a t le a de r sh ip is n ot a m or a l con ce pt . • • • Scholars should rem ind us t hat leadership is not a m oral concept . Leaders are like t he rest of us: t rust wort hy and deceit ful, cowardly and brave, greedy and generous. To assum e t hat all good leaders are good people is t o be willfully blind t o t he realit y of t he hum an condit ion, and it severely lim it s our scope for becom ing m ore effect ive at leadership. Worse, it m ay cause t he leaders am ong us t o kid t hem selves int o t hinking t hat , because t hey are leaders, t hey m ust be t rust wort hy, brave, and generous and t hat t hey are never deceit ful, cowardly, or greedy. That way lies disast er, for as we should all have learned by now, it is only when we recognize and m anage our failings t hat we can achieve great ness—as people and as a societ y. Knowing t hat , t hen we can begin t o explore t he m ore int erest ing quest ions of leadership: Why do leaders behave badly? Why do followers follow bad leaders? How can bad leadership be slowed or even st opped?

> | Ex e cu t ive Su m m a r y > | Pu r ch a se Re pr in t > | Pr in t a ble Ve r sion > | E- m a il a Colle a gu e

Reprint Num ber R0401C

View Back Issues Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. All right s reserved.

Click here t o visit : > | ht t p: / / www.hbsp.org

Leadership—Wart s and All I f you look t h r ou gh t h e a ca de m ic lit e r a t u r e on le a de r sh ip, you m igh t con clu de t h a t e ve r y le a de r is good, or a t le a st w e ll in t e n t ion e d. W e cou ld a ll be n e fit fr om a dose of r e a lism .

by Ba r ba r a Ke lle r m a n Ba r ba r a Ke lle r m a n is t he research direct or of t he Cent er for Public Leadership and a lect urer in public policy at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Governm ent in Cam bridge, Massachuset t s. Form erly t he direct or of t he Cent er for t he Advanced St udy of Leadership at t he Universit y of Maryland, she has writ t en and edit ed m any books on leadership, including her fort hcom ing Bad Leadership ( Harvard Business School Press, 2004) .

“ We t ell ourselves st ories in order t o live,” Joan Didion once wrot e, t o explain t he unfounded opt im ism hum an beings display. Good st ories m ake t he world m ore bearable. I nevit ably, t herefore, we want t o t ell—and be t old—st ories t hat m ake us feel bet t er, even if t hat m eans t hat we don’t get as com plet e a pict ure as we need. People who st udy leaders have fallen vict im t o t his inst inct in a big way. I n t he leadership lit erat ure of t he past several decades, alm ost all successful aut hors have fed int o t heir readers’ ( and perhaps t heir own) yearnings for feel- good st ories. Just reflect on som e of t he best sellers of t he last 20 t o 30 years: Thom as J. Pet ers and Robert H. Wat erm an, Jr.’s I n Search of Excellence; Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus’s Leaders: St rat egies for Taking Charge; John P. Kot t er’s A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Managem ent ; and Jay A. Conger and Bet h Benj am in’s Building Leaders. Alt hough a few aut hors have recent ly t aken except ion t o t he blind belief in t he inherent goodness of leadership—not ably Sydney Finkelst ein in his book Why Sm art Execut ives Fail and What You Can Learn from Their Mist akes—m ost of t he hugely successful scholars argue, oft en wit h passion, t hat effect ive leaders are persons of m erit , or at least of good int ent ions. I t alm ost seem s t hat by definit ion bad people cannot be good leaders. I f m ost leaders were wort hy people, it would be easy t o underst and why we accent uat e t he posit ive. But t he realit y is, of course, t hat flawed leaders are everywhere. I n corporat ions, overweening personal am bit ion and greed have driven m any a CEO t o run afoul of t he law. I n t he last couple of years alone, scores of powerful and successful execut ives have been indict ed for financial wrongdoing of various kinds. Think of Andy Fast ow of Enron and Dennis Kozlowski at Tyco. Even hom em aking diva Mart ha St ewart has j oined t he ranks of t he indict ed. As t he New York Tim es wryly quipped, it now “ t akes a scorecard t o keep up wit h corporat e scandals in Am erica.” Of course, corporat ions don’t have a corner on t he m arket in bad leaders. Polit ics is replet e wit h t he m ost ext rem e of exam ples. Hit ler, St alin, and Pol Pot com e im m ediat ely t o m ind: all power- m ad and evil but nonet heless highly effect ive as leaders. These ext rem e cases aside, st ories about t he failings of m ore reasonable public officials lit t er

t he newspaper headlines. Consider Pet er Mandelson, a m em ber of Tony Blair’s cabinet , respect ed bot h for his polit ical skills and his underst anding of public policy. I n 1998, Mandelson was forced t o resign from t he cabinet aft er it was revealed t hat he had accept ed an im proper loan of £373,000 t o help buy a swanky hom e in London’s Not t ing Hill. And, cert ainly, it doesn’t end t here. Account s of t he “ wayward shepherds” in t he Rom an Cat holic Church, as one j ournalist put it , cont inue t o m ount . To nam e j ust t wo of t he highest profile exam ples: I n 2003, a grand j ury alleged t hat Rom an Cat holic aut horit ies on Long I sland, New York, had long conspired t o prot ect 58 “ rogue clergym en” from facing charges of sexual abuse. And in Bost on, no fewer t han 86 people filed civil lawsuit s against John J. Geoghan, t he convict ed child m olest er who was lat er m urdered in prison. Again and again, t he suit s alleged Cardinal Bernard F. Law, archbishop of t he Bost on Cat holic Archdiocese for 18 years, ret urned Geoghan t o parish work alt hough Law had evidence t hat Geoghan repeat edly m olest ed boys. I t is im possible t o deny t hat bad or at least unwort hy people oft en occupy and successfully fill t op leadership posit ions, and it is high t im e leadership expert s acknowledge t he fact . For, cont rary t o t he expect at ions of t hese expert s, we have as m uch t o learn from people we would regard as bad exam ples as we do from t he far less num erous good exam ples we’re present ed wit h t hese days. I s Mart ha St ewart ’s career as a successful ent repreneur any t he less inst ruct ive because she m ay have once sold som e shares on t he basis of a t ip- off? Does Law’s gross negligence on t he issue of child abuse negat e t he fact t hat during his years in Bost on he effect ively m anaged t o balance his t radit ional view of t he church wit h progressive posit ions on discrim inat ion and povert y? I n t he following pages, I shall at t em pt t o explain how we cam e t o accept such a skewed, m oralist ic underst anding of leadership and in doing so I hope t o put t he wart s— and t he realit y—back int o t he pict ure. Le a de r s W e r e n ’t Alw a ys N ice Alt hough m ost cont em porary scholarship is focused on leaders who are blem ish- free, it was not always t hat way. Throughout hist ory nearly all t he great polit ical t heorist s have recognized t he realit y of bad leaders, oft en accent uat ing t he need t o cont rol t heir m alicious t endencies. I nfluenced by religious t radit ions t hat focus on good and evil, and oft en personally affect ed by t he t raum a of war and int ernal disorder, polit ical t hinkers in form er t im es t ook rat her a j aundiced view of hum an nat ure. Consider Machiavelli, a player in fift eent h- and sixt eent h- cent ury Florent ine polit ics and oft en a wit ness t o brut al warfare. Fam ous for his advice t o polit ical players in his classic book The Prince, Machiavelli out lined opport unit ies associat ed wit h forceful leadership. For m ost of us, coercive leadership alm ost by definit ion equals bad leadership. But as som eone who was fam iliar bot h wit h t he ways of t he world and wit h t he hum an psyche, Machiavelli argued t hat t he only t ruly bad leadership is weak leadership. His philosophy was predicat ed on t he assum pt ion t hat som e leaders need t o use force t o hold personal power and t o m aint ain public order. Machiavelli, t herefore, act ually adm ired unscrupulous leaders who exercised power and aut horit y wit h an iron fist . And in The Prince, he wrot e wit h apparent calm about t he occasional need j udiciously t o apply “ cruelt ies” : “ When he seizes a st at e, t he new ruler ought t o det erm ine all t he inj uries t hat he will need t o inflict .…Whoever act s ot herwise, eit her t hrough t im idit y or bad advice, is always forced t o have t he knife ready in his hand, and he can never depend on his subj ect s because t hey, suffering fresh and cont inuous violence, can never feel secure wit h regard t o him .” Like Machiavelli, t he Founding Fat hers of t he Unit ed St at es had personal experience of

bad leadership, and t hey t hought about it a great deal. I ndeed, t hey were som e of t he great est st udent s of leadership of all t im e. But t heir react ion t o bad leadership could hardly have been furt her from t hat of t he aut hor of The Prince. They underst ood t hat leadership is easily corrupt ed and oft en m align, and t herefore t hey went t o ext raordinary lengt hs t o const ruct a const it ut ion t hat m akes it hard for leaders t o accom plish m uch wit hout t he negot iat ed consent of t heir followers. Thus, in cont rast t o m odern leadership expert s who focus on how leaders can be m ore effect ive, t he Founding Fat hers looked for ways t o rein leaders in, t o ensure t hat leaders could act only aft er building a coalit ion of part ners. I n The Federalist , for exam ple, Alexander Ham ilt on dedicat ed an ent ire paper t o exploring t he differences bet ween t he proposed presidency and t he dist ant , det est ed m onarchy wit h which his Am erican audience had st ruggled. The king of Great Brit ain was a dreaded heredit ary m onarch; by cont rast , t he Am erican president would be elect ed for only four years. The king’s posit ion was sacred and inviolable, but t he president could be im peached, t ried, and, under cert ain condit ions, even rem oved from office. I n short , t he U.S. Const it ut ion was creat ed t o preclude t he possibilit y t hat bad leadership could becom e ent renched. The very idea of checks and balances grew out of t he fram ers’ suspicion t hat unless t he proposed governm ent had a balance of power, t hen power would alm ost cert ainly be abused. We know t his. How could we not , aft er t he t went iet h cent ury, wit h not j ust St alin, Hit ler, and Pol Pot but I di Am in, Mao Tse- t ung, and Sloboban Milosevic? As t he lat e Leo St rauss, a professor of polit ical philosophy at t he Universit y of Chicago, bit t erly put it in his classic t reat ise On Tyranny, t he t yrannies of t he t went iet h cent ury are so horrendous t hat t hey “ surpass t he boldest im aginat ion of t he m ost powerful t hinkers of t he past .” Having barely escaped t he Holocaust , St rauss recognized what our leadership expert s seem t o have forgot t en: Capricious, m urderous, high- handed, corrupt , and evil leaders are effect ive and everywhere—except in t he lit erat ure of business leadership. W h e r e t h e Th e or y W e n t W r on g To grasp how dram at ically we have m oved in our t hinking on leadership from Machiavelli and Ham ilt on, it is helpful t o see how t he words “ leader” and “ leadership” in everyday language have acquired an inherent ly posit ive bias. Consider Lawrence Sum m ers’s speech when he assum ed t he presidency of Harvard Universit y in 2001: “ I n t his new cent ury, not hing will m at t er m ore t han t he educat ion of fut ure leaders.” Harvard’s “ St at em ent of Values,” published in August 2002, picks up t his sam e opt im ism when it says t hat t he universit y “ aspires…t o prepare individuals for life, work, and leadership.” I n bot h cases, t he words “ leader” and “ leadership” have been t ransform ed from t heir Ham ilt onian sense. Of course, Harvard is not alone in equat ing t he word “ leader” wit h out st anding hum an qualit ies. Yale president Richard Levin claim s t hat t he universit y’s goal is t o becom e t ruly global by “ educat ing leaders.” As we have already seen, m ost popular books on business leadership also equat e t he t erm wit h good leadership, and m any books on polit ical leadership follow suit . The st art of t he t ransform at ion of leadership int o som et hing overwhelm ingly posit ive can be t raced in part t o Jam es MacGregor Burns. A biographer of Franklin Delano Roosevelt , Burns is a Pulit zer Prize–winning hist orian and polit ical scient ist of im peccable reput e. I n 1978, Burns published Leadership, an analysis and dist illat ion of what he had learned about t he subj ect in his lifelong st udy of polit ics. The book had a m aj or im pact bot h because of Burns’s st at ure and because it appeared j ust before t he t eaching and st udy of leadership began it s rapid growt h. I n it , Burns different iat ed bet ween “ leaders,” who by definit ion t ake t he m ot ives and goals of followers int o account , and lesser m ort als whom he labeled “ power wielders.” Burns’s posit ion was uncom prom ising: “ Power wielders m ay

t reat people as t hings. Leaders m ay not .” Burns’s definit ion of leadership cont inues t o dom inat e t he field. For exam ple, in t he 2003 int roduct ion t o his widely read book On Becom ing a Leader, Warren Bennis rest at es t he posit ion he t ook when t he book first cam e out in 1989: Leaders creat e shared m eaning, have a dist inct ive voice, have t he capacit y t o adapt , and have int egrit y. I n ot her words, for bot h Bennis and Burns—and indeed for m ost of t heir colleagues—t o be a leader is, by definit ion, t o be benevolent . At about t he sam e t im e as Burns’s book appeared, anot her group of leadership t heorist s, led by Abraham Zaleznik, a psychoanalyst on t he facult y of Harvard Business School, st art ed t o draw a dist inct ion bet ween “ leaders” and “ m anagers.” I n t his const ruct ion, t he leader is an inspirat ional and aspirat ional figure, while t he m anager handles t he duller t asks of adm inist rat ion and m aint ains organizat ional discipline. ( Zaleznik’s classic HBR art icle, “ Managers and Leaders: Are They Different ?” is reprint ed in t his issue.) But by cast ing t he leader in such a heroic light , t hese leadership t heorist s only st rengt hened t he confusion bet ween leadership and goodness.

Som e le a de r s a ch ie ve gr e a t t h in gs by ca pit a lizin g on t h e da r k side s of t h e ir sou ls. Business gurus were as m uch responding t o m arket forces as propounding a new doct rine. During t he last 25 years, t he leadership field developed prim arily in response t o t he needs of Am erican corporat ions, which by t he m id- 1970s were running int o t rouble. As Rosabet h Moss Kant er put it in her book The Change Mast ers, published in 1983, “ Not long ago, Am erican com panies seem ed t o cont rol t he world in which t hey operat ed.” Now, she said, t hey are in a m uch scarier place, in which t he cont rol of oil by OPEC, foreign com pet it ion ( t hen prim arily from Japan) , inflat ion, and regulat ion “ dist urb t he sm oot h workings of corporat e m achines and t hreat en t o overwhelm us.” I n response t o t his growing concern, Am erican com panies t urned t o business schools for concret e help in fixing what was wrong, and it is around t his t im e t hat t he leadership indust ry m ay be said t o have begun in earnest . I n 1982, funds were pledged t o Harvard Business School t o endow t he Konosuke Mat sushit a Professor of Leadership, and t here are now sim ilar leadership chairs at ot her universit ies, including Colum bia and t he Universit y of Michigan. The fact t hat t he cont em porary leadership field is an Am erican product —an Am erican seed plant ed in Am erican soil and harvest ed by Am erican scholars, educat ors, and consult ant s—has profound im plicat ions for how we underst and leaders. For one t hing, current views of leaders have t aken on aspect s of t he Am erican nat ional charact er. I n part icular, t he posit ive t hinking t hat infuses our nat ional spirit finds it s way int o our leadership t raining. So, t oo, does t he Am erican dedicat ion t o self- im provem ent . Alm ost wit hout except ion, Am erica’s m ost popular leaders have personified t his sense of possibilit y. Ronald Reagan capt ured t he sent im ent during one of t he 1980 president ial debat es. Evoking Thom as Paine and John Wint hrop, he declared: “ I believe…t oget her we can begin t he world over again. We can m eet our dest iny—and t hat dest iny is t o build a land here t hat will be, for all m ankind, a shining cit y on a hill.” W h a t W e Ca n Le a r n fr om Ba d Le a de r s While t he opt im ism of a Ronald Reagan can be highly inspirat ional—and even effect ive— as Reagan’s own presidency showed, it can also lead t o sim plist ic ideas about who leaders are and what t hey can do. Reagan him self provides us wit h m any exam ples. Biographer Lou Cannon point ed out one: “ The president was so cut off from t he counsel of black Am ericans t hat he som et im es did not even realize when he was offending t hem .”

People can easily accept t he idea t hat t here are lessons t o be found in success st ories. But it ’s a m ist ake t o assum e t hat we can learn not hing from fallen leaders. I ndeed, som e leaders achieve great t hings by capit alizing on t he dark sides of t heir souls. Richard Nixon —relegat ed by m any t o t he realm of m ere “ power wielder” aft er Wat ergat e—was able t o inaugurat e diplom at ic relat ions wit h China by capit alizing on his fam ous paranoia. No one t hought t hat a suspicious and obsessed Nixon would be soft on Com m unism ! Even m onst ers can t each us som et hing about how t o lead people. Hit ler, for exam ple, was a m ast er of m anipulat ing com m unicat ions. Likewise, m any a lesson can be learned from business leaders’ blunders and even from t heir m alfeasance. Take t he case of Howell Raines, t he form er execut ive edit or of t he New York Tim es. I n t he last several years, no leader has fallen furt her fast er t han Raines, who was forced t o resign aft er only 21 m ont hs on t he j ob. According t o popular analysis, Raines had t o go because report er Jayson Blair com m it t ed m ult iple t ransgressions on Raines’s wat ch. Raines m ight have survived his t rial by fire if only he had not had a reput at ion for being high- handed and callous. No one who worked for Raines loved him ; som e people even considered him t yrannical. But in all t he post m ort em s about what Raines did wrong, few people have st opped t o ask what he did right . We can safely assum e t hat a m an like Howell Raines did not get offered t he m ost prest igious j ob in Am erican j ournalism wit hout being prodigiously gift ed. The fact is t hat Raines was one of t he great t alent s in t he newspaper business. He had experience and expert ise ( he won his own Pulit zer Prize) , and he had a st unning record of accom plishm ent . Under his leadership, t he New York Tim es won an unprecedent ed seven Pulit zers for it s coverage of t he issues relat ing t o t he t errorist at t acks of Sept em ber 11, 2001. Som eday, when t he st ory is dissect ed m ore dispassionat ely, I believe t hat we will find som et hing t o learn from Howell Raines’s failure. Raines was a m an of first - rat e funct ional t alent —an excellent writ er, accom plished edit or, a m an wit h an unparalleled news sense and knowledge of how t o cover a big st ory. What he failed t o recognize, it seem s, is t hat expert ise is only one dim ension of leadership and can even be a m isleading one. Rewarding only t echnical m erit and am bit ion, as Raines did, leads t o a dist ort ed kind of m anagem ent and a lack of checks and balances on t he t eam . Raines, of course, isn’t t he only fallen leader from whom we can learn. On June 4, 2002, Manhat t an Dist rict At t orney Robert Morgent hau announced t he indict m ent of form er Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski for allegedly evading m ore t han $1 m illion in t axes on purchases of fine art . I t was not t hat Kozlowski needed t o short change t he governm ent ; in 1999, his t ot al pay was around $170 m illion. Rat her, it was t hat aft er a rem arkably successful run as a corporat e leader, Kozlowski’s im pudence caught up wit h him . Much has been m ade in t he press of Kozlowski’s lavish purchases—his $6,000 shower curt ain, $17,000 t raveling t oilet t e box, $1,650 appoint m ent book, and his $15,000 dogshaped um brella st and. But t here was anot her side t o t he m an. For in addit ion t o t hrowing a m ult im illion- dollar birt hday part y for his wife on com pany m oney, Kozlowski was a very gift ed CEO whom businesspeople once t alked about as a second Jack Welch. Since 1992, Kozlowski oversaw an am bit ious cam paign in which Tyco acquired m ore t han $50 billion in new businesses. I ndeed, t he habit of successfully swallowing up com panies landed Kozlowski on t he cover of several business m agazines, one of which dubbed him “ The Most Aggressive CEO.” As wit h Raines, Kozlowski’s st rengt hs and weaknesses were inext ricably linked. A leader who was driven by a high- st akes m ent alit y, Kozlowski showed alm ost no fear when t aking enorm ous risks, a t act ic t hat oft en paid off in his acquisit ion st rat egy. But t hat

sam e m ind- set led t o excruciat ing m isj udgm ent s in his personal life, event ually ruining his career. Could Kozlowski have had t he good side of leadership wit hout t he bad? Probably not , for m ost leaders have bot h. I t is when t hey are unaware of t heir darker sides, and so fail t o guard against t hem , t hat t hey fall from grace. Once again, t he real problem is not so m uch t hat leaders have t heir dark side; rat her it is t hat t hey—and everyone else—choose t o pret end t hey don’t .

Sch ola r s sh ou ld r e m in d u s t h a t le a de r sh ip is n ot a m or a l con ce pt . • • • Scholars should rem ind us t hat leadership is not a m oral concept . Leaders are like t he rest of us: t rust wort hy and deceit ful, cowardly and brave, greedy and generous. To assum e t hat all good leaders are good people is t o be willfully blind t o t he realit y of t he hum an condit ion, and it severely lim it s our scope for becom ing m ore effect ive at leadership. Worse, it m ay cause t he leaders am ong us t o kid t hem selves int o t hinking t hat , because t hey are leaders, t hey m ust be t rust wort hy, brave, and generous and t hat t hey are never deceit ful, cowardly, or greedy. That way lies disast er, for as we should all have learned by now, it is only when we recognize and m anage our failings t hat we can achieve great ness—as people and as a societ y. Knowing t hat , t hen we can begin t o explore t he m ore int erest ing quest ions of leadership: Why do leaders behave badly? Why do followers follow bad leaders? How can bad leadership be slowed or even st opped?

Reprint Num ber R0401C Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. This cont ent m ay not be reproduced or t ransm it t ed in any form or by any m eans, elect ronic or m echanical, including phot ocopy, recording, or any inform at ion st orage or ret rieval syst em , wit hout writ t en perm ission. Request s for perm ission should be direct ed t o perm [email protected], 1- 888- 500- 1020, or m ailed t o Perm issions, Harvard Business School Publishing, 60 Harvard Way, Bost on, MA 02163.

Click here t o visit :

View Back Issues | January 2004 > When Followers Becom e Toxic > Joining t he Opposit ion

W h e n Follow e r s Be com e Tox ic

Joining t he Opposit ion The leader who aut om at ically rej ect s his followers’ opinions can be as unwise as one who unt hinkingly goes along wit h t hem . I n fact , t here are t im es when it is advisable t o go along wit h followers who are plainly wrong. A senior execut ive in t he healt h care field recent ly faced a unit ed front of followers in an acquired facilit y. The followers want ed t he execut ive t o ret ain a popular m anager despit e an out side consult ant ’s report t hat st rongly recom m ended t he m anager’s dism issal. St aff m em bers felt t hat t he m anager had been wrongly blam ed for t he unit ’s problem s and t hat t he unit had been m ishandled, underfunded, and generally “ done in” by previous m anagem ent . Alt hough t he senior execut ive was under pressure from her COO t o dism iss t he m anager, she chose t o keep and support him —and wat ch carefully. By choosing t his course, t he execut ive won t he support and confidence of hundreds of em ployees who saw procedural j ust ice in her willingness t o give t he m anager a chance. Wit h t he full support of her st aff, t he execut ive t hen went on t o lead a t urnaround of t he facilit y in short order, exceeding t he COO’s expect at ions. I ndeed, t he execut ive built so m uch credibilit y t hrough her act ions t hat she was event ually able t o dism iss t he m anager, wit h t he st aff underst anding t hat he had had a fair chance but had failed. The execut ive recognized not only t he unanim it y of em ployees but also t he im port ance of winning t heir buy in and com m it m ent . She chose, int ent ionally, t o defer t o t he st aff’s wishes in order t o dem onst rat e her fairness and openness. Aft er all, t he em ployees could have been correct in t heir assessm ent . Even t hough t hat didn’t t urn out t o be t he case, t he leader’s considered decision t o go along wit h her report s likely result ed in a bet t er out com e t han if she had sum m arily rej ect ed t heir opinions.

< Back t o Art icle

Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. All right s reserved.

Click here t o visit :

View Back Issues | January 2004 > When Followers Becom e Toxic > Six Ways t o Count er Wayward I nfluences

W h e n Follow e r s Be com e Tox ic

Six Ways t o Count er Wayward I nfluences There’s no guarant eed m eans of ensuring t hat you won’t be m isled by your followers. But adhering t o t hese principles m ay help. 1 . Ke e p vision a n d va lu e s fr on t a n d ce n t e r . I t ’s m uch easier t o get sidet racked when you’re unclear about what t he m ain t rack is. 2 . M a k e su r e pe ople disa gr e e . Rem em ber t hat m ost of us form opinions t oo quickly and give t hem up t oo slowly. 3 . Cu lt iva t e t r u t h t e lle r s. Make sure t here are people in your world you can t rust t o t ell you what you need t o hear, no m at t er how unpopular or unpalat able it is. 4 . D o a s you w ou ld h a ve don e t o you . Followers look t o what you do rat her t han what you say. Set a good et hical clim at e for your t eam t o be sure your followers have clear boundaries for t heir act ions. 5 . H on or you r in t u it ion . I f you t hink you’re being m anipulat ed, you’re probably right . 6 . D e le ga t e , don ’t de se r t . I t ’s im port ant t o share cont rol and em power your st aff, but rem em ber who’s ult im at ely responsible for t he out com e. As t hey say in polit ics, “ Trust , but verify.”

< Back t o Art icle

Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. All right s reserved.

Click here t o visit :

View Back Issues | January 2004 > Put t ing Leaders on t he Couch

> | Pu r ch a se Re pr in t > | Pr in t a ble Ve r sion

Put t ing Leaders on t he Couch

> | E- m a il a Colle a gu e > | Ex e cu t ive Su m m a r y

Gr e a t le a de r s a r e ca pa ble , vision a r y, a n d in spir in g. Th a t doe sn ’t m e a n t h e y’r e r a t ion a l.

A Con ve r sa t ion w it h M a n fr e d F.R. Ke t s de Vr ie s

Leadership is t he global obsession. Thousands of recent books—m any of t hem best sellers—have dissect ed t he leadership st yles of great leaders from Jesus t o Jefferson. Business writ ers, t oo, have j oined t he frenzy. The t rouble is, m uch of t he business lit erat ure on leadership—unlike t he broader lit erat ure on t he subj ect —st art s wit h t he assum pt ion t hat leaders are rat ional beings. I n part , t hat ’s because readers com e t o t hese business books for advice, so t hey get suggest ions on how t o im it at e t he conscious m ot ivat ions, behaviors, and choices of role m odels. Advice books are hardly likely t o focus heavily on leaders’ irrat ional side—and st ill less likely t o suggest t hat t he role m odels’ successes m ay even st em from t heir psychological frailt ies. Yet irrat ionalit y is int egral t o hum an nat ure, and psychological conflict can cont ribut e in significant ways t o t he drive t o succeed. Surely, t herefore, we can benefit from put t ing CEOs on t he couch, t o explore how t heir early personal experiences shaped subsequent behaviors and t o underst and how t hese leaders deal wit h set backs and pain. Alt hough a num ber of business scholars—m ost not ably Harvard’s Abraham Zaleznik and Harry Levinson—have explored t he psychology of execut ives, only one has m ade t he analysis of CEOs his life’s work: Manfred F.R. Ket s de Vries, t he Raoul de Vit ry d’Avaucourt Chaired Professor of Leadership Developm ent at I nsead in Font ainebleau, France, and t he direct or of I nsead’s Global Leadership Cent er. Ket s de Vries is also a pract icing psychoanalyst whose research has provided rich pickings: He has aut hored or edit ed som e 20 books on t he psychology of leaders and organizat ions, including best sellers such as Life and Deat h in t he Execut ive Fast Lane, The Leadership Myst ique, and The Neurot ic Organizat ion. Ket s de Vries’s work has brought him close t o m any of t he world’s leading corporat ions: The execut ives of such firm s as Heineken, BP, and Nokia have drawn on his expert ise. I ndeed, it ’s probably fair t o say t hat no ot her leadership scholar has had as m uch exposure t o t he m ind of t he business leader. So it was t o Ket s de Vries t hat HBR t urned for insight int o what really goes on inside t he m ind of t he leader. I n t his edit ed version of a wide- ranging discussion at his office in Paris, Ket s de Vries draws on t hree decades of experience and st udy t o describe t he psychological profile of successful CEOs. He explores t op execut ives’ vulnerabilit ies, which are oft en int ensified by t he ways followers t ry t o m anipulat e t heir leaders. Ket s de Vries also explains j ust how t hese vulnerabilit ies play out in organizat ions and suggest s how leaders m ight overcom e t hem . His prescript ion for healt hy leadership? Selfawareness and a well- rounded personal life, as well as an abilit y t o suffer fools and laugh at yourself. You ’ve st u die d t h e psych ology of le a de r s you r w h ole life . H ow do you ide n t ify t h e su cce ssfu l on e s? The first t hing I look for is em ot ional int elligence—basically, how self- reflect ive is t he person? Of course, em ot ional int elligence involves a lot m ore t han j ust being int rospect ive. I t also involves what I call t he t eddy bear fact or: Do people feel com fort able wit h you? Do t hey want t o be close t o you? An em ot ionally int elligent leader also knows how t o single people out and say, “ Hey, Deborah, you’re special. I ’ve looked a long t im e for you, and I really want you t o be part of m y t eam .” I n general, em ot ionally int elligent leaders t end t o m ake bet t er t eam players, and t hey are m ore effect ive at m ot ivat ing t hem selves and ot hers. Unfort unat ely, t he right side of t he brain—t he part responsible for m ore int uit ive processes—is not st im ulat ed in business school. As a result , few st udent s work t o

D ia n e L. Cou t u , dcou t u @h bsp.h a r va r d. e du , is a senior edit or at HBR specializing in psychology and business.

develop t he skill of em ot ional int elligence. Furt herm ore, leaders do not always learn it on t he j ob. This is part icularly t rue t oday as m ore and m ore CEOs com e from t he financial sect or, where em ot ional insight and people skills are oft en underrat ed. Of course, over t he years, I ’ve m et highly successful execut ives who are not self- reflect ive at all. They’re t ot al doers. You have t o be a doer t o m ake it in business; navel- gazers do not m ake great leaders. Nevert heless, in m y experience, t he m ost effect ive leaders are able t o bot h act and reflect , which prepares t hem t o m anage for t he long t erm . These individuals not only run, t hey also t ake t he t im e t o ask t hem selves where t hey are going and why. D o t h e ba ck gr ou n ds of t h e su cce ssfu l le a de r s you ’ve st u die d h a ve a n yt h in g in com m on ? There is evidence t hat m any successful m ale leaders had st rong, support ive m ot hers and rat her rem ot e, absent fat hers. This is beaut ifully exem plified by Jack Welch, who, in his aut obiography, describes his at t achm ent t o a powerhouse of a m ot her and depict s his fat her, a t rain conduct or, as pleasant enough but not very present . The sam e was t rue of a very different leader—Virgin’s Richard Branson, whose m ot her t old everyone she knew t hat Richard would becom e prim e m inist er one day. I t was Branson’s m ot her who convinced him t hat he could do what ever he set his m ind t o do; his fat her played a m uch sm aller role in his life. Form er President Bill Clint on is yet anot her product of an adoring m om and a m issing dad ( he died before Clint on was born) . I ndeed, it seem s t o m e t hat t here is a lot of t rut h in Freud’s fam ous st at em ent t hat t here is not hing as conducive t o success as being your m ot her’s favorit e. When it com es t o wom en, t hough, it ’s harder t o explain what m akes for success—t here st ill aren’t enough wom en leaders in business for researchers t o m ake any real generalizat ions. But it does seem t hat t he m odel for great wom en leaders is m ore com plicat ed t han t hat for great m ale leaders. As wit h t he m en, som e st rong wom en leaders had powerful, support ive m ot hers. But ot hers had powerful fat hers. I ndeed, a successful wom an oft en has been her fat her’s favorit e son. W ou ld you sa y t h a t cu lt u r e pla ys a r ole in de t e r m in in g w h a t t ype of le a de r you are? Cert ainly, different cult ures have very different expect at ions of leaders. I n Am erica, for inst ance, a leader is a big shot . He t akes him self very seriously, and ot her people put him on a pedest al. I n t he Dut ch language, however, t he word for “ leader” can have t wo m eanings, one of which is “ m art yr.” I n ot her words, a leader is som eone who suffers. To put yourself on display and blow your own t rum pet would never be accept able in t he Dut ch world of work ( and ot herwise) . I t would show exceedingly bad t ast e. The link bet ween leadership and cult ure is very com plex. Let m e approach it t hrough a hypot het ical sit uat ion, adm it t edly a difficult one. I m agine t hat you’re in a boat wit h your child, your spouse, and your m ot her. I t ’s sinking, and you’re t he only one who can swim . Who do you choose t o save? When t his quest ion is posed across a spect rum of cult ures, 60% of t he respondent s in West ern Europe and Am erica ( m en and wom en) say t hey would save t he child, and 40% say t hey would save t he spouse. I n m ost I slam ic societ ies, 90% of respondent s ( m en only) say t hey would save t he m ot her. Recent ly I was in Saudi Arabia giving a leadership workshop. I n response t o t his quest ion, 100% of t he part icipant s ( all were m ale) said t hey would save t heir m ot hers. Officially, t he logic here is t hat you can always rem arry and have anot her child, but you can never have anot her m ot her. But psychologically, t he fact is t hat wom en are not allowed t o do m uch in Saudi Arabia. They are very handicapped. So t he only way t hey can live and get glory is t hrough t heir sons ( t heir daught ers are also dem eaned) . What develops is an incredibly int ense relat ionship bet ween t he m ot her and t he son, so t here is no wife—or child, for t hat m at t er—who can ever live up t o t he grat ificat ions t he m ot her provided.

“Pe ople in m e n t a l h ospit a ls a r e e a sy t o u n de r st a n d be ca u se t h e y su ffe r fr om e x t r e m e con dit ion s. Th e m e n t a l h e a lt h of se n ior e x e cu t ive s is m u ch m or e su bt le .” This st ory has m any im plicat ions, but t o m e it underscores t he cult ural com plexit y of leadership. I t ’s not always easy t o appreciat e or underst and t hat what people do, m ean, and say varies from one cult ure t o t he next , and wit hout t hat underst anding, it is im possible t o lead in anot her cult ure. A leadership st yle t hat would be effect ive in Sweden, for exam ple, m ight be quit e dysfunct ional in Russia, whose business elit e I have been st udying for som e t im e. Of course, I ’m t alking now about t he nat ional cult ure, not a corporat e cult ure. But corporat e cult ure varies enorm ously as well, and com panies differ in how t hey regard fact ors such as power, st at us, and hierarchy. There are also

great differences in t he way execut ives from various nat ional cult ures look at cont rol and aut horit y. There are num erous explanat ions for t his, but as t he st ory illust rat es, t he differences oft en derive from variat ions in child rearing. By t he way, of all t he nat ional leadership st yles I ’ve st udied, t he Finnish is one I adm ire very m uch. Unlike t he Swedes or t he English, t he Finns never had kings or queens except when t hey were im port ed, so t hey have t his elem ent of dem ocracy and a st rong belief t hat working hard m akes t hings happen. The Finns also have a st raight forward, plain honest y, which is very good in a leader. And unlike m any Am erican leaders, t he Finns have a st rong sense of hum ilit y. When t hings are going t oo well for t hem , t hey t hrow up t heir hands and groan, “ My God, t he sky is going t o fall down on us.” That t ouch of creat ive paranoia can m ake for very good leadership. You oft e n w r it e t h a t e x e cu t ive s a r e ir r a t ion a l. W h a t do you m e a n by t h a t ? I f you st udy execut ives, you quickly see t hat t hey don’t behave rat ionally all t he t im e. I ndeed, irrat ional behavior is com m on in organizat ional life. I t was m y realizat ion of t his —and m y desire t o underst and t hat irrat ionalit y—t hat led m e int o t he fields of psychiat ry and psychoanalysis. Once I st art ed, I found t hat business leaders were m uch m ore com plex t han t he subj ect s m ost psychologist s st udied. People in m ent al hospit als are act ually easy t o underst and because t hey suffer from ext rem e condit ions. The m ent al healt h of senior execut ives is m uch m ore subt le. They can’t be t oo crazy or t hey generally don’t m ake it t o senior posit ions, but t hey are nonet heless ext rem ely driven people. And when I analyze t hem , I usually find t hat t heir drives spring from childhood pat t erns and experiences t hat have carried over int o adult hood. Execut ives don’t like t o hear t his; t hey like t o t hink t hey’re t ot ally in cont rol. They’re insult ed t o hear t hat cert ain t hings in t heir m inds are unconscious. But like it or not , people have blind spot s, and t he nonrat ional personalit y needs of decision m akers can seriously affect t he m anagem ent process. W h a t a r e t h e se blin d spot s, a n d h ow do t h e y pla y ou t in t h e or ga n iza t ion ? I ’m st ruggling wit h a case right now involving an ent repreneur. Part of his problem is t hat he has great difficult y wit h aut horit y. However sim plist ic t his m ay sound, his t roubles really do originat e in a difficult relat ionship wit h his fat her. On t op of t hat , he had a m ot her who was quit e cont rolling. Not surprisingly, aft er he had st art ed his com pany, he had a very hard t im e delegat ing; he m icrom anaged. For exam ple, he opened all t he m ail t hat cam e t o t he com pany, and he insist ed t hat everybody’s e- m ails be forwarded t o him ! This level of cont rol was m anageable as long as t he com pany was in t he st art - up phase, but once it had becom e a $20 m illion operat ion, t he ent repreneur’s lack of t rust in ot hers’ capabilit ies had a st ifling effect . Predict ably, t he ent repreneur j ust couldn’t keep good people. There was high t urnover as people brist led under his exceedingly rigid cont rol. Recent ly, t his ent repreneur cam e t o see m e about hiring a large num ber of MBAs. I ’m sure I could find m any out st anding MBAs for his com pany, but I know t hey wouldn’t st ay wit h him . They would surely cit e different excuses for t heir dissat isfact ion and resignat ions, but t he real reason would be t hat t he ent repreneur is a cont rol freak, a failing of which he rem ains largely unconscious. And because he is unconscious of it , he can’t t ake responsibilit y for it , which m eans t hat not hing can change. Unfort unat ely, I am inclined t o say t hat even if t his ent repreneur could acknowledge his obsessive need for cont rol, he would m ost likely com e up wit h m any elaborat e rat ionalizat ions for his behavior. I believe it would t ake a great num ber of int ervent ions before his dest ruct ive pat t erns could be brought t o his conscious awareness. I n m y work wit h CEOs, I also find t hat m any execut ives are t rying t o com pensat e for narcissist ic wounds—blows t o t heir self- est eem t hat were inflict ed in childhood by parent s who were eit her t oo dist ant or t oo indulgent . ( A child in an ext rem ely indulgent household cannot develop a balanced sense of his own personalit y.) Typically, people wit h narcissist ic inj uries have a great hunger for recognit ion and ext ernal affirm at ion. To com bat t heir feelings of helplessness and lack of self- wort h, t hey are always in search of an adm iring audience. I n m y work wit h leaders, I have found t hat CEOs generally have no idea t hat narcissist ic wounds underlie t heir behavior. To m ake execut ives aware of t heir vulnerabilit ies, I som et im es ask t hem t o describe t he m ost crit ical negat ive voice t hat st ill plays in t heir heads from childhood. Even highly successful execut ives adm it t o saying t hings t o t hem selves like, “ You’re not as good as you pret end t o be. You’re an im post er.” This is a parent al voice t hat has lingered int o adult hood. Larry Ellison is a very good exam ple. I never m et t he m an, but I once wrot e a case about him . I found out t hat his st epfat her used t o t ell him repeat edly: “ You’ll never am ount t o anyt hing. You will never be a success.” Of course, t his affect s his leadership st yle t oday. Ellison is always t rying t o prove t he bast ards wrong. Not surprisingly, he has creat ed a very

aggressive organizat ion. I n organizat ions, we oft en find st rong links bet ween t he personalit y of t he leader, his leadership st yle, and t he general cult ure—especially in com panies where power is cent ralized. Ca n you e x pa n d on t h e n a r cissism of le a de r s? Th e r e ’s be e n a lot of t a lk a bou t t h e su bj e ct la t e ly. W h y is it so pr oble m a t ic? We need t o be careful here. Narcissism has a t errible reput at ion, oft en right ly so. But all people—especially leaders—need a healt hy dose of narcissism in order t o survive. I t ’s t he engine t hat drives leadership. Assert iveness, self- confidence, t enacit y, and creat ivit y j ust can’t exist wit hout it . But once a narcissist get s int o a posit ion of leadership, funny t hings st art t o happen. Because narcissist ic leaders are oft en charism at ic, em ployees st art t o proj ect t heir own grandiose fant asies ont o t he narcissist ic leader. And suddenly everyt hing becom es surreal. I rem em ber being in a m eet ing once in sout hern Europe. Thirt y senior execut ives were gat hered for a present at ion about t he fut ure of t he organizat ion. The president was a very wealt hy m an who used t o brag t hat he would need t en lifet im es t o spend all his m oney. Not surprisingly, his office was filled wit h enorm ous st at ues and paint ings of him self. He arrived 20 m inut es lat e for t he m eet ing, and he cam e in t alking on a m obile phone. Nobody act ed annoyed. Event ually t he present at ion st art ed, and t he CEO’s phone rang. He picked it up and t alked for 15 m inut es while everybody sat t here, wait ing. Suddenly t he CEO got up and said he had t o go. This was t he m ost im port ant m eet ing of t he year, and he j ust walked out . But no one, not one person, obj ect ed. Everyone t old him what he want ed t o hear. I t was as if t he CEO were in a hall of m irrors. This react ion on t he part of followers is hardly unusual. Do you rem em ber t he Pet er Sellers film Being There? I t looks at t he life of an illit erat e and slow- wit t ed gardener nam ed Chance, who is st anding in t he st reet one day when a lim ousine backs int o him . Hoping t o avoid publicit y, t he wom an in t he car t akes Chance hom e t o be seen by a doct or who is caring for her husband, a big- shot financier and friend of t he president . When t he president asks Chance what he t hinks about t he econom y, t he poor m an hasn’t a clue. Taking refuge in what he knows best —gardening—he says: “ As long as t he root s are not severed, all is well.” The president int erpret s t his sim ple st at em ent as a great revelat ion. The result s are inevit able: Chance is event ually pushed t o run for t he presidency. I t was George Bernard Shaw who said, “ Kings are not born: They are m ade by art ificial hallucinat ion.” There’s a lot of t rut h t o t hat . The problem wit h m any so- called narcissist ic leaders is t hat t hey bot h deliberat ely and inadvert ent ly act ivat e t he lat ent narcissism of t heir followers. These followers are oft en ideal- hungry personalit ies who idealize wildly and uncrit ically. And if t he leader happens t o like being posit ively m irrored by ot hers, he can becom e addict ed t o t he followers’ idealizat ion of him . Tragically, som e leaders get t o t he point where t hey fire individuals who don’t praise t hem sufficient ly.

“To be e ffe ct ive , or ga n iza t ion s n e e d pe ople w it h a h e a lt h y disr e spe ct for t h e boss—pe ople …w h o ca n e n ga ge in a ct ive give - a n d- t a k e .” W h y a r e follow e r s so pr on e t o ide a lizin g? I t has it s root s in what Freud called t ransference. Transference is probably t he m ost im port ant concept in psychot herapy; it was one of Freud’s great discoveries. Aft er he st art ed working wit h pat ient s, Freud found t o his great const ernat ion t hat pat ient s kept falling in love wit h him . To his im m ense credit , Freud realized t hat it couldn’t be his own wonderful personalit y t hat was st irring up such deep feelings of adm irat ion. I nst ead, he realized t hat in t heir dealings wit h him , pat ient s were int eract ing wit h powerful figures from t heir own int ernal t heat ers, usually im port ant childhood figures like parent s, t eachers, and siblings. Transference is t he t erm for t his cont inuit y bet ween early childhood and adult behavior. What Freud m eant is t hat we all bring t o our current relat ionships a m ap of past relat ionships t hat we t ransfer ont o t he present . This part icularly happens during t im es of st ress and in hierarchical sit uat ions, which are rem iniscent of t he parent - child const ellat ion. I ndeed, people in posit ions of aut horit y have an uncanny abilit y t o reawaken t ransferent ial processes in t hem selves and ot hers. And t hese t ransferent ial react ions can present t hem selves in a num ber of ways— posit ively or negat ively. One em ployee, for exam ple, m ay relat e t o her boss as if he were her favorit e brot her, and t hus she idealizes him . But t hat boss m ay relat e t o her as if she were his wit hholding m ot her! I t is precisely t his confusion of t im e and place t hat result s in t he psychic “ noise” of t he workplace. Sadly, Freud was not int erest ed in business, so he never st udied it . But it would have been fascinat ing t o see what sense he would have m ade of everyone’s t endency in business t o relat e t o people as if t hey were

som eone else. D oe sn ’t a ll t h is pu t follow e r s in a vu ln e r a ble posit ion a s w e ll? I t cert ainly does. I discovered t his when I was about 14 years old. I was wit h m y brot her in a yout h cam p in t he Net herlands where we went every sum m er. Most children were sent t o t his cam p for only t hree weeks, but we were sent t here for t he whole sum m er. Aft er t hree weeks, t here was always a t ransit ion bet ween t he old group and t he new, and one year m y brot her and I decided t o liven up t he changeover wit h an init iat ion rit ual. We placed a bat ht ub filled wit h freezing wat er in t he m iddle of a field and announced t hat according t o an old cam p t radit ion, all t he newcom ers had t o dunk t hem selves in t he t ub. I can st ill clearly rem em ber m ore t han 60 boys ( m ost of t hem m uch bigger t han us) lining up and, one aft er anot her, obedient ly im m ersing t hem selves in t he cold wat er. Everyt hing went well unt il t he headm ast er of t he cam p passed by. He was dum bfounded. He broke our spell by incit ing t he newcom ers t o rebel, point ing out t hat t here were 60 of t hem against t he t wo of us. Event ually, m y brot her and I got what was com ing t o us. But for m e, t he scene rem ained et ched on m y m ind as a t est am ent t o j ust how far people are willing t o go t o obey what t hey perceive as aut horit y. The fact is t hat even scant aut horit y can get away wit h m urder, bot h lit erally and figurat ively. I ndeed, I would say t hat som e organizat ions are so polit ical and unsafe t hat t hey resem ble concent rat ion cam ps. Everyone kowt ows t o aut horit y out of t rem endous fear. And you can see why. I once m et an execut ive who t old m e, “ Every day I walk int o t he office, I can m ake t he lives of 10,000 people com plet ely m iserable by doing very, very lit t le.” His com pany was probably not a very healt hy workplace—why wouldn’t he say inst ead: “ By doing very, very lit t le, I can m ake t he lives of 10,000 people m uch easier” ? That ’s why at I nsead I t ry t o int roduce CEOs t o a kind of applied psychoanalysis in an organizat ional set t ing. I n each of m y workshops, t here are around 20 individuals who t oget her m ight be responsible for 100,000 people. My hope is t hat by helping leaders t o becom e a lit t le m ore self- reflect ive, we can m ake t heir organizat ions a bit less like concent rat ion cam ps.

“I h a ppe n t o be lie ve t h a t t h ose w h o a cce pt t h e m a dn e ss in t h e m se lve s m a y be t h e h e a lt h ie st le a de r s of a ll.” Bu t w it h a ll t h e psych ic n oise in or ga n iza t ion s, h ow ca n le a de r s e ve r ge t h on e st fe e dba ck a n d cr it icism ? Today t here is a lot of t alk about using 360- degree feedback. I use it quit e a bit in m y leadership workshops. When I use it for coaching purposes, I gat her inform at ion not only from people at t he workplace but also from people close t o t he leader in his or her privat e life. This helps m e get a sense of who t he leader really is. But people at very high levels are usually considered m uch t oo im port ant t o go t hrough 360- degree feedback. And even if t hey do go t hrough it , t hey oft en don’t get honest com m ent s. That ’s because it ’s not very difficult for t he person being evaluat ed t o figure out who said what on t he feedback form s. So t he people giving feedback skew t heir answers out of fear of ret aliat ion. But even if t hey did give genuine feedback, it ’s unlikely t hey could express it in a way t hat would pierce t he leader’s narcissist ic arm or. That ’s why I like t o m ake t he case for having an organizat ional fool. W h a t do you m e a n ? The fool I ’m t alking about is a foil for t he leader—and every leader needs one. Down t hrough t he ages, t he fool has played a t radit ional role as t he st abilizer of kings and queens ( and ot her leaders) . This is t he wise fool of King Lear—t he guardian of realit y. The fool shows t he leader his reflect ion and rem inds him of t he t ransience of power. He uses ant ics and hum or t o prevent foolish act ion and groupt hink. Let ’s not forget : Hum or hum bles. I t creat es insight s. That m akes it a very powerful inst rum ent for change. Let m e explain t he im port ance of t he fool t hrough an anecdot e. A couple goes t o a fair where t here’s a large, im pressive- looking m achine. The husband put s in a coin and receives a card t elling him his age and what kind of person he is. He reads it and get s excit ed. I t says: “ You’re brilliant and charm ing. Wom en fall all over you.” His wife grabs t he card from him and t urns it over. “ Aha! ” she says, “ t hey got your age wrong, t oo.” Leaders in all organizat ions need som eone like t his who is willing t o speak out and t ell t he leader how t hings really are. That ’s precisely t he role of t he fool. He offers t he king a delicious sandwich, and bet ween t he slices of bread he shoves in a lit t le piece of realit y. To be effect ive, organizat ions need people wit h a healt hy disrespect for t he boss—people who feel free t o express em ot ions and opinions openly, who can engage in act ive giveand- t ake. Sadly, t his t ypically happens only aft er a leader is out of power. As form er

President George Bush once rem arked when he was asked what had changed since he left office: “ Well, for one t hing, I no longer win every golf gam e I play.” I n a well- run organizat ion, t he CEO wouldn’t win every golf gam e eit her. And if a leader want s honest feedback, he should ask him self whet her or not he’s creat ed an organizat ion in which t here’s a place for a fool. You ’ve oft e n obse r ve d t h a t le a de r s ge t ca u gh t u p in a w h ir l of h ype r a ct ivit y. W h a t ’s be h in d t h a t ? Anxiet y is one reason. Act ion is a t ypical hum an response t o anxiet y, and execut ives t end t o be an anxious bunch. At any given t im e, t here are m any t hings going on t hat t he execut ives feel t hey have lit t le cont rol over. So, like anyone else, t hey t end t o look for som e form of support , and one well- accept ed response in t he business world is t he ret reat int o act ion. Anot her reason is t hat m any t op execut ives suffer from depression. I see it all t he t im e. The chief cause for execut ive depression is t hat people usually don’t j oin t he ranks of senior execut ives unt il t hey’re m iddle- aged. And in m iddle age, people st art t o feel desperat e about com ing t o t erm s wit h unfulfilled dream s before it ’s t oo lat e. The Germ ans have a t erm for t his—Torschlusspanik, t he panic t hat st rikes because of t he closing of t he gat es, t he closing down of possibilit ies. Midlife prom pt s a reappraisal of career ident it y; it raises concerns about burnout and loss of effect iveness. By t he t im e a leader is a CEO, an exist ent ial crisis is oft en im m inent . This can happen wit h anyone, but t he probabilit y is higher wit h CEOs and senior execut ives, because so m any of t hem have been devot ing t heir lives alm ost exclusively t o work. I t ell you honest ly t hat very, very few execut ives lead balanced lives. They delude t hem selves about it , t oo. I f you ask t hem how m uch t im e t hey spend wit h t heir wives and children, t hey give you num bers t hat are com plet ely at odds wit h t he num bers t he fam ilies give. I worked for t wo years as a consult ant and coach wit h about 150 m anaging direct ors of a large, well- known invest m ent bank t o help t hem be m ore effect ive as leaders in t heir organizat ion. These were people who worked 70, 80 hours a week, and t hey worked very efficient ly, very successfully. What ’s m ore, t hey were t ypically sm art , pleasant , and insight ful—very sure of t hem selves. But because t hey were such workaholics, t hese invest m ent bankers were not secure about t heir personal lives. They had t rem endous guilt over t heir fam ilies, whom t hey never saw. When I began m y work wit h t hem , all t hey t alked about at first was problem s in t he organizat ion and conflict s t hey were having wit h one anot her. Event ually, however, as our conversat ions cont inued —oft en one- on- one—t hey began t o acknowledge t hat t he root s of t heir problem s lay elsewhere, in som e int ernal conflict s. As I dug around, I found t hat t hese invest m ent bankers, like m any t op execut ives who are obsessed wit h work and m oney, oft en had experienced deprivat ion of som e kind early in life. They work for large salaries and opt ion packages as a way of obt aining what is som et im es crudely described as “ fuck you m oney,” t o be independent . I t is t heir way of having m ore cont rol over a world t hey oft en perceive ( given t heir early experiences in life) as uncont rollable. The t rouble is t hat once t hey’ve proved t hey’re successful, t hey can’t get off t he t readm ill. All t hey know how t o do is work. I n t he m eant im e, t heir personal relat ionships have becom e a m ess. So t hey feel st uck and bored, and t hat m akes t hem m ore depressed. Unfort unat ely, in business you are not allowed t o show pain. So t o liven him self up a bit , t he CEO m ight find a new wife, a t rophy wife. Or he m ight t ry t o pull off som e really big, aggressive deal, like a t akeover. Now t hat provides som e excit em ent . What bet t er way t o cure boredom t han by becom ing a m odern day Viking, raping and plundering? Mergers and m arriages bot h help t o m ask CEOs’ psychic pain. But at som e point , all leaders have t o slow down. Ret irem ent loom s. When t hat happens, t he depression t hat has never been resolved st art s t o becom e apparent . Le t ’s con clu de by look in g a t t h e gla ss a s h a lf fu ll. W h a t m a k e s a le a de r h e a lt h y? Healt hy leaders are able t o live int ensely. They’re passionat e about what t hey do. That ’s because t hey are able t o experience t he full range of t heir feelings—wit hout any color blindness t o any part icular em ot ion. At t he sam e t im e, healt hy leaders st rongly believe in t heir abilit y t o cont rol ( or at least affect ) t he event s t hat im pact t heir lives. They’re able t o t ake personal responsibilit y; t hey are not always scapegoat ing or blam ing ot her people for what goes wrong. Healt hy leaders don’t easily lose cont rol or resort t o im pulsive act s. They can work t hrough t heir own anxiet y and am bivalence. As we saw earlier, healt hy leaders are very t alent ed in self- observat ion and self- analysis; t he best leaders are highly m ot ivat ed t o spend t im e on self- reflect ion. Anot her fact or is t hat healt hy leaders, unlike t he less healt hy ones, have t he abilit y t o deal wit h t he disappoint m ent s of life. They can acknowledge t heir depression and work it t hrough. Very im port ant ly, t hey have t he capacit y t o est ablish and m aint ain relat ionships ( including sat isfact ory sexual relat ionships) . Their lives are in balance, and t hey can

play. They are creat ive and invent ive and have t he capacit y t o be nonconform ist . These are t he t hings t hat are fundam ent al, but I would also hope ( aft er having said all of t his! ) t hat we can accept t hat we need a lit t le m adness in our leaders, because I happen t o believe t hat t hose who accept t he m adness in t hem selves m ay be t he healt hiest leaders of all. To quot e Shaw once again, “ We want a few m ad people now. See where t he sane ones have landed us! ”

> | Ex e cu t ive Su m m a r y > | Pu r ch a se Re pr in t > | Pr in t a ble Ve r sion > | E- m a il a Colle a gu e

Reprint Num ber R0401F

View Back Issues Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. All right s reserved.

Click here t o visit : > | ht t p: / / www.hbsp.org

Put t ing Leaders on t he Couch Gr e a t le a de r s a r e ca pa ble , vision a r y, a n d in spir in g. Th a t doe sn ’t m e a n t h e y’r e r a t ion a l.

A Con ve r sa t ion w it h M a n fr e d F.R. Ke t s de Vr ie s D ia n e L. Cou t u , dcou t u @h bsp.h a r va r d.e du , is a senior edit or at HBR specializing in psychology and business.

Leadership is t he global obsession. Thousands of recent books—m any of t hem best sellers—have dissect ed t he leadership st yles of great leaders from Jesus t o Jefferson. Business writ ers, t oo, have j oined t he frenzy. The t rouble is, m uch of t he business lit erat ure on leadership—unlike t he broader lit erat ure on t he subj ect —st art s wit h t he assum pt ion t hat leaders are rat ional beings. I n part , t hat ’s because readers com e t o t hese business books for advice, so t hey get suggest ions on how t o im it at e t he conscious m ot ivat ions, behaviors, and choices of role m odels. Advice books are hardly likely t o focus heavily on leaders’ irrat ional side—and st ill less likely t o suggest t hat t he role m odels’ successes m ay even st em from t heir psychological frailt ies. Yet irrat ionalit y is int egral t o hum an nat ure, and psychological conflict can cont ribut e in significant ways t o t he drive t o succeed. Surely, t herefore, we can benefit from put t ing CEOs on t he couch, t o explore how t heir early personal experiences shaped subsequent behaviors and t o underst and how t hese leaders deal wit h set backs and pain. Alt hough a num ber of business scholars—m ost not ably Harvard’s Abraham Zaleznik and Harry Levinson—have explored t he psychology of execut ives, only one has m ade t he analysis of CEOs his life’s work: Manfred F.R. Ket s de Vries, t he Raoul de Vit ry d’Avaucourt Chaired Professor of Leadership Developm ent at I nsead in Font ainebleau, France, and t he direct or of I nsead’s Global Leadership Cent er. Ket s de Vries is also a pract icing psychoanalyst whose research has provided rich pickings: He has aut hored or edit ed som e 20 books on t he psychology of leaders and organizat ions, including best sellers such as Life and Deat h in t he Execut ive Fast Lane, The Leadership Myst ique, and The Neurot ic Organizat ion. Ket s de Vries’s work has brought him close t o m any of t he world’s leading corporat ions: The execut ives of such firm s as Heineken, BP, and Nokia have drawn on his expert ise. I ndeed, it ’s probably fair t o say t hat no ot her leadership scholar has had as m uch exposure t o t he m ind of t he business leader. So it was t o Ket s de Vries t hat HBR t urned for insight int o what really goes on inside t he m ind of t he leader. I n t his edit ed version of a wide- ranging discussion at his office in Paris, Ket s de Vries draws on t hree decades of experience and st udy t o describe t he psychological profile of successful CEOs. He explores t op execut ives’ vulnerabilit ies, which are oft en int ensified by t he ways followers t ry t o m anipulat e t heir leaders. Ket s de Vries also explains j ust how t hese vulnerabilit ies play out in organizat ions and suggest s how leaders m ight overcom e t hem . His prescript ion for healt hy leadership? Selfawareness and a well- rounded personal life, as well as an abilit y t o suffer fools and laugh

at yourself. You ’ve st u die d t h e psych ology of le a de r s you r w h ole life . H ow do you ide n t ify t h e su cce ssfu l on e s? The first t hing I look for is em ot ional int elligence—basically, how self- reflect ive is t he person? Of course, em ot ional int elligence involves a lot m ore t han j ust being int rospect ive. I t also involves what I call t he t eddy bear fact or: Do people feel com fort able wit h you? Do t hey want t o be close t o you? An em ot ionally int elligent leader also knows how t o single people out and say, “ Hey, Deborah, you’re special. I ’ve looked a long t im e for you, and I really want you t o be part of m y t eam .” I n general, em ot ionally int elligent leaders t end t o m ake bet t er t eam players, and t hey are m ore effect ive at m ot ivat ing t hem selves and ot hers. Unfort unat ely, t he right side of t he brain—t he part responsible for m ore int uit ive processes—is not st im ulat ed in business school. As a result , few st udent s work t o develop t he skill of em ot ional int elligence. Furt herm ore, leaders do not always learn it on t he j ob. This is part icularly t rue t oday as m ore and m ore CEOs com e from t he financial sect or, where em ot ional insight and people skills are oft en underrat ed. Of course, over t he years, I ’ve m et highly successful execut ives who are not self- reflect ive at all. They’re t ot al doers. You have t o be a doer t o m ake it in business; navel- gazers do not m ake great leaders. Nevert heless, in m y experience, t he m ost effect ive leaders are able t o bot h act and reflect , which prepares t hem t o m anage for t he long t erm . These individuals not only run, t hey also t ake t he t im e t o ask t hem selves where t hey are going and why. D o t h e ba ck gr ou n ds of t h e su cce ssfu l le a de r s you ’ve st u die d h a ve a n yt h in g in com m on ? There is evidence t hat m any successful m ale leaders had st rong, support ive m ot hers and rat her rem ot e, absent fat hers. This is beaut ifully exem plified by Jack Welch, who, in his aut obiography, describes his at t achm ent t o a powerhouse of a m ot her and depict s his fat her, a t rain conduct or, as pleasant enough but not very present . The sam e was t rue of a very different leader—Virgin’s Richard Branson, whose m ot her t old everyone she knew t hat Richard would becom e prim e m inist er one day. I t was Branson’s m ot her who convinced him t hat he could do what ever he set his m ind t o do; his fat her played a m uch sm aller role in his life. Form er President Bill Clint on is yet anot her product of an adoring m om and a m issing dad ( he died before Clint on was born) . I ndeed, it seem s t o m e t hat t here is a lot of t rut h in Freud’s fam ous st at em ent t hat t here is not hing as conducive t o success as being your m ot her’s favorit e. When it com es t o wom en, t hough, it ’s harder t o explain what m akes for success—t here st ill aren’t enough wom en leaders in business for researchers t o m ake any real generalizat ions. But it does seem t hat t he m odel for great wom en leaders is m ore com plicat ed t han t hat for great m ale leaders. As wit h t he m en, som e st rong wom en leaders had powerful, support ive m ot hers. But ot hers had powerful fat hers. I ndeed, a successful wom an oft en has been her fat her’s favorit e son. W ou ld you sa y t h a t cu lt u r e pla ys a r ole in de t e r m in in g w h a t t ype of le a de r you are? Cert ainly, different cult ures have very different expect at ions of leaders. I n Am erica, for inst ance, a leader is a big shot . He t akes him self very seriously, and ot her people put him on a pedest al. I n t he Dut ch language, however, t he word for “ leader” can have t wo m eanings, one of which is “ m art yr.” I n ot her words, a leader is som eone who suffers. To put yourself on display and blow your own t rum pet would never be accept able in t he Dut ch world of work ( and ot herwise) . I t would show exceedingly bad t ast e.

The link bet ween leadership and cult ure is very com plex. Let m e approach it t hrough a hypot het ical sit uat ion, adm it t edly a difficult one. I m agine t hat you’re in a boat wit h your child, your spouse, and your m ot her. I t ’s sinking, and you’re t he only one who can swim . Who do you choose t o save? When t his quest ion is posed across a spect rum of cult ures, 60% of t he respondent s in West ern Europe and Am erica ( m en and wom en) say t hey would save t he child, and 40% say t hey would save t he spouse. I n m ost I slam ic societ ies, 90% of respondent s ( m en only) say t hey would save t he m ot her. Recent ly I was in Saudi Arabia giving a leadership workshop. I n response t o t his quest ion, 100% of t he part icipant s ( all were m ale) said t hey would save t heir m ot hers. Officially, t he logic here is t hat you can always rem arry and have anot her child, but you can never have anot her m ot her. But psychologically, t he fact is t hat wom en are not allowed t o do m uch in Saudi Arabia. They are very handicapped. So t he only way t hey can live and get glory is t hrough t heir sons ( t heir daught ers are also dem eaned) . What develops is an incredibly int ense relat ionship bet ween t he m ot her and t he son, so t here is no wife—or child, for t hat m at t er—who can ever live up t o t he grat ificat ions t he m ot her provided.

“Pe ople in m e n t a l h ospit a ls a r e e a sy t o u n de r st a n d be ca u se t h e y su ffe r fr om e x t r e m e con dit ion s. Th e m e n t a l h e a lt h of se n ior e x e cu t ive s is m u ch m or e su bt le .” This st ory has m any im plicat ions, but t o m e it underscores t he cult ural com plexit y of leadership. I t ’s not always easy t o appreciat e or underst and t hat what people do, m ean, and say varies from one cult ure t o t he next , and wit hout t hat underst anding, it is im possible t o lead in anot her cult ure. A leadership st yle t hat would be effect ive in Sweden, for exam ple, m ight be quit e dysfunct ional in Russia, whose business elit e I have been st udying for som e t im e. Of course, I ’m t alking now about t he nat ional cult ure, not a corporat e cult ure. But corporat e cult ure varies enorm ously as well, and com panies differ in how t hey regard fact ors such as power, st at us, and hierarchy. There are also great differences in t he way execut ives from various nat ional cult ures look at cont rol and aut horit y. There are num erous explanat ions for t his, but as t he st ory illust rat es, t he differences oft en derive from variat ions in child rearing. By t he way, of all t he nat ional leadership st yles I ’ve st udied, t he Finnish is one I adm ire very m uch. Unlike t he Swedes or t he English, t he Finns never had kings or queens except when t hey were im port ed, so t hey have t his elem ent of dem ocracy and a st rong belief t hat working hard m akes t hings happen. The Finns also have a st raight forward, plain honest y, which is very good in a leader. And unlike m any Am erican leaders, t he Finns have a st rong sense of hum ilit y. When t hings are going t oo well for t hem , t hey t hrow up t heir hands and groan, “ My God, t he sky is going t o fall down on us.” That t ouch of creat ive paranoia can m ake for very good leadership. You oft e n w r it e t h a t e x e cu t ive s a r e ir r a t ion a l. W h a t do you m e a n by t h a t ? I f you st udy execut ives, you quickly see t hat t hey don’t behave rat ionally all t he t im e. I ndeed, irrat ional behavior is com m on in organizat ional life. I t was m y realizat ion of t his —and m y desire t o underst and t hat irrat ionalit y—t hat led m e int o t he fields of psychiat ry and psychoanalysis. Once I st art ed, I found t hat business leaders were m uch m ore com plex t han t he subj ect s m ost psychologist s st udied. People in m ent al hospit als are act ually easy t o underst and because t hey suffer from ext rem e condit ions. The m ent al healt h of senior execut ives is m uch m ore subt le. They can’t be t oo crazy or t hey generally don’t m ake it t o senior posit ions, but t hey are nonet heless ext rem ely driven people. And when I analyze t hem , I usually find t hat t heir drives spring from childhood pat t erns and experiences t hat have carried over int o adult hood. Execut ives don’t like t o

hear t his; t hey like t o t hink t hey’re t ot ally in cont rol. They’re insult ed t o hear t hat cert ain t hings in t heir m inds are unconscious. But like it or not , people have blind spot s, and t he nonrat ional personalit y needs of decision m akers can seriously affect t he m anagem ent process. W h a t a r e t h e se blin d spot s, a n d h ow do t h e y pla y ou t in t h e or ga n iza t ion ? I ’m st ruggling wit h a case right now involving an ent repreneur. Part of his problem is t hat he has great difficult y wit h aut horit y. However sim plist ic t his m ay sound, his t roubles really do originat e in a difficult relat ionship wit h his fat her. On t op of t hat , he had a m ot her who was quit e cont rolling. Not surprisingly, aft er he had st art ed his com pany, he had a very hard t im e delegat ing; he m icrom anaged. For exam ple, he opened all t he m ail t hat cam e t o t he com pany, and he insist ed t hat everybody’s e- m ails be forwarded t o him ! This level of cont rol was m anageable as long as t he com pany was in t he st art - up phase, but once it had becom e a $20 m illion operat ion, t he ent repreneur’s lack of t rust in ot hers’ capabilit ies had a st ifling effect . Predict ably, t he ent repreneur j ust couldn’t keep good people. There was high t urnover as people brist led under his exceedingly rigid cont rol. Recent ly, t his ent repreneur cam e t o see m e about hiring a large num ber of MBAs. I ’m sure I could find m any out st anding MBAs for his com pany, but I know t hey wouldn’t st ay wit h him . They would surely cit e different excuses for t heir dissat isfact ion and resignat ions, but t he real reason would be t hat t he ent repreneur is a cont rol freak, a failing of which he rem ains largely unconscious. And because he is unconscious of it , he can’t t ake responsibilit y for it , which m eans t hat not hing can change. Unfort unat ely, I am inclined t o say t hat even if t his ent repreneur could acknowledge his obsessive need for cont rol, he would m ost likely com e up wit h m any elaborat e rat ionalizat ions for his behavior. I believe it would t ake a great num ber of int ervent ions before his dest ruct ive pat t erns could be brought t o his conscious awareness. I n m y work wit h CEOs, I also find t hat m any execut ives are t rying t o com pensat e for narcissist ic wounds—blows t o t heir self- est eem t hat were inflict ed in childhood by parent s who were eit her t oo dist ant or t oo indulgent . ( A child in an ext rem ely indulgent household cannot develop a balanced sense of his own personalit y.) Typically, people wit h narcissist ic inj uries have a great hunger for recognit ion and ext ernal affirm at ion. To com bat t heir feelings of helplessness and lack of self- wort h, t hey are always in search of an adm iring audience. I n m y work wit h leaders, I have found t hat CEOs generally have no idea t hat narcissist ic wounds underlie t heir behavior. To m ake execut ives aware of t heir vulnerabilit ies, I som et im es ask t hem t o describe t he m ost crit ical negat ive voice t hat st ill plays in t heir heads from childhood. Even highly successful execut ives adm it t o saying t hings t o t hem selves like, “ You’re not as good as you pret end t o be. You’re an im post er.” This is a parent al voice t hat has lingered int o adult hood. Larry Ellison is a very good exam ple. I never m et t he m an, but I once wrot e a case about him . I found out t hat his st epfat her used t o t ell him repeat edly: “ You’ll never am ount t o anyt hing. You will never be a success.” Of course, t his affect s his leadership st yle t oday. Ellison is always t rying t o prove t he bast ards wrong. Not surprisingly, he has creat ed a very aggressive organizat ion. I n organizat ions, we oft en find st rong links bet ween t he personalit y of t he leader, his leadership st yle, and t he general cult ure—especially in com panies where power is cent ralized. Ca n you e x pa n d on t h e n a r cissism of le a de r s? Th e r e ’s be e n a lot of t a lk a bou t t h e su bj e ct la t e ly. W h y is it so pr oble m a t ic? We need t o be careful here. Narcissism has a t errible reput at ion, oft en right ly so. But all people—especially leaders—need a healt hy dose of narcissism in order t o survive. I t ’s t he engine t hat drives leadership. Assert iveness, self- confidence, t enacit y, and creat ivit y

j ust can’t exist wit hout it . But once a narcissist get s int o a posit ion of leadership, funny t hings st art t o happen. Because narcissist ic leaders are oft en charism at ic, em ployees st art t o proj ect t heir own grandiose fant asies ont o t he narcissist ic leader. And suddenly everyt hing becom es surreal. I rem em ber being in a m eet ing once in sout hern Europe. Thirt y senior execut ives were gat hered for a present at ion about t he fut ure of t he organizat ion. The president was a very wealt hy m an who used t o brag t hat he would need t en lifet im es t o spend all his m oney. Not surprisingly, his office was filled wit h enorm ous st at ues and paint ings of him self. He arrived 20 m inut es lat e for t he m eet ing, and he cam e in t alking on a m obile phone. Nobody act ed annoyed. Event ually t he present at ion st art ed, and t he CEO’s phone rang. He picked it up and t alked for 15 m inut es while everybody sat t here, wait ing. Suddenly t he CEO got up and said he had t o go. This was t he m ost im port ant m eet ing of t he year, and he j ust walked out . But no one, not one person, obj ect ed. Everyone t old him what he want ed t o hear. I t was as if t he CEO were in a hall of m irrors. This react ion on t he part of followers is hardly unusual. Do you rem em ber t he Pet er Sellers film Being There? I t looks at t he life of an illit erat e and slow- wit t ed gardener nam ed Chance, who is st anding in t he st reet one day when a lim ousine backs int o him . Hoping t o avoid publicit y, t he wom an in t he car t akes Chance hom e t o be seen by a doct or who is caring for her husband, a big- shot financier and friend of t he president . When t he president asks Chance what he t hinks about t he econom y, t he poor m an hasn’t a clue. Taking refuge in what he knows best —gardening—he says: “ As long as t he root s are not severed, all is well.” The president int erpret s t his sim ple st at em ent as a great revelat ion. The result s are inevit able: Chance is event ually pushed t o run for t he presidency. I t was George Bernard Shaw who said, “ Kings are not born: They are m ade by art ificial hallucinat ion.” There’s a lot of t rut h t o t hat . The problem wit h m any so- called narcissist ic leaders is t hat t hey bot h deliberat ely and inadvert ent ly act ivat e t he lat ent narcissism of t heir followers. These followers are oft en ideal- hungry personalit ies who idealize wildly and uncrit ically. And if t he leader happens t o like being posit ively m irrored by ot hers, he can becom e addict ed t o t he followers’ idealizat ion of him . Tragically, som e leaders get t o t he point where t hey fire individuals who don’t praise t hem sufficient ly.

“To be e ffe ct ive , or ga n iza t ion s n e e d pe ople w it h a h e a lt h y disr e spe ct for t h e boss—pe ople …w h o ca n e n ga ge in a ct ive give - a n d- t a k e .” W h y a r e follow e r s so pr on e t o ide a lizin g? I t has it s root s in what Freud called t ransference. Transference is probably t he m ost im port ant concept in psychot herapy; it was one of Freud’s great discoveries. Aft er he st art ed working wit h pat ient s, Freud found t o his great const ernat ion t hat pat ient s kept falling in love wit h him . To his im m ense credit , Freud realized t hat it couldn’t be his own wonderful personalit y t hat was st irring up such deep feelings of adm irat ion. I nst ead, he realized t hat in t heir dealings wit h him , pat ient s were int eract ing wit h powerful figures from t heir own int ernal t heat ers, usually im port ant childhood figures like parent s, t eachers, and siblings. Transference is t he t erm for t his cont inuit y bet ween early childhood and adult behavior. What Freud m eant is t hat we all bring t o our current relat ionships a m ap of past relat ionships t hat we t ransfer ont o t he present . This part icularly happens during t im es of st ress and in hierarchical sit uat ions, which are rem iniscent of t he parent - child const ellat ion. I ndeed, people in posit ions of aut horit y have an uncanny abilit y t o reawaken t ransferent ial processes in t hem selves and ot hers. And t hese t ransferent ial react ions can present t hem selves in a num ber of ways— posit ively or negat ively. One em ployee, for exam ple, m ay relat e t o her boss as if he

were her favorit e brot her, and t hus she idealizes him . But t hat boss m ay relat e t o her as if she were his wit hholding m ot her! I t is precisely t his confusion of t im e and place t hat result s in t he psychic “ noise” of t he workplace. Sadly, Freud was not int erest ed in business, so he never st udied it . But it would have been fascinat ing t o see what sense he would have m ade of everyone’s t endency in business t o relat e t o people as if t hey were som eone else. D oe sn ’t a ll t h is pu t follow e r s in a vu ln e r a ble posit ion a s w e ll? I t cert ainly does. I discovered t his when I was about 14 years old. I was wit h m y brot her in a yout h cam p in t he Net herlands where we went every sum m er. Most children were sent t o t his cam p for only t hree weeks, but we were sent t here for t he whole sum m er. Aft er t hree weeks, t here was always a t ransit ion bet ween t he old group and t he new, and one year m y brot her and I decided t o liven up t he changeover wit h an init iat ion rit ual. We placed a bat ht ub filled wit h freezing wat er in t he m iddle of a field and announced t hat according t o an old cam p t radit ion, all t he newcom ers had t o dunk t hem selves in t he t ub. I can st ill clearly rem em ber m ore t han 60 boys ( m ost of t hem m uch bigger t han us) lining up and, one aft er anot her, obedient ly im m ersing t hem selves in t he cold wat er. Everyt hing went well unt il t he headm ast er of t he cam p passed by. He was dum bfounded. He broke our spell by incit ing t he newcom ers t o rebel, point ing out t hat t here were 60 of t hem against t he t wo of us. Event ually, m y brot her and I got what was com ing t o us. But for m e, t he scene rem ained et ched on m y m ind as a t est am ent t o j ust how far people are willing t o go t o obey what t hey perceive as aut horit y. The fact is t hat even scant aut horit y can get away wit h m urder, bot h lit erally and figurat ively. I ndeed, I would say t hat som e organizat ions are so polit ical and unsafe t hat t hey resem ble concent rat ion cam ps. Everyone kowt ows t o aut horit y out of t rem endous fear. And you can see why. I once m et an execut ive who t old m e, “ Every day I walk int o t he office, I can m ake t he lives of 10,000 people com plet ely m iserable by doing very, very lit t le.” His com pany was probably not a very healt hy workplace—why wouldn’t he say inst ead: “ By doing very, very lit t le, I can m ake t he lives of 10,000 people m uch easier” ? That ’s why at I nsead I t ry t o int roduce CEOs t o a kind of applied psychoanalysis in an organizat ional set t ing. I n each of m y workshops, t here are around 20 individuals who t oget her m ight be responsible for 100,000 people. My hope is t hat by helping leaders t o becom e a lit t le m ore self- reflect ive, we can m ake t heir organizat ions a bit less like concent rat ion cam ps.

“I h a ppe n t o be lie ve t h a t t h ose w h o a cce pt t h e m a dn e ss in t h e m se lve s m a y be t h e h e a lt h ie st le a de r s of a ll.” Bu t w it h a ll t h e psych ic n oise in or ga n iza t ion s, h ow ca n le a de r s e ve r ge t h on e st fe e dba ck a n d cr it icism ? Today t here is a lot of t alk about using 360- degree feedback. I use it quit e a bit in m y leadership workshops. When I use it for coaching purposes, I gat her inform at ion not only from people at t he workplace but also from people close t o t he leader in his or her privat e life. This helps m e get a sense of who t he leader really is. But people at very high levels are usually considered m uch t oo im port ant t o go t hrough 360- degree feedback. And even if t hey do go t hrough it , t hey oft en don’t get honest com m ent s. That ’s because it ’s not very difficult for t he person being evaluat ed t o figure out who said what on t he feedback form s. So t he people giving feedback skew t heir answers out of fear of ret aliat ion. But even if t hey did give genuine feedback, it ’s unlikely t hey could express it in a way t hat would pierce t he leader’s narcissist ic arm or. That ’s why I like t o m ake t he case for having an organizat ional fool.

W h a t do you m e a n ? The fool I ’m t alking about is a foil for t he leader—and every leader needs one. Down t hrough t he ages, t he fool has played a t radit ional role as t he st abilizer of kings and queens ( and ot her leaders) . This is t he wise fool of King Lear—t he guardian of realit y. The fool shows t he leader his reflect ion and rem inds him of t he t ransience of power. He uses ant ics and hum or t o prevent foolish act ion and groupt hink. Let ’s not forget : Hum or hum bles. I t creat es insight s. That m akes it a very powerful inst rum ent for change. Let m e explain t he im port ance of t he fool t hrough an anecdot e. A couple goes t o a fair where t here’s a large, im pressive- looking m achine. The husband put s in a coin and receives a card t elling him his age and what kind of person he is. He reads it and get s excit ed. I t says: “ You’re brilliant and charm ing. Wom en fall all over you.” His wife grabs t he card from him and t urns it over. “ Aha! ” she says, “ t hey got your age wrong, t oo.” Leaders in all organizat ions need som eone like t his who is willing t o speak out and t ell t he leader how t hings really are. That ’s precisely t he role of t he fool. He offers t he king a delicious sandwich, and bet ween t he slices of bread he shoves in a lit t le piece of realit y. To be effect ive, organizat ions need people wit h a healt hy disrespect for t he boss—people who feel free t o express em ot ions and opinions openly, who can engage in act ive giveand- t ake. Sadly, t his t ypically happens only aft er a leader is out of power. As form er President George Bush once rem arked when he was asked what had changed since he left office: “ Well, for one t hing, I no longer win every golf gam e I play.” I n a well- run organizat ion, t he CEO wouldn’t win every golf gam e eit her. And if a leader want s honest feedback, he should ask him self whet her or not he’s creat ed an organizat ion in which t here’s a place for a fool. You ’ve oft e n obse r ve d t h a t le a de r s ge t ca u gh t u p in a w h ir l of h ype r a ct ivit y. W h a t ’s be h in d t h a t ? Anxiet y is one reason. Act ion is a t ypical hum an response t o anxiet y, and execut ives t end t o be an anxious bunch. At any given t im e, t here are m any t hings going on t hat t he execut ives feel t hey have lit t le cont rol over. So, like anyone else, t hey t end t o look for som e form of support , and one well- accept ed response in t he business world is t he ret reat int o act ion. Anot her reason is t hat m any t op execut ives suffer from depression. I see it all t he t im e. The chief cause for execut ive depression is t hat people usually don’t j oin t he ranks of senior execut ives unt il t hey’re m iddle- aged. And in m iddle age, people st art t o feel desperat e about com ing t o t erm s wit h unfulfilled dream s before it ’s t oo lat e. The Germ ans have a t erm for t his—Torschlusspanik, t he panic t hat st rikes because of t he closing of t he gat es, t he closing down of possibilit ies. Midlife prom pt s a reappraisal of career ident it y; it raises concerns about burnout and loss of effect iveness. By t he t im e a leader is a CEO, an exist ent ial crisis is oft en im m inent . This can happen wit h anyone, but t he probabilit y is higher wit h CEOs and senior execut ives, because so m any of t hem have been devot ing t heir lives alm ost exclusively t o work. I t ell you honest ly t hat very, very few execut ives lead balanced lives. They delude t hem selves about it , t oo. I f you ask t hem how m uch t im e t hey spend wit h t heir wives and children, t hey give you num bers t hat are com plet ely at odds wit h t he num bers t he fam ilies give. I worked for t wo years as a consult ant and coach wit h about 150 m anaging direct ors of a large, well- known invest m ent bank t o help t hem be m ore effect ive as leaders in t heir organizat ion. These were people who worked 70, 80 hours a week, and t hey worked very efficient ly, very successfully. What ’s m ore, t hey were t ypically sm art , pleasant , and insight ful—very sure of t hem selves. But because t hey were such workaholics, t hese invest m ent bankers were not secure about t heir personal lives. They had t rem endous guilt over t heir fam ilies, whom t hey never saw. When I began m y work wit h t hem , all t hey t alked about at first was problem s in t he organizat ion and conflict s

t hey were having wit h one anot her. Event ually, however, as our conversat ions cont inued —oft en one- on- one—t hey began t o acknowledge t hat t he root s of t heir problem s lay elsewhere, in som e int ernal conflict s. As I dug around, I found t hat t hese invest m ent bankers, like m any t op execut ives who are obsessed wit h work and m oney, oft en had experienced deprivat ion of som e kind early in life. They work for large salaries and opt ion packages as a way of obt aining what is som et im es crudely described as “ fuck you m oney,” t o be independent . I t is t heir way of having m ore cont rol over a world t hey oft en perceive ( given t heir early experiences in life) as uncont rollable. The t rouble is t hat once t hey’ve proved t hey’re successful, t hey can’t get off t he t readm ill. All t hey know how t o do is work. I n t he m eant im e, t heir personal relat ionships have becom e a m ess. So t hey feel st uck and bored, and t hat m akes t hem m ore depressed. Unfort unat ely, in business you are not allowed t o show pain. So t o liven him self up a bit , t he CEO m ight find a new wife, a t rophy wife. Or he m ight t ry t o pull off som e really big, aggressive deal, like a t akeover. Now t hat provides som e excit em ent . What bet t er way t o cure boredom t han by becom ing a m odern day Viking, raping and plundering? Mergers and m arriages bot h help t o m ask CEOs’ psychic pain. But at som e point , all leaders have t o slow down. Ret irem ent loom s. When t hat happens, t he depression t hat has never been resolved st art s t o becom e apparent . Le t ’s con clu de by look in g a t t h e gla ss a s h a lf fu ll. W h a t m a k e s a le a de r h e a lt h y? Healt hy leaders are able t o live int ensely. They’re passionat e about what t hey do. That ’s because t hey are able t o experience t he full range of t heir feelings—wit hout any color blindness t o any part icular em ot ion. At t he sam e t im e, healt hy leaders st rongly believe in t heir abilit y t o cont rol ( or at least affect ) t he event s t hat im pact t heir lives. They’re able t o t ake personal responsibilit y; t hey are not always scapegoat ing or blam ing ot her people for what goes wrong. Healt hy leaders don’t easily lose cont rol or resort t o im pulsive act s. They can work t hrough t heir own anxiet y and am bivalence. As we saw earlier, healt hy leaders are very t alent ed in self- observat ion and self- analysis; t he best leaders are highly m ot ivat ed t o spend t im e on self- reflect ion. Anot her fact or is t hat healt hy leaders, unlike t he less healt hy ones, have t he abilit y t o deal wit h t he disappoint m ent s of life. They can acknowledge t heir depression and work it t hrough. Very im port ant ly, t hey have t he capacit y t o est ablish and m aint ain relat ionships ( including sat isfact ory sexual relat ionships) . Their lives are in balance, and t hey can play. They are creat ive and invent ive and have t he capacit y t o be nonconform ist . These are t he t hings t hat are fundam ent al, but I would also hope ( aft er having said all of t his! ) t hat we can accept t hat we need a lit t le m adness in our leaders, because I happen t o believe t hat t hose who accept t he m adness in t hem selves m ay be t he healt hiest leaders of all. To quot e Shaw once again, “ We want a few m ad people now. See where t he sane ones have landed us! ”

Reprint Num ber R0401F Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. This cont ent m ay not be reproduced or t ransm it t ed in any form or by any m eans, elect ronic or m echanical, including phot ocopy, recording, or any inform at ion st orage or ret rieval syst em , wit hout writ t en perm ission. Request s for perm ission should be direct ed t o perm [email protected], 1- 888- 500- 1020, or m ailed t o Perm issions, Harvard Business School Publishing, 60 Harvard Way, Bost on, MA 02163.

Click here t o visit :

View Back Issues | January 2004 > Managers and Leaders: Are They Different ?

> | Pu r ch a se Re pr in t > | Pr in t a ble Ve r sion

Managers and Leaders

> | E- m a il a Colle a gu e

Are They Different?

> | Ex e cu t ive Su m m a r y

Bu sin e ss le a de r s h a ve m u ch m or e in com m on w it h a r t ist s t h a n t h e y do w it h m a n a ge r s.

by Abr a h a m Za le zn ik

The t radit ional view of m anagem ent , back in 1977 when Abraham Zaleznik wrot e t his art icle, cent ered on organizat ional st ruct ure and processes. Managerial developm ent at t he t im e focused exclusively on building com pet ence, cont rol, and t he appropriat e balance of power. That view, Zaleznik argued, om it t ed t he essent ial leadership elem ent s of inspirat ion, vision, and hum an passion—which drive corporat e success. The difference bet ween m anagers and leaders, he wrot e, lies in t he concept ions t hey hold, deep in t heir psyches, of chaos and order. Managers em brace process, seek st abilit y and cont rol, and inst inct ively t ry t o resolve problem s quickly—som et im es before t hey fully underst and a problem ’s significance. Leaders, in cont rast , t olerat e chaos and lack of st ruct ure and are willing t o delay closure in order t o underst and t he issues m ore fully. I n t his way, Zaleznik argued, business leaders have m uch m ore in com m on wit h art ist s, scient ist s, and ot her creat ive t hinkers t han t hey do wit h m anagers. Organizat ions need bot h m anagers and leaders t o succeed, but developing bot h requires a reduced focus on logic and st rat egic exercises in favor of an environm ent where creat ivit y and im aginat ion are perm it t ed t o flourish.

What is t he ideal way t o develop leadership? Every societ y provides it s own answer t o t his quest ion, and each, in groping for answers, defines it s deepest concerns about t he purposes, dist ribut ions, and uses of power. Business has cont ribut ed it s answer t o t he leadership quest ion by evolving a new breed called t he m anager. Sim ult aneously, business has est ablished a new power et hic t hat favors collect ive over individual leadership, t he cult of t he group over t hat of personalit y. While ensuring t he com pet ence, cont rol, and t he balance of power am ong groups wit h t he pot ent ial for rivalry, m anagerial leadership unfort unat ely does not necessarily ensure im aginat ion, creat ivit y, or et hical behavior in guiding t he dest inies of corporat e ent erprises. Leadership inevit ably requires using power t o influence t he t hought s and act ions of ot her people. Power in t he hands of an individual ent ails hum an risks: first , t he risk of equat ing power wit h t he abilit y t o get im m ediat e result s; second, t he risk of ignoring t he m any different ways people can legit im at ely accum ulat e power; and t hird, t he risk of losing self- cont rol in t he desire for power. The need t o hedge t hese risks account s in part for t he developm ent of collect ive leadership and t he m anagerial et hic. Consequent ly, an inherent conservat ism dom inat es t he cult ure of large organizat ions. I n The Second Am erican Revolut ion, John D. Rockefeller I I I describes t he conservat ism of organizat ions: “ An organizat ion is a syst em , wit h a logic of it s own, and all t he weight of t radit ion and inert ia. The deck is st acked in favor of t he t ried and proven way of doing t hings and against t he t aking of risks and st riking out in new direct ions.” 1 Out of t his conservat ism and inert ia, organizat ions provide succession t o power t hrough t he developm ent of m anagers rat her t han individual leaders. I ronically, t his et hic fost ers a bureaucrat ic cult ure in business, supposedly t he last bast ion prot ect ing us from t he encroachm ent s and cont rols of bureaucracy in governm ent and educat ion. M a n a ge r vs. Le a de r Pe r son a lit y A m anagerial cult ure em phasizes rat ionalit y and cont rol. Whet her his or her energies are

Abr a h a m Za le zn ik is t he Konosuke Mat sushit a Professor of Leadership Em erit us at Harvard Business School in Bost on.

> | H a r va r d Bu sin e ss Re vie w On Poin t Edit ion This art icle is enhanced wit h a sum m ary of key point s t o help you quickly absorb and apply t he concept s and a bibliography t o guide furt her explorat ion.

> | H a r va r d Bu sin e ss Re vie w On Poin t Colle ct ion This art icle is also part of t he specially priced OnPoint collect ion “ Your Best Managers Lead and Manage,” which includes t hree OnPoint art icles wit h an overview com paring different perspect ives on t his t opic.

direct ed t oward goals, resources, organizat ion st ruct ures, or people, a m anager is a problem solver. The m anager asks: “ What problem s have t o be solved, and what are t he best ways t o achieve result s so t hat people will cont inue t o cont ribut e t o t his organizat ion?” From t his perspect ive, leadership is sim ply a pract ical effort t o direct affairs; and t o fulfill his or her t ask, a m anager requires t hat m any people operat e efficient ly at different levels of st at us and responsibilit y. I t t akes neit her genius nor heroism t o be a m anager, but rat her persist ence, t ough- m indedness, hard work, int elligence, analyt ical abilit y, and perhaps m ost im port ant , t olerance and goodwill. Anot her concept ion of leadership, however, at t aches alm ost m yst ical beliefs t o what a leader is and assum es t hat only great people are wort hy of t he dram a of power and polit ics. Here leadership is a psychodram a in which a brilliant , lonely person m ust gain cont rol of him self or herself as a precondit ion for cont rolling ot hers. Such an expect at ion of leadership cont rast s sharply wit h t he m undane, pract ical, and yet im port ant concept ion t hat leadership is really m anaging work t hat ot her people do. Three quest ions com e t o m ind. I s t his leadership m yst ique m erely a holdover from our childhood—from a sense of dependency and a longing for good and heroic parent s? Or is it t rue t hat no m at t er how com pet ent m anagers are, t heir leadership st agnat es because of t heir lim it at ions in visualizing purposes and generat ing value in work? Driven by narrow purposes, wit hout an im aginat ive capacit y and t he abilit y t o com m unicat e, do m anagers t hen perpet uat e group conflict s inst ead of reform ing t hem int o broader desires and goals? I f indeed problem s dem and great ness, t hen j udging by past perform ance, t he select ion and developm ent of leaders leave a great deal t o chance. There are no known ways t o t rain “ great ” leaders. Furt her, beyond what we leave t o chance, t here is a deeper issue in t he relat ionship bet ween t he need for com pet ent m anagers and t he longing for great leaders. What it t akes t o ensure a supply of people who will assum e pract ical responsibilit y m ay inhibit t he developm ent of great leaders. On t he ot her hand, t he presence of great leaders m ay underm ine t he developm ent of m anagers who t ypically becom e very anxious in t he relat ive disorder t hat leaders seem t o generat e. I t is easy enough t o dism iss t he dilem m a of t raining m anagers, t hough we m ay need new leaders or leaders at t he expense of m anagers, by saying t hat t he need is for people who can be bot h. But j ust as a m anagerial cult ure differs from t he ent repreneurial cult ure t hat develops when leaders appear in organizat ions, m anagers and leaders are very different kinds of people. They differ in m ot ivat ion, personal hist ory, and in how t hey t hink and act . At t it u de s Tow a r d Goa ls Managers t end t o adopt im personal, if not passive, at t it udes t oward goals. Managerial goals arise out of necessit ies rat her t han desires and, t herefore, are deeply em bedded in t heir organizat ion’s hist ory and cult ure. Frederic G. Donner, chairm an and chief execut ive officer of General Mot ors from 1958 t o 1967, expressed t his kind of at t it ude t oward goals in defining GM’s posit ion on product developm ent : “ To m eet t he challenge of t he m arket place, we m ust recognize changes in cust om er needs and desires far enough ahead t o have t he right product s in t he right places at t he right t im e and in t he right quant it y. “ We m ust balance t rends in preference against t he m any com prom ises t hat are necessary t o m ake a final product t hat is bot h reliable and good looking, t hat perform s well and t hat sells at a com pet it ive price in t he necessary volum e. We m ust design not j ust t he cars we would like t o build but , m ore im port ant , t he cars t hat our cust om ers want t o buy.” 2 Nowhere in t his st at em ent is t here a not ion t hat consum er t ast es and preferences arise in part as a result of what m anufact urers do. I n realit y, t hrough product design, advert ising, and prom ot ion, consum ers learn t o like what t hey t hen say t hey need. Few would argue t hat people who enj oy t aking snapshot s need a cam era t hat also develops pict ures. But in response t o a need for novelt y, convenience, and a short er int erval bet ween act ing ( snapping t he pict ure) and gaining pleasure ( seeing t he shot ) , t he Polaroid cam era succeeded in t he m arket place. I t is inconceivable t hat Edwin Land responded t o im pressions of consum er need. I nst ead, he t ranslat ed a t echnology ( polarizat ion of light ) int o a product , which proliferat ed and st im ulat ed consum ers’

desires. The exam ple of Polaroid and Land suggest s how leaders t hink about goals. They are act ive inst ead of react ive, shaping ideas inst ead of responding t o t hem . Leaders adopt a personal and act ive at t it ude t oward goals. The influence a leader exert s in alt ering m oods, evoking im ages and expect at ions, and in est ablishing specific desires and obj ect ives det erm ines t he direct ion a business t akes. The net result of t his influence changes t he way people t hink about what is desirable, possible, and necessary. Con ce pt ion s of W or k Managers t end t o view work as an enabling process involving som e com binat ion of people and ideas int eract ing t o est ablish st rat egies and m ake decisions. They help t he process along by calculat ing t he int erest s in opposit ion, planning when cont roversial issues should surface, and reducing t ensions. I n t his enabling process, m anagers’ t act ics appear flexible: on one hand, t hey negot iat e and bargain; on t he ot her, t hey use rewards, punishm ent s, and ot her form s of coercion. Alfred P. Sloan’s act ions at General Mot ors illust rat e how t his process works in sit uat ions of conflict . The t im e was t he early 1920s when Ford Mot or Com pany st ill dom inat ed t he aut om obile indust ry using, as did General Mot ors, t he convent ional wat er- cooled engine. Wit h t he full backing of Pierre du Pont , Charles Ket t ering dedicat ed him self t o t he design of an air- cooled copper engine, which, if successful, would be a great t echnical and m arket ing coup for GM. Ket t ering believed in his product , but t he m anufact uring division heads opposed t he new design on t wo grounds: first , it was t echnically unreliable, and second, t he corporat ion was put t ing all it s eggs in one basket by invest ing in a new product inst ead of at t ending t o t he current m arket ing sit uat ion. I n t he sum m er of 1923, aft er a series of false st art s and aft er it s decision t o recall t he copper engine Chevrolet s from dealers and cust om ers, GM m anagem ent scrapped t he proj ect . When it dawned on Ket t ering t hat t he com pany had rej ect ed t he engine, he was deeply discouraged and wrot e t o Sloan t hat , wit hout t he “ organized resist ance” against t he proj ect , it would have succeeded and t hat , unless t he proj ect were saved, he would leave t he com pany. Alfred Sloan was all t oo aware t hat Ket t ering was unhappy and indeed int ended t o leave General Mot ors. Sloan was also aware t hat , while t he m anufact uring divisions st rongly opposed t he new engine, Pierre du Pont support ed Ket t ering. Furt her, Sloan had him self gone on record in a let t er t o Ket t ering less t han t wo years earlier expressing full confidence in him . The problem Sloan had was how t o m ake his decision st ick, keep Ket t ering in t he organizat ion ( he was m uch t oo valuable t o lose) , avoid alienat ing du Pont , and encourage t he division heads t o cont inue developing product lines using convent ional wat er- cooled engines. Sloan’s act ions in t he face of t his conflict reveal m uch about how m anagers work. First , he t ried t o reassure Ket t ering by present ing t he problem in a very am biguous fashion, suggest ing t hat he and t he execut ive com m it t ee sided wit h Ket t ering, but t hat it would not be pract ical t o force t he divisions t o do what t hey were opposed t o. He present ed t he problem as being a quest ion of t he people, not t he product . Second, he proposed t o reorganize around t he problem by consolidat ing all funct ions in a new division t hat would be responsible for t he design, product ion, and m arket ing of t he new engine. This solut ion appeared as am biguous as his effort s t o placat e Ket t ering. Sloan wrot e: “ My plan was t o creat e an independent pilot operat ion under t he sole j urisdict ion of Mr. Ket t ering, a kind of copper- cooled car division. Mr. Ket t ering would designat e his own chief engineer and his product ion st aff t o solve t he t echnical problem s of m anufact ure.” 3 Sloan did not discuss t he pract ical value of t his solut ion, which included saddling an invent or wit h m anagem ent responsibilit y, but in effect , he used t his plan t o lim it his conflict wit h Pierre du Pont . Essent ially, t he m anagerial solut ion t hat Sloan arranged lim it ed t he opt ions available t o ot hers. The st ruct ural solut ion narrowed choices, even lim it ing em ot ional react ions t o t he point where t he key people could do not hing but go along. I t allowed Sloan t o say in his m em orandum t o du Pont , “ We have discussed t he m at t er wit h Mr. Ket t ering at som e lengt h t his m orning, and he agrees wit h us absolut ely on every point we m ade. He appears t o receive t he suggest ion ent husiast ically and has every confidence t hat it can be put across along t hese lines.” 4 Sloan placat ed people who opposed his views by developing a st ruct ural solut ion t hat appeared t o give som et hing but in realit y only lim it ed opt ions. He could t hen aut horize t he car division’s general m anager, wit h whom he basically agreed, t o m ove quickly in

designing wat er- cooled cars for t he im m ediat e m arket dem and. Years lat er, Sloan wrot e, evident ly wit h t ongue in cheek, “ The copper- cooled car never cam e up again in a big way. I t j ust died out ; I don’t know why.” 5 To get people t o accept solut ions t o problem s, m anagers cont inually need t o coordinat e and balance opposing views. I nt erest ingly enough, t his t ype of work has m uch in com m on wit h what diplom at s and m ediat ors do, wit h Henry Kissinger apparent ly an out st anding pract it ioner. Managers aim t o shift balances of power t oward solut ions accept able as com prom ises am ong conflict ing values. Leaders work in t he opposit e direct ion. Where m anagers act t o lim it choices, leaders develop fresh approaches t o long- st anding problem s and open issues t o new opt ions. To be effect ive, leaders m ust proj ect t heir ideas ont o im ages t hat excit e people and only t hen develop choices t hat give t hose im ages subst ance. John F. Kennedy’s brief presidency shows bot h t he st rengt hs and weaknesses connect ed wit h t he excit em ent leaders generat e in t heir work. I n his inaugural address he said, “ Let every nat ion know, whet her it wishes us well or ill, t hat we shall pay any price, bear any burden, m eet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order t o assure t he survival and t he success of libert y.”

I s t h e le a de r sh ip m yst iqu e m e r e ly a h oldove r fr om ou r ch ildh ood—fr om a se n se of de pe n de n cy a n d a lon gin g for good a n d h e r oic pa r e n t s? This m uch- quot ed st at em ent forced people t o react beyond im m ediat e concerns and t o ident ify wit h Kennedy and wit h im port ant shared ideals. On closer scrut iny, however, t he st at em ent is absurd because it prom ises a posit ion, which, if adopt ed, as in t he Viet nam War, could produce disast rous result s. Yet unless expect at ions are aroused and m obilized, wit h all t he dangers of frust rat ion inherent in height ened desire, new t hinking and new choice can never com e t o light . Leaders work from high- risk posit ions; indeed, t hey are oft en t em peram ent ally disposed t o seek out risk and danger, especially where t he chance of opport unit y and reward appears prom ising. From m y observat ions, t he reason one individual seeks risks while anot her approaches problem s conservat ively depends m ore on his or her personalit y and less on conscious choice. For t hose who becom e m anagers, a survival inst inct dom inat es t he need for risk, and wit h t hat inst inct com es an abilit y t o t olerat e m undane, pract ical work. Leaders som et im es react t o m undane work as t o an afflict ion. Re la t ion s w it h Ot h e r s Managers prefer t o work wit h people; t hey avoid solit ary act ivit y because it m akes t hem anxious. Several years ago, I direct ed st udies on t he psychological aspect s of careers. The need t o seek out ot hers wit h whom t o work and collaborat e seem ed t o st and out as an im port ant charact erist ic of m anagers. When asked, for exam ple, t o writ e im aginat ive st ories in response t o a pict ure showing a single figure ( a boy cont em plat ing a violin or a m an silhouet t ed in a st at e of reflect ion) , m anagers populat ed t heir st ories wit h people. The following is an exam ple of a m anager’s im aginat ive st ory about t he young boy cont em plat ing a violin: “ Mom and Dad insist ed t hat t heir son t ake m usic lessons so t hat som eday he can becom e a concert m usician. His inst rum ent was ordered and had j ust arrived. The boy is weighing t he alt ernat ives of playing foot ball wit h t he ot her kids or playing wit h t he squeak box. He can’t underst and how his parent s could t hink a violin is bet t er t han a t ouchdown. “ Aft er four m ont hs of pract icing t he violin, t he boy has had m ore t han enough, Dad is going out of his m ind, and Mom is willing t o give in reluct ant ly t o t heir wishes. Foot ball season is now over, but a good t hird basem an will t ake t he field next spring.” This st ory illust rat es t wo t hem es t hat clarify m anagerial at t it udes t oward hum an relat ions. The first , as I have suggest ed, is t o seek out act ivit y wit h ot her people ( t hat is, t he foot ball t eam ) , and t he second is t o m aint ain a low level of em ot ional involvem ent in t hose relat ionships. Low em ot ional involvem ent appears in t he writ er’s use of convent ional m et aphors, even clichés, and in t he depict ion of t he ready t ransform at ion of pot ent ial conflict int o harm onious decisions. I n t his case, t he boy, Mom , and Dad agree t o give up t he violin for sport s.

These t wo t hem es m ay seem paradoxical, but t heir coexist ence support s what a m anager does, including reconciling differences, seeking com prom ises, and est ablishing a balance of power. The st ory furt her dem onst rat es t hat m anagers m ay lack em pat hy, or t he capacit y t o sense int uit ively t he t hought s and feelings of ot hers. Consider anot her st ory writ t en t o t he sam e st im ulus pict ure by som eone t hought of as a leader by his peers: “ This lit t le boy has t he appearance of being a sincere art ist , one who is deeply affect ed by t he violin, and has an int ense desire t o m ast er t he inst rum ent . “ He seem s t o have j ust com plet ed his norm al pract ice session and appears t o be som ewhat crest fallen at his inabilit y t o produce t he sounds t hat he is sure lie wit hin t he violin. “ He appears t o be in t he process of m aking a vow t o him self t o expend t he necessary t im e and effort t o play t his inst rum ent unt il he sat isfies him self t hat he is able t o bring fort h t he qualit ies of m usic t hat he feels wit hin him self. “ Wit h t his t ype of det erm inat ion and carry- t hrough, t his boy becam e one of t he great violinist s of his day.” Em pat hy is not sim ply a m at t er of paying at t ent ion t o ot her people. I t is also t he capacit y t o t ake in em ot ional signals and m ake t hem m eaningful in a relat ionship. People who describe anot her person as “ deeply affect ed,” wit h “ int ense desire,” “ crest fallen,” and as one who can “ vow t o him self” would seem t o have an inner percept iveness t hat t hey can use in t heir relat ionships wit h ot hers. Managers relat e t o people according t o t he role t hey play in a sequence of event s or in a decision- m aking process, while leaders, who are concerned wit h ideas, relat e in m ore int uit ive and em pat het ic ways. The dist inct ion is sim ply bet ween a m anager’s at t ent ion t o how t hings get done and a leader’s t o what t he event s and decisions m ean t o part icipant s. I n recent years, m anagers have adopt ed from gam e t heory t he not ion t hat decisionm aking event s can be one of t wo t ypes: t he win- lose sit uat ion ( or zero- sum gam e) or t he win- win sit uat ion in which everybody in t he act ion com es out ahead. Managers st rive t o convert win- lose int o win- win sit uat ions as part of t he process of reconciling differences am ong people and m aint aining balances of power.

For t h ose w h o be com e m a n a ge r s, a su r viva l in st in ct dom in a t e s t h e n e e d for r isk , a n d w it h t h a t in st in ct com e s a n a bilit y t o t ole r a t e m u n da n e , pr a ct ica l w or k . As an illust rat ion, t ake t he decision of how t o allocat e capit al resources am ong operat ing divisions in a large, decent ralized organizat ion. On t he surface, t he dollars available for dist ribut ion are lim it ed at any given t im e. Presum ably, t herefore, t he m ore one division get s, t he less is available for ot her divisions. Managers t end t o view t his sit uat ion ( as it affect s hum an relat ions) as a conversion issue: how t o m ake what seem s like a win- lose problem int o a win- win problem . From t hat perspect ive, several solut ions com e t o m ind. First , t he m anager focuses ot hers’ at t ent ion on procedure and not on subst ance. Here t he players becom e engrossed in t he bigger problem of how t o m ake decisions, not what decisions t o m ake. Once com m it t ed t o t he bigger problem , t hese people have t o support t he out com e since t hey were involved in form ulat ing t he decision- m aking rules. Because t hey believe in t he rules t hey form ulat ed, t hey will accept present losses, believing t hat next t im e t hey will win. Second, t he m anager com m unicat es t o subordinat es indirect ly, using “ signals” inst ead of “ m essages.” A signal holds a num ber of im plicit posit ions, while a m essage clearly st at es a posit ion. Signals are inconclusive and subj ect t o reint erpret at ion should people becom e upset and angry; m essages involve t he direct consequence t hat som e people will indeed not like what t hey hear. The nat ure of m essages height ens em ot ional response and m akes m anagers anxious. Wit h signals, t he quest ion of who wins and who loses oft en becom es obscured. Third, t he m anager plays for t im e. Managers seem t o recognize t hat wit h t he passage of t im e and t he delay of m aj or decisions, com prom ises em erge t hat t ake t he st ing out of win- lose sit uat ions, and t he original “ gam e” will be superseded by addit ional sit uat ions. Com prom ises m ean t hat one m ay win and lose sim ult aneously, depending on which of t he gam es one evaluat es.

There are undoubt edly m any ot her t act ical m oves m anagers use t o change hum an sit uat ions from win- lose t o win- win. But t he point is t hat such t act ics focus on t he decision- m aking process it self, and t hat process int erest s m anagers rat her t han leaders. Tact ical int erest s involve cost s as well as benefit s; t hey m ake organizat ions fat t er in bureaucrat ic and polit ical int rigue and leaner in direct , hard act ivit y and warm hum an relat ionships. Consequent ly, one oft en hears subordinat es charact erize m anagers as inscrut able, det ached, and m anipulat ive. These adj ect ives arise from t he subordinat es’ percept ion t hat t hey are linked t oget her in a process whose purpose is t o m aint ain a cont rolled as well as rat ional and equit able st ruct ure. I n cont rast , one oft en hears leaders referred t o wit h adj ect ives rich in em ot ional cont ent . Leaders at t ract st rong feelings of ident it y and difference or of love and hat e. Hum an relat ions in leader- dom inat ed st ruct ures oft en appear t urbulent , int ense, and at t im es even disorganized. Such an at m osphere int ensifies individual m ot ivat ion and oft en produces unant icipat ed out com es. Se n se s of Se lf I n The Variet ies of Religious Experience, William Jam es describes t wo basic personalit y t ypes, “ once- born” and “ t wice- born.” People of t he form er personalit y t ype are t hose for whom adj ust m ent s t o life have been st raight forward and whose lives have been m ore or less a peaceful flow since birt h. Twice- borns, on t he ot her hand, have not had an easy t im e of it . Their lives are m arked by a cont inual st ruggle t o at t ain som e sense of order. Unlike once- borns, t hey cannot t ake t hings for grant ed. According t o Jam es, t hese personalit ies have equally different worldviews. For a once- born personalit y, t he sense of self as a guide t o conduct and at t it ude derives from a feeling of being at hom e and in harm ony wit h one’s environm ent . For a t wice- born, t he sense of self derives from a feeling of profound separat eness. A sense of belonging or of being separat e has a pract ical significance for t he kinds of invest m ent s m anagers and leaders m ake in t heir careers. Managers see t hem selves as conservat ors and regulat ors of an exist ing order of affairs wit h which t hey personally ident ify and from which t hey gain rewards. A m anager’s sense of self- wort h is enhanced by perpet uat ing and st rengt hening exist ing inst it ut ions: he or she is perform ing in a role t hat harm onizes wit h ideals of dut y and responsibilit y. William Jam es had t his harm ony in m ind—t his sense of self as flowing easily t o and from t he out er world—in defining a once- born personalit y. Leaders t end t o be t wice- born personalit ies, people who feel separat e from t heir environm ent . They m ay work in organizat ions, but t hey never belong t o t hem . Their sense of who t hey are does not depend on m em berships, work roles, or ot her social indicat ors of ident it y. And t hat percept ion of ident it y m ay form t he t heoret ical basis for explaining why cert ain individuals seek opport unit ies for change. The m et hods t o bring about change m ay be t echnological, polit ical, or ideological, but t he obj ect is t he sam e: t o profoundly alt er hum an, econom ic, and polit ical relat ionships. I n considering t he developm ent of leadership, we have t o exam ine t wo different courses of life hist ory: ( 1) developm ent t hrough socializat ion, which prepares t he individual t o guide inst it ut ions and t o m aint ain t he exist ing balance of social relat ions; and ( 2) developm ent t hrough personal m ast ery, which im pels an individual t o st ruggle for psychological and social change. Societ y produces it s m anagerial t alent t hrough t he first line of developm ent ; leaders em erge t hrough t he second. D e ve lopm e n t of Le a de r sh ip Every person’s developm ent begins wit h fam ily. Each person experiences t he t raum as associat ed wit h separat ing from his or her parent s, as well as t he pain t hat follows such a wrench. I n t he sam e vein, all individuals face t he difficult ies of achieving selfregulat ion and self- cont rol. But for som e, perhaps a m aj orit y, t he fort unes of childhood provide adequat e grat ificat ions and sufficient opport unit ies t o find subst it ut es for rewards no longer available. Such individuals, t he “ once- borns,” m ake m oderat e ident ificat ions wit h parent s and find a harm ony bet ween what t hey expect and what t hey are able t o realize from life. But suppose t he pains of separat ion are am plified by a com binat ion of parent al dem ands and individual needs t o t he degree t hat a sense of isolat ion, of being special, or of wariness disrupt s t he bonds t hat at t ach children t o parent s and ot her aut horit y figures? Given a special apt it ude under such condit ions, t he person becom es deeply involved in his or her inner world at t he expense of int erest in t he out er world. For such a person, self- est eem no longer depends solely on posit ive at t achm ent s and real rewards. A form

of self- reliance t akes hold along wit h expect at ions of perform ance and achievem ent , and perhaps even t he desire t o do great works. Such self- percept ions can com e t o not hing if t he individual’s t alent s are negligible. Even wit h st rong t alent s, t here are no guarant ees t hat achievem ent will follow, let alone t hat t he end result will be for good rat her t han evil. Ot her fact ors ent er int o developm ent as well. For one, leaders are like art ist s and ot her gift ed people who oft en st ruggle wit h neuroses; t heir abilit y t o funct ion varies considerably even over t he short run, and som e pot ent ial leaders lose t he st ruggle alt oget her. Also, beyond early childhood, t he developm ent pat t erns t hat affect m anagers and leaders involve t he select ive influence of part icular people. Managerial personalit ies form m oderat e and widely dist ribut ed at t achm ent s. Leaders, on t he ot her hand, est ablish, and also break off, int ensive one- t oone relat ionships. I t is a com m on observat ion t hat people wit h great t alent s are oft en indifferent st udent s. No one, for exam ple, could have predict ed Einst ein’s great achievem ent s on t he basis of his m ediocre record in school. The reason for m ediocrit y is obviously not t he absence of abilit y. I t m ay result , inst ead, from self- absorpt ion and t he inabilit y t o pay at t ent ion t o t he ordinary t asks at hand. The only sure way an individual can int errupt reverie- like preoccupat ion and self- absorpt ion is t o form a deep at t achm ent t o a great t eacher or ot her person who underst ands and has t he abilit y t o com m unicat e wit h t he gift ed individual. Whet her gift ed individuals find what t hey need in one- t o- one relat ionships depends on t he availabilit y of t eachers, possibly parent al surrogat es, whose st rengt hs lie in cult ivat ing t alent . Fort unat ely, when generat ions m eet and t he self- select ions occur, we learn m ore about how t o develop leaders and how t alent ed people of different generat ions influence each ot her. While apparent ly dest ined for m ediocre careers, people who form im port ant one- t o- one apprent iceship relat ionships oft en are able t o accelerat e and int ensify t heir developm ent . The psychological readiness of an individual t o benefit from such a relat ionship depends on som e experience in life t hat forces t hat person t o t urn inward. Consider Dwight Eisenhower, whose early career in t he arm y foreshadowed very lit t le about his fut ure developm ent . During World War I , while som e of his West Point classm at es were already experiencing t he war first hand in France, Eisenhower felt “ em bedded in t he m onot ony and unsought safet y of t he Zone of t he I nt erior…t hat was int olerable punishm ent .” 6 Short ly aft er World War I , Eisenhower, t hen a young officer som ewhat pessim ist ic about his career chances, asked for a t ransfer t o Panam a t o work under General Fox Connor, a senior officer whom he adm ired. The arm y t urned down his request . This set back was very m uch on Eisenhower’s m ind when I key, his first born son, succum bed t o influenza. Through som e sense of responsibilit y for it s own, t he arm y t hen t ransferred Eisenhower t o Panam a, where he t ook up his dut ies under General Connor wit h t he shadow of his lost son very m uch upon him . I n a relat ionship wit h t he kind of fat her he would have want ed t o be, Eisenhower revert ed t o being t he son he had lost . And in t his highly charged sit uat ion, he began t o learn from his t eacher. General Connor offered, and Eisenhower gladly t ook, a m agnificent t ut orial on t he m ilit ary. The effect s of t his relat ionship on Eisenhower cannot be m easured quant it at ively, but in exam ining his career pat h from t hat point , one cannot overest im at e it s significance. As Eisenhower wrot e lat er about Connor, “ Life wit h General Connor was a sort of graduat e school in m ilit ary affairs and t he hum anit ies, leavened by a m an who was experienced in his knowledge of m en and t heir conduct . I can never adequat ely express m y grat it ude t o t his one gent lem an…. I n a lifet im e of associat ion wit h great and good m en, he is t he one m ore or less invisible figure t o whom I owe an incalculable debt .” 7 Som e t im e aft er his t our of dut y wit h General Connor, Eisenhower’s breakt hrough occurred. He received orders t o at t end t he Com m and and General St aff School at Fort Leavenwort h, one of t he m ost com pet it ive schools in t he arm y. I t was a covet ed appoint m ent , and Eisenhower t ook advant age of t he opport unit y. Unlike his perform ance in high school and West Point , his work at t he Com m and School was excellent ; he was graduat ed first in his class. Psychological biographies of gift ed people repeat edly dem onst rat e t he im port ant part a t eacher plays in developing an individual. Andrew Carnegie owed m uch t o his senior, Thom as A. Scot t . As head of t he West ern Division of t he Pennsylvania Railroad, Scot t

recognized t alent and t he desire t o learn in t he young t elegrapher assigned t o him . By giving Carnegie increasing responsibilit y and by providing him wit h t he opport unit y t o learn t hrough close personal observat ion, Scot t added t o Carnegie’s self- confidence and sense of achievem ent . Because of his own personal st rengt h and achievem ent , Scot t did not fear Carnegie’s aggressiveness. Rat her, he gave it full play in encouraging Carnegie’s init iat ive. Great t eachers t ake risks. They bet init ially on t alent t hey perceive in younger people. And t hey risk em ot ional involvem ent in working closely wit h t heir j uniors. The risks do not always pay off, but t he willingness t o t ake t hem appears t o be crucial in developing leaders. Ca n Or ga n iza t ion s D e ve lop Le a de r s? A m yt h about how people learn and develop t hat seem s t o have t aken hold in Am erican cult ure also dom inat es t hinking in business. The m yt h is t hat people learn best from t heir peers. Supposedly, t he t hreat of evaluat ion and even hum iliat ion recedes in peer relat ions because of t he t endency for m ut ual ident ificat ion and t he social rest raint s on aut horit arian behavior am ong equals. Peer t raining in organizat ions occurs in various form s. The use, for exam ple, of t ask forces m ade up of peers from several int erest ed occupat ional groups ( sales, product ion, research, and finance) supposedly rem oves t he rest raint s of aut horit y on t he individual’s willingness t o assert and exchange ideas. As a result , so t he t heory goes, people int eract m ore freely, list en m ore obj ect ively t o crit icism and ot her point s of view, and, finally, learn from t his healt hy int erchange. Anot her applicat ion of peer t raining exist s in som e large corporat ions, such as Philips N. V. in Holland, where organizat ional st ruct ure is built on t he principle of j oint responsibilit y of t wo peers, one represent ing t he com m ercial end of t he business and t he ot her t he t echnical. Form ally, bot h hold equal responsibilit y for geographic operat ions or product groups, as t he case m ay be. As a pract ical m at t er, it m ay t urn out t hat one or t he ot her of t he peers dom inat es t he m anagem ent . Nevert heless, t he m ain int eract ion is bet ween t wo or m ore equals.

Le a de r s t e n d t o fe e l se pa r a t e fr om t h e ir e n vir on m e n t . Th e y m a y w or k in or ga n iza t ion s, bu t t h e y n e ve r be lon g to them . The principal quest ion I raise about such arrangem ent s is whet her t hey perpet uat e t he m anagerial orient at ion and preclude t he form at ion of one- t o- one relat ionships bet ween senior people and pot ent ial leaders. Aware of t he possible st ifling effect s of peer relat ionships on aggressiveness and individual init iat ive, anot her com pany, m uch sm aller t han Philips, ut ilizes j oint responsibilit y of peers for operat ing unit s, wit h one im port ant difference. The chief execut ive of t his com pany encourages com pet it ion and rivalry am ong peers, ult im at ely rewarding t he one who com es out on t op wit h increased responsibilit y. These hybrid arrangem ent s produce som e unint ended consequences t hat can be disast rous. There is no easy way t o lim it rivalry. I nst ead, it perm eat es all levels of t he operat ion and opens t he way for t he form at ion of cliques in an at m osphere of int rigue. One large, int egrat ed oil com pany has accept ed t he im port ance of developing leaders t hrough t he direct influence of senior on j unior execut ives. The chairm an and chief execut ive officer regularly select s one t alent ed universit y graduat e whom he appoint s his special assist ant , and wit h whom he will work closely for a year. At t he end of t he year, t he j unior execut ive becom es available for assignm ent t o one of t he operat ing divisions, where he or she will be assigned t o a responsible post rat her t han a t raining posit ion. This apprent iceship acquaint s t he j unior execut ive first hand wit h t he use of power and wit h t he im port ant ant idot es t o t he power disease called hubris—perform ance and int egrit y. Working in one- t o- one relat ionships, where t here is a form al and recognized difference in t he power of t he players, t akes a great deal of t olerance for em ot ional int erchange. This int erchange, inevit able in close working arrangem ent s, probably account s for t he reluct ance of m any execut ives t o becom e involved in such relat ionships. Fort une carried an int erest ing st ory on t he depart ure of a key execut ive, John W. Hanley, from t he t op m anagem ent of Proct er & Gam ble t o t he chief execut ive officer posit ion at Monsant o. 8 According t o t his account , t he chief execut ive and chairm an of P&G passed over Hanley for appoint m ent t o t he presidency, inst ead nam ing anot her execut ive vice president t o t his post .

The chairm an evident ly felt he could not work well wit h Hanley who, by his own acknowledgm ent , was aggressive, eager t o experim ent and change pract ices, and const ant ly challenged his superior. A chief execut ive officer nat urally has t he right t o select people wit h whom he feels congenial. But I wonder whet her a great er capacit y on t he part of senior officers t o t olerat e t he com pet it ive im pulses and behavior of t heir subordinat es m ight not be healt hy for corporat ions. At least a great er t olerance for int erchange would not favor t he m anagerial t eam player at t he expense of t he individual who m ight becom e a leader. I am const ant ly surprised at t he frequency wit h which chief execut ives feel t hreat ened by open challenges t o t heir ideas, as t hough t he source of t heir aut horit y, rat her t han t heir specific ideas, was at issue. I n one case, a chief execut ive officer, who was t roubled by t he aggressiveness and som et im es out right rudeness of one of his t alent ed vice president s, used various indirect m et hods such as group m eet ings and hint s from out side direct ors t o avoid dealing wit h his subordinat e. I advised t he execut ive t o deal head- on wit h what irrit at ed him . I suggest ed t hat by direct , face- t o- face confront at ion, bot h he and his subordinat e would learn t o validat e t he dist inct ion bet ween t he aut horit y t o be preserved and t he issues t o be debat ed. The abilit y t o confront is also t he abilit y t o t olerat e aggressive int erchange. And t hat skill not only has t he net effect of st ripping away t he veils of am biguit y and signaling so charact erist ic of m anagerial cult ures, but also it encourages t he em ot ional relat ionships leaders need if t hey are t o survive. 1. ( HarperCollins, 1973) . 2. Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., My Years wit h General Mot ors ( New York: Doubleday, 1964) . 3. I bid. 4. I bid. 5. I bid. 6. Dwight D. Eisenhower, At Ease: St ories I Tell t o Friends ( New York: Doubleday, 1967) . 7. I bid. 8. “ Jack Hanley Got There by Selling Harder,” Fort une, Novem ber 1976.

> | Ex e cu t ive Su m m a r y > | Pu r ch a se Re pr in t > | Pr in t a ble Ve r sion > | E- m a il a Colle a gu e

Reprint Num ber R0401G | Harvard Business Review OnPoint edit ion 8334 | Harvard Business Review OnPoint collect ion 5402

View Back Issues Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. All right s reserved.

Click here t o visit : > | ht t p: / / www.hbsp.org

Managers and Leaders Are They Different? Bu sin e ss le a de r s h a ve m u ch m or e in com m on w it h a r t ist s t h a n t h e y do w it h m a n a ge r s.

by Abr a h a m Za le zn ik Abr a h a m Za le zn ik is t he Konosuke Mat sushit a Professor of Leadership Em erit us at Harvard Business School in Bost on.

The t radit ional view of m anagem ent , back in 1977 when Abraham Zaleznik wrot e t his art icle, cent ered on organizat ional st ruct ure and processes. Managerial developm ent at t he t im e focused exclusively on building com pet ence, cont rol, and t he appropriat e balance of power. That view, Zaleznik argued, om it t ed t he essent ial leadership elem ent s of inspirat ion, vision, and hum an passion—which drive corporat e success. The difference bet ween m anagers and leaders, he wrot e, lies in t he concept ions t hey hold, deep in t heir psyches, of chaos and order. Managers em brace process, seek st abilit y and cont rol, and inst inct ively t ry t o resolve problem s quickly—som et im es before t hey fully underst and a problem ’s significance. Leaders, in cont rast , t olerat e chaos and lack of st ruct ure and are willing t o delay closure in order t o underst and t he issues m ore fully. I n t his way, Zaleznik argued, business leaders have m uch m ore in com m on wit h art ist s, scient ist s, and ot her creat ive t hinkers t han t hey do wit h m anagers. Organizat ions need bot h m anagers and leaders t o succeed, but developing bot h requires a reduced focus on logic and st rat egic exercises in favor of an environm ent where creat ivit y and im aginat ion are perm it t ed t o flourish.

What is t he ideal way t o develop leadership? Every societ y provides it s own answer t o t his quest ion, and each, in groping for answers, defines it s deepest concerns about t he purposes, dist ribut ions, and uses of power. Business has cont ribut ed it s answer t o t he leadership quest ion by evolving a new breed called t he m anager. Sim ult aneously, business has est ablished a new power et hic t hat favors collect ive over individual leadership, t he cult of t he group over t hat of personalit y. While ensuring t he com pet ence, cont rol, and t he balance of power am ong groups wit h t he pot ent ial for rivalry, m anagerial leadership unfort unat ely does not necessarily ensure im aginat ion, creat ivit y, or et hical behavior in guiding t he dest inies of corporat e ent erprises. Leadership inevit ably requires using power t o influence t he t hought s and act ions of ot her people. Power in t he hands of an individual ent ails hum an risks: first , t he risk of equat ing power wit h t he abilit y t o get im m ediat e result s; second, t he risk of ignoring t he m any different ways people can legit im at ely accum ulat e power; and t hird, t he risk of losing self- cont rol in t he desire for power. The need t o hedge t hese risks account s in part

for t he developm ent of collect ive leadership and t he m anagerial et hic. Consequent ly, an inherent conservat ism dom inat es t he cult ure of large organizat ions. I n The Second Am erican Revolut ion, John D. Rockefeller I I I describes t he conservat ism of organizat ions: “ An organizat ion is a syst em , wit h a logic of it s own, and all t he weight of t radit ion and inert ia. The deck is st acked in favor of t he t ried and proven way of doing t hings and against t he t aking of risks and st riking out in new direct ions.” 1 Out of t his conservat ism and inert ia, organizat ions provide succession t o power t hrough t he developm ent of m anagers rat her t han individual leaders. I ronically, t his et hic fost ers a bureaucrat ic cult ure in business, supposedly t he last bast ion prot ect ing us from t he encroachm ent s and cont rols of bureaucracy in governm ent and educat ion. M a n a ge r vs. Le a de r Pe r son a lit y A m anagerial cult ure em phasizes rat ionalit y and cont rol. Whet her his or her energies are direct ed t oward goals, resources, organizat ion st ruct ures, or people, a m anager is a problem solver. The m anager asks: “ What problem s have t o be solved, and what are t he best ways t o achieve result s so t hat people will cont inue t o cont ribut e t o t his organizat ion?” From t his perspect ive, leadership is sim ply a pract ical effort t o direct affairs; and t o fulfill his or her t ask, a m anager requires t hat m any people operat e efficient ly at different levels of st at us and responsibilit y. I t t akes neit her genius nor heroism t o be a m anager, but rat her persist ence, t ough- m indedness, hard work, int elligence, analyt ical abilit y, and perhaps m ost im port ant , t olerance and goodwill. Anot her concept ion of leadership, however, at t aches alm ost m yst ical beliefs t o what a leader is and assum es t hat only great people are wort hy of t he dram a of power and polit ics. Here leadership is a psychodram a in which a brilliant , lonely person m ust gain cont rol of him self or herself as a precondit ion for cont rolling ot hers. Such an expect at ion of leadership cont rast s sharply wit h t he m undane, pract ical, and yet im port ant concept ion t hat leadership is really m anaging work t hat ot her people do. Three quest ions com e t o m ind. I s t his leadership m yst ique m erely a holdover from our childhood—from a sense of dependency and a longing for good and heroic parent s? Or is it t rue t hat no m at t er how com pet ent m anagers are, t heir leadership st agnat es because of t heir lim it at ions in visualizing purposes and generat ing value in work? Driven by narrow purposes, wit hout an im aginat ive capacit y and t he abilit y t o com m unicat e, do m anagers t hen perpet uat e group conflict s inst ead of reform ing t hem int o broader desires and goals? I f indeed problem s dem and great ness, t hen j udging by past perform ance, t he select ion and developm ent of leaders leave a great deal t o chance. There are no known ways t o t rain “ great ” leaders. Furt her, beyond what we leave t o chance, t here is a deeper issue in t he relat ionship bet ween t he need for com pet ent m anagers and t he longing for great leaders. What it t akes t o ensure a supply of people who will assum e pract ical responsibilit y m ay inhibit t he developm ent of great leaders. On t he ot her hand, t he presence of great leaders m ay underm ine t he developm ent of m anagers who t ypically becom e very anxious in t he relat ive disorder t hat leaders seem t o generat e. I t is easy enough t o dism iss t he dilem m a of t raining m anagers, t hough we m ay need new leaders or leaders at t he expense of m anagers, by saying t hat t he need is for people who can be bot h. But j ust as a m anagerial cult ure differs from t he ent repreneurial cult ure t hat develops when leaders appear in organizat ions, m anagers and leaders are

very different kinds of people. They differ in m ot ivat ion, personal hist ory, and in how t hey t hink and act . At t it u de s Tow a r d Goa ls Managers t end t o adopt im personal, if not passive, at t it udes t oward goals. Managerial goals arise out of necessit ies rat her t han desires and, t herefore, are deeply em bedded in t heir organizat ion’s hist ory and cult ure. Frederic G. Donner, chairm an and chief execut ive officer of General Mot ors from 1958 t o 1967, expressed t his kind of at t it ude t oward goals in defining GM’s posit ion on product developm ent : “ To m eet t he challenge of t he m arket place, we m ust recognize changes in cust om er needs and desires far enough ahead t o have t he right product s in t he right places at t he right t im e and in t he right quant it y. “ We m ust balance t rends in preference against t he m any com prom ises t hat are necessary t o m ake a final product t hat is bot h reliable and good looking, t hat perform s well and t hat sells at a com pet it ive price in t he necessary volum e. We m ust design not j ust t he cars we would like t o build but , m ore im port ant , t he cars t hat our cust om ers want t o buy.” 2 Nowhere in t his st at em ent is t here a not ion t hat consum er t ast es and preferences arise in part as a result of what m anufact urers do. I n realit y, t hrough product design, advert ising, and prom ot ion, consum ers learn t o like what t hey t hen say t hey need. Few would argue t hat people who enj oy t aking snapshot s need a cam era t hat also develops pict ures. But in response t o a need for novelt y, convenience, and a short er int erval bet ween act ing ( snapping t he pict ure) and gaining pleasure ( seeing t he shot ) , t he Polaroid cam era succeeded in t he m arket place. I t is inconceivable t hat Edwin Land responded t o im pressions of consum er need. I nst ead, he t ranslat ed a t echnology ( polarizat ion of light ) int o a product , which proliferat ed and st im ulat ed consum ers’ desires. The exam ple of Polaroid and Land suggest s how leaders t hink about goals. They are act ive inst ead of react ive, shaping ideas inst ead of responding t o t hem . Leaders adopt a personal and act ive at t it ude t oward goals. The influence a leader exert s in alt ering m oods, evoking im ages and expect at ions, and in est ablishing specific desires and obj ect ives det erm ines t he direct ion a business t akes. The net result of t his influence changes t he way people t hink about what is desirable, possible, and necessary. Con ce pt ion s of W or k Managers t end t o view work as an enabling process involving som e com binat ion of people and ideas int eract ing t o est ablish st rat egies and m ake decisions. They help t he process along by calculat ing t he int erest s in opposit ion, planning when cont roversial issues should surface, and reducing t ensions. I n t his enabling process, m anagers’ t act ics appear flexible: on one hand, t hey negot iat e and bargain; on t he ot her, t hey use rewards, punishm ent s, and ot her form s of coercion. Alfred P. Sloan’s act ions at General Mot ors illust rat e how t his process works in sit uat ions of conflict . The t im e was t he early 1920s when Ford Mot or Com pany st ill dom inat ed t he aut om obile indust ry using, as did General Mot ors, t he convent ional wat er- cooled engine. Wit h t he full backing of Pierre du Pont , Charles Ket t ering dedicat ed him self t o t he design of an air- cooled copper engine, which, if successful, would be a great t echnical and m arket ing coup for GM. Ket t ering believed in his product , but t he m anufact uring division

heads opposed t he new design on t wo grounds: first , it was t echnically unreliable, and second, t he corporat ion was put t ing all it s eggs in one basket by invest ing in a new product inst ead of at t ending t o t he current m arket ing sit uat ion. I n t he sum m er of 1923, aft er a series of false st art s and aft er it s decision t o recall t he copper engine Chevrolet s from dealers and cust om ers, GM m anagem ent scrapped t he proj ect . When it dawned on Ket t ering t hat t he com pany had rej ect ed t he engine, he was deeply discouraged and wrot e t o Sloan t hat , wit hout t he “ organized resist ance” against t he proj ect , it would have succeeded and t hat , unless t he proj ect were saved, he would leave t he com pany. Alfred Sloan was all t oo aware t hat Ket t ering was unhappy and indeed int ended t o leave General Mot ors. Sloan was also aware t hat , while t he m anufact uring divisions st rongly opposed t he new engine, Pierre du Pont support ed Ket t ering. Furt her, Sloan had him self gone on record in a let t er t o Ket t ering less t han t wo years earlier expressing full confidence in him . The problem Sloan had was how t o m ake his decision st ick, keep Ket t ering in t he organizat ion ( he was m uch t oo valuable t o lose) , avoid alienat ing du Pont , and encourage t he division heads t o cont inue developing product lines using convent ional wat er- cooled engines. Sloan’s act ions in t he face of t his conflict reveal m uch about how m anagers work. First , he t ried t o reassure Ket t ering by present ing t he problem in a very am biguous fashion, suggest ing t hat he and t he execut ive com m it t ee sided wit h Ket t ering, but t hat it would not be pract ical t o force t he divisions t o do what t hey were opposed t o. He present ed t he problem as being a quest ion of t he people, not t he product . Second, he proposed t o reorganize around t he problem by consolidat ing all funct ions in a new division t hat would be responsible for t he design, product ion, and m arket ing of t he new engine. This solut ion appeared as am biguous as his effort s t o placat e Ket t ering. Sloan wrot e: “ My plan was t o creat e an independent pilot operat ion under t he sole j urisdict ion of Mr. Ket t ering, a kind of copper- cooled car division. Mr. Ket t ering would designat e his own chief engineer and his product ion st aff t o solve t he t echnical problem s of m anufact ure.” 3 Sloan did not discuss t he pract ical value of t his solut ion, which included saddling an invent or wit h m anagem ent responsibilit y, but in effect , he used t his plan t o lim it his conflict wit h Pierre du Pont . Essent ially, t he m anagerial solut ion t hat Sloan arranged lim it ed t he opt ions available t o ot hers. The st ruct ural solut ion narrowed choices, even lim it ing em ot ional react ions t o t he point where t he key people could do not hing but go along. I t allowed Sloan t o say in his m em orandum t o du Pont , “ We have discussed t he m at t er wit h Mr. Ket t ering at som e lengt h t his m orning, and he agrees wit h us absolut ely on every point we m ade. He appears t o receive t he suggest ion ent husiast ically and has every confidence t hat it can be put across along t hese lines.” 4 Sloan placat ed people who opposed his views by developing a st ruct ural solut ion t hat appeared t o give som et hing but in realit y only lim it ed opt ions. He could t hen aut horize t he car division’s general m anager, wit h whom he basically agreed, t o m ove quickly in designing wat er- cooled cars for t he im m ediat e m arket dem and. Years lat er, Sloan wrot e, evident ly wit h t ongue in cheek, “ The copper- cooled car never cam e up again in a big way. I t j ust died out ; I don’t know why.” 5 To get people t o accept solut ions t o problem s, m anagers cont inually need t o coordinat e and balance opposing views. I nt erest ingly enough, t his t ype of work has m uch in com m on wit h what diplom at s and m ediat ors do, wit h Henry Kissinger apparent ly an

out st anding pract it ioner. Managers aim t o shift balances of power t oward solut ions accept able as com prom ises am ong conflict ing values. Leaders work in t he opposit e direct ion. Where m anagers act t o lim it choices, leaders develop fresh approaches t o long- st anding problem s and open issues t o new opt ions. To be effect ive, leaders m ust proj ect t heir ideas ont o im ages t hat excit e people and only t hen develop choices t hat give t hose im ages subst ance. John F. Kennedy’s brief presidency shows bot h t he st rengt hs and weaknesses connect ed wit h t he excit em ent leaders generat e in t heir work. I n his inaugural address he said, “ Let every nat ion know, whet her it wishes us well or ill, t hat we shall pay any price, bear any burden, m eet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order t o assure t he survival and t he success of libert y.”

I s t h e le a de r sh ip m yst iqu e m e r e ly a h oldove r fr om ou r ch ildh ood—fr om a se n se of de pe n de n cy a n d a lon gin g for good a n d h e r oic pa r e n t s? This m uch- quot ed st at em ent forced people t o react beyond im m ediat e concerns and t o ident ify wit h Kennedy and wit h im port ant shared ideals. On closer scrut iny, however, t he st at em ent is absurd because it prom ises a posit ion, which, if adopt ed, as in t he Viet nam War, could produce disast rous result s. Yet unless expect at ions are aroused and m obilized, wit h all t he dangers of frust rat ion inherent in height ened desire, new t hinking and new choice can never com e t o light . Leaders work from high- risk posit ions; indeed, t hey are oft en t em peram ent ally disposed t o seek out risk and danger, especially where t he chance of opport unit y and reward appears prom ising. From m y observat ions, t he reason one individual seeks risks while anot her approaches problem s conservat ively depends m ore on his or her personalit y and less on conscious choice. For t hose who becom e m anagers, a survival inst inct dom inat es t he need for risk, and wit h t hat inst inct com es an abilit y t o t olerat e m undane, pract ical work. Leaders som et im es react t o m undane work as t o an afflict ion. Re la t ion s w it h Ot h e r s Managers prefer t o work wit h people; t hey avoid solit ary act ivit y because it m akes t hem anxious. Several years ago, I direct ed st udies on t he psychological aspect s of careers. The need t o seek out ot hers wit h whom t o work and collaborat e seem ed t o st and out as an im port ant charact erist ic of m anagers. When asked, for exam ple, t o writ e im aginat ive st ories in response t o a pict ure showing a single figure ( a boy cont em plat ing a violin or a m an silhouet t ed in a st at e of reflect ion) , m anagers populat ed t heir st ories wit h people. The following is an exam ple of a m anager’s im aginat ive st ory about t he young boy cont em plat ing a violin: “ Mom and Dad insist ed t hat t heir son t ake m usic lessons so t hat som eday he can becom e a concert m usician. His inst rum ent was ordered and had j ust arrived. The boy is weighing t he alt ernat ives of playing foot ball wit h t he ot her kids or playing wit h t he squeak box. He can’t underst and how his parent s could t hink a violin is bet t er t han a t ouchdown. “ Aft er four m ont hs of pract icing t he violin, t he boy has had m ore t han enough, Dad is going out of his m ind, and Mom is willing t o give in reluct ant ly t o t heir wishes. Foot ball season is now over, but a good t hird basem an will t ake t he field next spring.” This st ory illust rat es t wo t hem es t hat clarify m anagerial at t it udes t oward hum an

relat ions. The first , as I have suggest ed, is t o seek out act ivit y wit h ot her people ( t hat is, t he foot ball t eam ) , and t he second is t o m aint ain a low level of em ot ional involvem ent in t hose relat ionships. Low em ot ional involvem ent appears in t he writ er’s use of convent ional m et aphors, even clichés, and in t he depict ion of t he ready t ransform at ion of pot ent ial conflict int o harm onious decisions. I n t his case, t he boy, Mom , and Dad agree t o give up t he violin for sport s. These t wo t hem es m ay seem paradoxical, but t heir coexist ence support s what a m anager does, including reconciling differences, seeking com prom ises, and est ablishing a balance of power. The st ory furt her dem onst rat es t hat m anagers m ay lack em pat hy, or t he capacit y t o sense int uit ively t he t hought s and feelings of ot hers. Consider anot her st ory writ t en t o t he sam e st im ulus pict ure by som eone t hought of as a leader by his peers: “ This lit t le boy has t he appearance of being a sincere art ist , one who is deeply affect ed by t he violin, and has an int ense desire t o m ast er t he inst rum ent . “ He seem s t o have j ust com plet ed his norm al pract ice session and appears t o be som ewhat crest fallen at his inabilit y t o produce t he sounds t hat he is sure lie wit hin t he violin. “ He appears t o be in t he process of m aking a vow t o him self t o expend t he necessary t im e and effort t o play t his inst rum ent unt il he sat isfies him self t hat he is able t o bring fort h t he qualit ies of m usic t hat he feels wit hin him self. “ Wit h t his t ype of det erm inat ion and carry- t hrough, t his boy becam e one of t he great violinist s of his day.” Em pat hy is not sim ply a m at t er of paying at t ent ion t o ot her people. I t is also t he capacit y t o t ake in em ot ional signals and m ake t hem m eaningful in a relat ionship. People who describe anot her person as “ deeply affect ed,” wit h “ int ense desire,” “ crest fallen,” and as one who can “ vow t o him self” would seem t o have an inner percept iveness t hat t hey can use in t heir relat ionships wit h ot hers. Managers relat e t o people according t o t he role t hey play in a sequence of event s or in a decision- m aking process, while leaders, who are concerned wit h ideas, relat e in m ore int uit ive and em pat het ic ways. The dist inct ion is sim ply bet ween a m anager’s at t ent ion t o how t hings get done and a leader’s t o what t he event s and decisions m ean t o part icipant s. I n recent years, m anagers have adopt ed from gam e t heory t he not ion t hat decisionm aking event s can be one of t wo t ypes: t he win- lose sit uat ion ( or zero- sum gam e) or t he win- win sit uat ion in which everybody in t he act ion com es out ahead. Managers st rive t o convert win- lose int o win- win sit uat ions as part of t he process of reconciling differences am ong people and m aint aining balances of power.

For t h ose w h o be com e m a n a ge r s, a su r viva l in st in ct dom in a t e s t h e n e e d for r isk , a n d w it h t h a t in st in ct com e s a n a bilit y t o t ole r a t e m u n da n e , pr a ct ica l w or k . As an illust rat ion, t ake t he decision of how t o allocat e capit al resources am ong operat ing divisions in a large, decent ralized organizat ion. On t he surface, t he dollars available for dist ribut ion are lim it ed at any given t im e. Presum ably, t herefore, t he m ore one division get s, t he less is available for ot her divisions.

Managers t end t o view t his sit uat ion ( as it affect s hum an relat ions) as a conversion issue: how t o m ake what seem s like a win- lose problem int o a win- win problem . From t hat perspect ive, several solut ions com e t o m ind. First , t he m anager focuses ot hers’ at t ent ion on procedure and not on subst ance. Here t he players becom e engrossed in t he bigger problem of how t o m ake decisions, not what decisions t o m ake. Once com m it t ed t o t he bigger problem , t hese people have t o support t he out com e since t hey were involved in form ulat ing t he decision- m aking rules. Because t hey believe in t he rules t hey form ulat ed, t hey will accept present losses, believing t hat next t im e t hey will win. Second, t he m anager com m unicat es t o subordinat es indirect ly, using “ signals” inst ead of “ m essages.” A signal holds a num ber of im plicit posit ions, while a m essage clearly st at es a posit ion. Signals are inconclusive and subj ect t o reint erpret at ion should people becom e upset and angry; m essages involve t he direct consequence t hat som e people will indeed not like what t hey hear. The nat ure of m essages height ens em ot ional response and m akes m anagers anxious. Wit h signals, t he quest ion of who wins and who loses oft en becom es obscured. Third, t he m anager plays for t im e. Managers seem t o recognize t hat wit h t he passage of t im e and t he delay of m aj or decisions, com prom ises em erge t hat t ake t he st ing out of win- lose sit uat ions, and t he original “ gam e” will be superseded by addit ional sit uat ions. Com prom ises m ean t hat one m ay win and lose sim ult aneously, depending on which of t he gam es one evaluat es. There are undoubt edly m any ot her t act ical m oves m anagers use t o change hum an sit uat ions from win- lose t o win- win. But t he point is t hat such t act ics focus on t he decision- m aking process it self, and t hat process int erest s m anagers rat her t han leaders. Tact ical int erest s involve cost s as well as benefit s; t hey m ake organizat ions fat t er in bureaucrat ic and polit ical int rigue and leaner in direct , hard act ivit y and warm hum an relat ionships. Consequent ly, one oft en hears subordinat es charact erize m anagers as inscrut able, det ached, and m anipulat ive. These adj ect ives arise from t he subordinat es’ percept ion t hat t hey are linked t oget her in a process whose purpose is t o m aint ain a cont rolled as well as rat ional and equit able st ruct ure. I n cont rast , one oft en hears leaders referred t o wit h adj ect ives rich in em ot ional cont ent . Leaders at t ract st rong feelings of ident it y and difference or of love and hat e. Hum an relat ions in leader- dom inat ed st ruct ures oft en appear t urbulent , int ense, and at t im es even disorganized. Such an at m osphere int ensifies individual m ot ivat ion and oft en produces unant icipat ed out com es. Se n se s of Se lf I n The Variet ies of Religious Experience, William Jam es describes t wo basic personalit y t ypes, “ once- born” and “ t wice- born.” People of t he form er personalit y t ype are t hose for whom adj ust m ent s t o life have been st raight forward and whose lives have been m ore or less a peaceful flow since birt h. Twice- borns, on t he ot her hand, have not had an easy t im e of it . Their lives are m arked by a cont inual st ruggle t o at t ain som e sense of order. Unlike once- borns, t hey cannot t ake t hings for grant ed. According t o Jam es, t hese personalit ies have equally different worldviews. For a once- born personalit y, t he sense of self as a guide t o conduct and at t it ude derives from a feeling of being at hom e and in harm ony wit h one’s environm ent . For a t wice- born, t he sense of self derives from a feeling of profound separat eness. A sense of belonging or of being separat e has a pract ical significance for t he kinds of invest m ent s m anagers and leaders m ake in t heir careers. Managers see t hem selves as conservat ors and regulat ors of an exist ing order of affairs wit h which t hey personally ident ify and from which t hey gain rewards. A m anager’s sense of self- wort h is enhanced

by perpet uat ing and st rengt hening exist ing inst it ut ions: he or she is perform ing in a role t hat harm onizes wit h ideals of dut y and responsibilit y. William Jam es had t his harm ony in m ind—t his sense of self as flowing easily t o and from t he out er world—in defining a once- born personalit y. Leaders t end t o be t wice- born personalit ies, people who feel separat e from t heir environm ent . They m ay work in organizat ions, but t hey never belong t o t hem . Their sense of who t hey are does not depend on m em berships, work roles, or ot her social indicat ors of ident it y. And t hat percept ion of ident it y m ay form t he t heoret ical basis for explaining why cert ain individuals seek opport unit ies for change. The m et hods t o bring about change m ay be t echnological, polit ical, or ideological, but t he obj ect is t he sam e: t o profoundly alt er hum an, econom ic, and polit ical relat ionships. I n considering t he developm ent of leadership, we have t o exam ine t wo different courses of life hist ory: ( 1) developm ent t hrough socializat ion, which prepares t he individual t o guide inst it ut ions and t o m aint ain t he exist ing balance of social relat ions; and ( 2) developm ent t hrough personal m ast ery, which im pels an individual t o st ruggle for psychological and social change. Societ y produces it s m anagerial t alent t hrough t he first line of developm ent ; leaders em erge t hrough t he second. D e ve lopm e n t of Le a de r sh ip Every person’s developm ent begins wit h fam ily. Each person experiences t he t raum as associat ed wit h separat ing from his or her parent s, as well as t he pain t hat follows such a wrench. I n t he sam e vein, all individuals face t he difficult ies of achieving selfregulat ion and self- cont rol. But for som e, perhaps a m aj orit y, t he fort unes of childhood provide adequat e grat ificat ions and sufficient opport unit ies t o find subst it ut es for rewards no longer available. Such individuals, t he “ once- borns,” m ake m oderat e ident ificat ions wit h parent s and find a harm ony bet ween what t hey expect and what t hey are able t o realize from life. But suppose t he pains of separat ion are am plified by a com binat ion of parent al dem ands and individual needs t o t he degree t hat a sense of isolat ion, of being special, or of wariness disrupt s t he bonds t hat at t ach children t o parent s and ot her aut horit y figures? Given a special apt it ude under such condit ions, t he person becom es deeply involved in his or her inner world at t he expense of int erest in t he out er world. For such a person, self- est eem no longer depends solely on posit ive at t achm ent s and real rewards. A form of self- reliance t akes hold along wit h expect at ions of perform ance and achievem ent , and perhaps even t he desire t o do great works. Such self- percept ions can com e t o not hing if t he individual’s t alent s are negligible. Even wit h st rong t alent s, t here are no guarant ees t hat achievem ent will follow, let alone t hat t he end result will be for good rat her t han evil. Ot her fact ors ent er int o developm ent as well. For one, leaders are like art ist s and ot her gift ed people who oft en st ruggle wit h neuroses; t heir abilit y t o funct ion varies considerably even over t he short run, and som e pot ent ial leaders lose t he st ruggle alt oget her. Also, beyond early childhood, t he developm ent pat t erns t hat affect m anagers and leaders involve t he select ive influence of part icular people. Managerial personalit ies form m oderat e and widely dist ribut ed at t achm ent s. Leaders, on t he ot her hand, est ablish, and also break off, int ensive one- t oone relat ionships. I t is a com m on observat ion t hat people wit h great t alent s are oft en indifferent st udent s. No one, for exam ple, could have predict ed Einst ein’s great achievem ent s on t he basis of his m ediocre record in school. The reason for m ediocrit y is obviously not t he absence of abilit y. I t m ay result , inst ead, from self- absorpt ion and t he inabilit y t o pay at t ent ion t o

t he ordinary t asks at hand. The only sure way an individual can int errupt reverie- like preoccupat ion and self- absorpt ion is t o form a deep at t achm ent t o a great t eacher or ot her person who underst ands and has t he abilit y t o com m unicat e wit h t he gift ed individual. Whet her gift ed individuals find what t hey need in one- t o- one relat ionships depends on t he availabilit y of t eachers, possibly parent al surrogat es, whose st rengt hs lie in cult ivat ing t alent . Fort unat ely, when generat ions m eet and t he self- select ions occur, we learn m ore about how t o develop leaders and how t alent ed people of different generat ions influence each ot her. While apparent ly dest ined for m ediocre careers, people who form im port ant one- t o- one apprent iceship relat ionships oft en are able t o accelerat e and int ensify t heir developm ent . The psychological readiness of an individual t o benefit from such a relat ionship depends on som e experience in life t hat forces t hat person t o t urn inward. Consider Dwight Eisenhower, whose early career in t he arm y foreshadowed very lit t le about his fut ure developm ent . During World War I , while som e of his West Point classm at es were already experiencing t he war first hand in France, Eisenhower felt “ em bedded in t he m onot ony and unsought safet y of t he Zone of t he I nt erior…t hat was int olerable punishm ent .” 6 Short ly aft er World War I , Eisenhower, t hen a young officer som ewhat pessim ist ic about his career chances, asked for a t ransfer t o Panam a t o work under General Fox Connor, a senior officer whom he adm ired. The arm y t urned down his request . This set back was very m uch on Eisenhower’s m ind when I key, his first born son, succum bed t o influenza. Through som e sense of responsibilit y for it s own, t he arm y t hen t ransferred Eisenhower t o Panam a, where he t ook up his dut ies under General Connor wit h t he shadow of his lost son very m uch upon him . I n a relat ionship wit h t he kind of fat her he would have want ed t o be, Eisenhower revert ed t o being t he son he had lost . And in t his highly charged sit uat ion, he began t o learn from his t eacher. General Connor offered, and Eisenhower gladly t ook, a m agnificent t ut orial on t he m ilit ary. The effect s of t his relat ionship on Eisenhower cannot be m easured quant it at ively, but in exam ining his career pat h from t hat point , one cannot overest im at e it s significance. As Eisenhower wrot e lat er about Connor, “ Life wit h General Connor was a sort of graduat e school in m ilit ary affairs and t he hum anit ies, leavened by a m an who was experienced in his knowledge of m en and t heir conduct . I can never adequat ely express m y grat it ude t o t his one gent lem an…. I n a lifet im e of associat ion wit h great and good m en, he is t he one m ore or less invisible figure t o whom I owe an incalculable debt .” 7 Som e t im e aft er his t our of dut y wit h General Connor, Eisenhower’s breakt hrough occurred. He received orders t o at t end t he Com m and and General St aff School at Fort Leavenwort h, one of t he m ost com pet it ive schools in t he arm y. I t was a covet ed appoint m ent , and Eisenhower t ook advant age of t he opport unit y. Unlike his perform ance in high school and West Point , his work at t he Com m and School was excellent ; he was graduat ed first in his class. Psychological biographies of gift ed people repeat edly dem onst rat e t he im port ant part a t eacher plays in developing an individual. Andrew Carnegie owed m uch t o his senior, Thom as A. Scot t . As head of t he West ern Division of t he Pennsylvania Railroad, Scot t recognized t alent and t he desire t o learn in t he young t elegrapher assigned t o him . By giving Carnegie increasing responsibilit y and by providing him wit h t he opport unit y t o learn t hrough close personal observat ion, Scot t added t o Carnegie’s self- confidence and

sense of achievem ent . Because of his own personal st rengt h and achievem ent , Scot t did not fear Carnegie’s aggressiveness. Rat her, he gave it full play in encouraging Carnegie’s init iat ive. Great t eachers t ake risks. They bet init ially on t alent t hey perceive in younger people. And t hey risk em ot ional involvem ent in working closely wit h t heir j uniors. The risks do not always pay off, but t he willingness t o t ake t hem appears t o be crucial in developing leaders. Ca n Or ga n iza t ion s D e ve lop Le a de r s? A m yt h about how people learn and develop t hat seem s t o have t aken hold in Am erican cult ure also dom inat es t hinking in business. The m yt h is t hat people learn best from t heir peers. Supposedly, t he t hreat of evaluat ion and even hum iliat ion recedes in peer relat ions because of t he t endency for m ut ual ident ificat ion and t he social rest raint s on aut horit arian behavior am ong equals. Peer t raining in organizat ions occurs in various form s. The use, for exam ple, of t ask forces m ade up of peers from several int erest ed occupat ional groups ( sales, product ion, research, and finance) supposedly rem oves t he rest raint s of aut horit y on t he individual’s willingness t o assert and exchange ideas. As a result , so t he t heory goes, people int eract m ore freely, list en m ore obj ect ively t o crit icism and ot her point s of view, and, finally, learn from t his healt hy int erchange. Anot her applicat ion of peer t raining exist s in som e large corporat ions, such as Philips N. V. in Holland, where organizat ional st ruct ure is built on t he principle of j oint responsibilit y of t wo peers, one represent ing t he com m ercial end of t he business and t he ot her t he t echnical. Form ally, bot h hold equal responsibilit y for geographic operat ions or product groups, as t he case m ay be. As a pract ical m at t er, it m ay t urn out t hat one or t he ot her of t he peers dom inat es t he m anagem ent . Nevert heless, t he m ain int eract ion is bet ween t wo or m ore equals.

Le a de r s t e n d t o fe e l se pa r a t e fr om t h e ir e n vir on m e n t . Th e y m a y w or k in or ga n iza t ion s, bu t t h e y n e ve r be lon g to them . The principal quest ion I raise about such arrangem ent s is whet her t hey perpet uat e t he m anagerial orient at ion and preclude t he form at ion of one- t o- one relat ionships bet ween senior people and pot ent ial leaders. Aware of t he possible st ifling effect s of peer relat ionships on aggressiveness and individual init iat ive, anot her com pany, m uch sm aller t han Philips, ut ilizes j oint responsibilit y of peers for operat ing unit s, wit h one im port ant difference. The chief execut ive of t his com pany encourages com pet it ion and rivalry am ong peers, ult im at ely rewarding t he one who com es out on t op wit h increased responsibilit y. These hybrid arrangem ent s produce som e unint ended consequences t hat can be disast rous. There is no easy way t o lim it rivalry. I nst ead, it perm eat es all levels of t he operat ion and opens t he way for t he form at ion of cliques in an at m osphere of int rigue. One large, int egrat ed oil com pany has accept ed t he im port ance of developing leaders t hrough t he direct influence of senior on j unior execut ives. The chairm an and chief execut ive officer regularly select s one t alent ed universit y graduat e whom he appoint s his special assist ant , and wit h whom he will work closely for a year. At t he end of t he year, t he j unior execut ive becom es available for assignm ent t o one of t he operat ing divisions, where he or she will be assigned t o a responsible post rat her t han a t raining posit ion. This apprent iceship acquaint s t he j unior execut ive first hand wit h t he use of power and wit h t he im port ant ant idot es t o t he power disease called hubris—perform ance and

int egrit y. Working in one- t o- one relat ionships, where t here is a form al and recognized difference in t he power of t he players, t akes a great deal of t olerance for em ot ional int erchange. This int erchange, inevit able in close working arrangem ent s, probably account s for t he reluct ance of m any execut ives t o becom e involved in such relat ionships. Fort une carried an int erest ing st ory on t he depart ure of a key execut ive, John W. Hanley, from t he t op m anagem ent of Proct er & Gam ble t o t he chief execut ive officer posit ion at Monsant o. 8 According t o t his account , t he chief execut ive and chairm an of P&G passed over Hanley for appoint m ent t o t he presidency, inst ead nam ing anot her execut ive vice president t o t his post . The chairm an evident ly felt he could not work well wit h Hanley who, by his own acknowledgm ent , was aggressive, eager t o experim ent and change pract ices, and const ant ly challenged his superior. A chief execut ive officer nat urally has t he right t o select people wit h whom he feels congenial. But I wonder whet her a great er capacit y on t he part of senior officers t o t olerat e t he com pet it ive im pulses and behavior of t heir subordinat es m ight not be healt hy for corporat ions. At least a great er t olerance for int erchange would not favor t he m anagerial t eam player at t he expense of t he individual who m ight becom e a leader. I am const ant ly surprised at t he frequency wit h which chief execut ives feel t hreat ened by open challenges t o t heir ideas, as t hough t he source of t heir aut horit y, rat her t han t heir specific ideas, was at issue. I n one case, a chief execut ive officer, who was t roubled by t he aggressiveness and som et im es out right rudeness of one of his t alent ed vice president s, used various indirect m et hods such as group m eet ings and hint s from out side direct ors t o avoid dealing wit h his subordinat e. I advised t he execut ive t o deal head- on wit h what irrit at ed him . I suggest ed t hat by direct , face- t o- face confront at ion, bot h he and his subordinat e would learn t o validat e t he dist inct ion bet ween t he aut horit y t o be preserved and t he issues t o be debat ed. The abilit y t o confront is also t he abilit y t o t olerat e aggressive int erchange. And t hat skill not only has t he net effect of st ripping away t he veils of am biguit y and signaling so charact erist ic of m anagerial cult ures, but also it encourages t he em ot ional relat ionships leaders need if t hey are t o survive.

1. ( HarperCollins, 1973) . 2. Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., My Years wit h General Mot ors ( New York: Doubleday, 1964) . 3. I bid. 4. I bid. 5. I bid. 6. Dwight D. Eisenhower, At Ease: St ories I Tell t o Friends ( New York: Doubleday, 1967) . 7. I bid. 8. “ Jack Hanley Got There by Selling Harder,” Fort une, Novem ber 1976. Reprint Num ber R0401G | HBR OnPoint edit ion 8334 | HBR OnPoint collect ion 5402

Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. This cont ent m ay not be reproduced or t ransm it t ed in any form or by any m eans, elect ronic or m echanical, including phot ocopy, recording, or any inform at ion st orage or ret rieval syst em , wit hout writ t en perm ission. Request s for perm ission should be direct ed t o perm [email protected], 1- 888- 500- 1020, or m ailed t o Perm issions, Harvard Business School Publishing, 60 Harvard Way, Bost on, MA 02163.

Click here t o visit :

View Back Issues | January 2004 > What Makes a Leader?

> | Pu r ch a se Re pr in t > | Pr in t a ble Ve r sion

What Makes a Leader?

> | E- m a il a Colle a gu e > | Ex e cu t ive Su m m a r y

I Q a n d t e ch n ica l sk ills a r e im por t a n t , bu t e m ot ion a l in t e llige n ce is t h e sin e qu a n on of le a de r sh ip.

by D a n ie l Gole m a n

I t was Daniel Golem an who first brought t he t erm “ em ot ional int elligence” t o a wide audience wit h his 1995 book of t hat nam e, and it was Golem an who first applied t he concept t o business wit h his 1998 HBR art icle, reprint ed here. I n his research at nearly 200 large, global com panies, Golem an found t hat while t he qualit ies t radit ionally associat ed wit h leadership—such as int elligence, t oughness, det erm inat ion, and vision— are required for success, t hey are insufficient . Truly effect ive leaders are also dist inguished by a high degree of em ot ional int elligence, which includes self- awareness, self- regulat ion, m ot ivat ion, em pat hy, and social skill. These qualit ies m ay sound “ soft ” and unbusinesslike, but Golem an found direct t ies bet ween em ot ional int elligence and m easurable business result s. While em ot ional int elligence’s relevance t o business has cont inued t o spark debat e over t he past six years, Golem an’s art icle rem ains t he definit ive reference on t he subj ect , wit h a descript ion of each com ponent of em ot ional int elligence and a det ailed discussion of how t o recognize it in pot ent ial leaders, how and why it connect s t o perform ance, and how it can be learned.

Every businessperson knows a st ory about a highly int elligent , highly skilled execut ive who was prom ot ed int o a leadership posit ion only t o fail at t he j ob. And t hey also know a st ory about som eone wit h solid—but not ext raordinary—int ellect ual abilit ies and t echnical skills who was prom ot ed int o a sim ilar posit ion and t hen soared. Such anecdot es support t he widespread belief t hat ident ifying individuals wit h t he “ right st uff” t o be leaders is m ore art t han science. Aft er all, t he personal st yles of superb leaders vary: Som e leaders are subdued and analyt ical; ot hers shout t heir m anifest os from t he m ount aint ops. And j ust as im port ant , different sit uat ions call for different t ypes of leadership. Most m ergers need a sensit ive negot iat or at t he helm , whereas m any t urnarounds require a m ore forceful aut horit y. I have found, however, t hat t he m ost effect ive leaders are alike in one crucial way: They all have a high degree of what has com e t o be known as em ot ional int elligence. I t ’s not t hat I Q and t echnical skills are irrelevant . They do m at t er, but m ainly as “ t hreshold capabilit ies” ; t hat is, t hey are t he ent ry- level requirem ent s for execut ive posit ions. But m y research, along wit h ot her recent st udies, clearly shows t hat em ot ional int elligence is t he sine qua non of leadership. Wit hout it , a person can have t he best t raining in t he world, an incisive, analyt ical m ind, and an endless supply of sm art ideas, but he st ill won’t m ake a great leader. I n t he course of t he past year, m y colleagues and I have focused on how em ot ional int elligence operat es at work. We have exam ined t he relat ionship bet ween em ot ional int elligence and effect ive perform ance, especially in leaders. And we have observed how em ot ional int elligence shows it self on t he j ob. How can you t ell if som eone has high em ot ional int elligence, for exam ple, and how can you recognize it in yourself? I n t he following pages, we’ll explore t hese quest ions, t aking each of t he com ponent s of em ot ional int elligence—self- awareness, self- regulat ion, m ot ivat ion, em pat hy, and social skill—in t urn.

Ca n Em ot ion a l I n t e llige n ce Be Le a r n e d?

D a n ie l Gole m a n is t he aut hor of Em ot ional I nt elligence ( Bant am , 1995) and a coaut hor of Prim al Leadership: Realizing t he Power of Em ot ional I nt elligence ( Harvard Business School, 2002) . He is t he cochairm an of t he Consort ium for Research on Em ot ional I nt elligence in Organizat ions, which is based at Rut gers Universit y’s Graduat e School of Applied and Professional Psychology in Piscat away, New Jersey. He can be reached at D a n ie l. Gole m a n @ve r izon .n e t .

> | H a r va r d Bu sin e ss Re vie w On Poin t Edit ion This art icle is enhanced wit h a sum m ary of key point s t o help you quickly absorb and apply t he concept s and a bibliography t o guide furt her explorat ion.

> | H a r va r d Bu sin e ss Re vie w On Poin t Colle ct ion This art icle is also part of t he specially priced OnPoint collect ion “ Best of HBR on Leadership: Em ot ionally I nt elligent Leadership,” which includes t hree OnPoint art icles wit h an overview com paring different perspect ives on t his t opic.

Eva lu a t in g Em ot ion a l I n t e llige n ce Most large com panies t oday have em ployed t rained psychologist s t o develop what are known as “ com pet ency m odels” t o aid t hem in ident ifying, t raining, and prom ot ing likely st ars in t he leadership firm am ent . The psychologist s have also developed such m odels for lower- level posit ions. And in recent years, I have analyzed com pet ency m odels from 188 com panies, m ost of which were large and global and included t he likes of Lucent Technologies, Brit ish Airways, and Credit Suisse. I n carrying out t his work, m y obj ect ive was t o det erm ine which personal capabilit ies drove out st anding perform ance wit hin t hese organizat ions, and t o what degree t hey did so. I grouped capabilit ies int o t hree cat egories: purely t echnical skills like account ing and business planning; cognit ive abilit ies like analyt ical reasoning; and com pet encies dem onst rat ing em ot ional int elligence, such as t he abilit y t o work wit h ot hers and effect iveness in leading change. To creat e som e of t he com pet ency m odels, psychologist s asked senior m anagers at t he com panies t o ident ify t he capabilit ies t hat t ypified t he organizat ion’s m ost out st anding leaders. To creat e ot her m odels, t he psychologist s used obj ect ive crit eria, such as a division’s profit abilit y, t o different iat e t he st ar perform ers at senior levels wit hin t heir organizat ions from t he average ones. Those individuals were t hen ext ensively int erviewed and t est ed, and t heir capabilit ies were com pared. This process result ed in t he creat ion of list s of ingredient s for highly effect ive leaders. The list s ranged in lengt h from seven t o 15 it em s and included such ingredient s as init iat ive and st rat egic vision. When I analyzed all t his dat a, I found dram at ic result s. To be sure, int ellect was a driver of out st anding perform ance. Cognit ive skills such as big- pict ure t hinking and long- t erm vision were part icularly im port ant . But when I calculat ed t he rat io of t echnical skills, I Q, and em ot ional int elligence as ingredient s of excellent perform ance, em ot ional int elligence proved t o be t wice as im port ant as t he ot hers for j obs at all levels. Moreover, m y analysis showed t hat em ot ional int elligence played an increasingly im port ant role at t he highest levels of t he com pany, where differences in t echnical skills are of negligible im port ance. I n ot her words, t he higher t he rank of a person considered t o be a st ar perform er, t he m ore em ot ional int elligence capabilit ies showed up as t he reason for his or her effect iveness. When I com pared st ar perform ers wit h average ones in senior leadership posit ions, nearly 90% of t he difference in t heir profiles was at t ribut able t o em ot ional int elligence fact ors rat her t han cognit ive abilit ies. Ot her researchers have confirm ed t hat em ot ional int elligence not only dist inguishes out st anding leaders but can also be linked t o st rong perform ance. The findings of t he lat e David McClelland, t he renowned researcher in hum an and organizat ional behavior, are a good exam ple. I n a 1996 st udy of a global food and beverage com pany, McClelland found t hat when senior m anagers had a crit ical m ass of em ot ional int elligence capabilit ies, t heir divisions out perform ed yearly earnings goals by 20% . Meanwhile,

division leaders wit hout t hat crit ical m ass underperform ed by alm ost t he sam e am ount . McClelland’s findings, int erest ingly, held as t rue in t he com pany’s U.S. divisions as in it s divisions in Asia and Europe. I n short , t he num bers are beginning t o t ell us a persuasive st ory about t he link bet ween a com pany’s success and t he em ot ional int elligence of it s leaders. And j ust as im port ant , research is also dem onst rat ing t hat people can, if t hey t ake t he right approach, develop t heir em ot ional int elligence. ( See t he sidebar “ Can Em ot ional I nt elligence Be Learned?” ) Ca n Em ot ion a l I n t e llige n ce Be Le a r n e d? Se lf- Aw a r e n e ss Self- awareness is t he first com ponent of em ot ional int elligence—which m akes sense when one considers t hat t he Delphic oracle gave t he advice t o “ know t hyself” t housands of years ago. Self- awareness m eans having a deep underst anding of one’s em ot ions, st rengt hs, weaknesses, needs, and drives. People wit h st rong self- awareness are neit her overly crit ical nor unrealist ically hopeful. Rat her, t hey are honest —wit h t hem selves and wit h ot hers. People who have a high degree of self- awareness recognize how t heir feelings affect t hem , ot her people, and t heir j ob perform ance. Thus, a self- aware person who knows t hat t ight deadlines bring out t he worst in him plans his t im e carefully and get s his work done well in advance. Anot her person wit h high self- awareness will be able t o work wit h a dem anding client . She will underst and t he client ’s im pact on her m oods and t he deeper reasons for her frust rat ion. “ Their t rivial dem ands t ake us away from t he real work t hat needs t o be done,” she m ight explain. And she will go one st ep furt her and t urn her anger int o som et hing const ruct ive. Self- awareness ext ends t o a person’s underst anding of his or her values and goals. Som eone who is highly self- aware knows where he is headed and why; so, for exam ple, he will be able t o be firm in t urning down a j ob offer t hat is t em pt ing financially but does not fit wit h his principles or long- t erm goals. A person who lacks self- awareness is apt t o m ake decisions t hat bring on inner t urm oil by t reading on buried values. “ The m oney looked good so I signed on,” som eone m ight say t wo years int o a j ob, “ but t he work m eans so lit t le t o m e t hat I ’m const ant ly bored.” The decisions of self- aware people m esh wit h t heir values; consequent ly, t hey oft en find work t o be energizing. How can one recognize self- awareness? First and forem ost , it shows it self as candor and an abilit y t o assess oneself realist ically. People wit h high self- awareness are able t o speak accurat ely and openly—alt hough not necessarily effusively or confessionally— about t heir em ot ions and t he im pact t hey have on t heir work. For inst ance, one m anager I know of was skept ical about a new personal- shopper service t hat her com pany, a m aj or depart m ent - st ore chain, was about t o int roduce. Wit hout prom pt ing from her t eam or her boss, she offered t hem an explanat ion: “ I t ’s hard for m e t o get behind t he rollout of t his service,” she adm it t ed, “ because I really want ed t o run t he proj ect , but I wasn’t select ed. Bear wit h m e while I deal wit h t hat .” The m anager did indeed exam ine her feelings; a week lat er, she was support ing t he proj ect fully. Such self- knowledge oft en shows it self in t he hiring process. Ask a candidat e t o describe a t im e he got carried away by his feelings and did som et hing he lat er regret t ed. Selfaware candidat es will be frank in adm it t ing t o failure—and will oft en t ell t heir t ales wit h a sm ile. One of t he hallm arks of self- awareness is a self- deprecat ing sense of hum or. Self- awareness can also be ident ified during perform ance reviews. Self- aware people know—and are com fort able t alking about —t heir lim it at ions and st rengt hs, and t hey oft en dem onst rat e a t hirst for const ruct ive crit icism . By cont rast , people wit h low selfawareness int erpret t he m essage t hat t hey need t o im prove as a t hreat or a sign of failure. Self- aware people can also be recognized by t heir self- confidence. They have a firm grasp of t heir capabilit ies and are less likely t o set t hem selves up t o fail by, for exam ple, overst ret ching on assignm ent s. They know, t oo, when t o ask for help. And t he risks t hey t ake on t he j ob are calculat ed. They won’t ask for a challenge t hat t hey know t hey can’t handle alone. They’ll play t o t heir st rengt hs. Consider t he act ions of a m idlevel em ployee who was invit ed t o sit in on a st rat egy m eet ing wit h her com pany’s t op execut ives. Alt hough she was t he m ost j unior person in t he room , she did not sit t here quiet ly, list ening in awest ruck or fearful silence. She knew she had a head for clear logic and t he skill t o present ideas persuasively, and she offered cogent suggest ions about t he com pany’s st rat egy. At t he sam e t im e, her self-

awareness st opped her from wandering int o t errit ory where she knew she was weak. Despit e t he value of having self- aware people in t he workplace, m y research indicat es t hat senior execut ives don’t oft en give self- awareness t he credit it deserves when t hey look for pot ent ial leaders. Many execut ives m ist ake candor about feelings for “ wim piness” and fail t o give due respect t o em ployees who openly acknowledge t heir short com ings. Such people are t oo readily dism issed as “ not t ough enough” t o lead ot hers. I n fact , t he opposit e is t rue. I n t he first place, people generally adm ire and respect candor. Furt herm ore, leaders are const ant ly required t o m ake j udgm ent calls t hat require a candid assessm ent of capabilit ies—t heir own and t hose of ot hers. Do we have t he m anagem ent expert ise t o acquire a com pet it or? Can we launch a new product wit hin six m ont hs? People who assess t hem selves honest ly—t hat is, self- aware people—are well suit ed t o do t he sam e for t he organizat ions t hey run. Se lf- Re gu la t ion Biological im pulses drive our em ot ions. We cannot do away wit h t hem —but we can do m uch t o m anage t hem . Self- regulat ion, which is like an ongoing inner conversat ion, is t he com ponent of em ot ional int elligence t hat frees us from being prisoners of our feelings. People engaged in such a conversat ion feel bad m oods and em ot ional im pulses j ust as everyone else does, but t hey find ways t o cont rol t hem and even t o channel t hem in useful ways. I m agine an execut ive who has j ust wat ched a t eam of his em ployees present a bot ched analysis t o t he com pany’s board of direct ors. I n t he gloom t hat follows, t he execut ive m ight find him self t em pt ed t o pound on t he t able in anger or kick over a chair. He could leap up and scream at t he group. Or he m ight m aint ain a grim silence, glaring at everyone before st alking off. But if he had a gift for self- regulat ion, he would choose a different approach. He would pick his words carefully, acknowledging t he t eam ’s poor perform ance wit hout rushing t o any hast y j udgm ent . He would t hen st ep back t o consider t he reasons for t he failure. Are t hey personal—a lack of effort ? Are t here any m it igat ing fact ors? What was his role in t he debacle? Aft er considering t hese quest ions, he would call t he t eam t oget her, lay out t he incident ’s consequences, and offer his feelings about it . He would t hen present his analysis of t he problem and a well- considered solut ion. Why does self- regulat ion m at t er so m uch for leaders? First of all, people who are in cont rol of t heir feelings and im pulses—t hat is, people who are reasonable—are able t o creat e an environm ent of t rust and fairness. I n such an environm ent , polit ics and infight ing are sharply reduced and product ivit y is high. Talent ed people flock t o t he organizat ion and aren’t t em pt ed t o leave. And self- regulat ion has a t rickle- down effect . No one want s t o be known as a hot head when t he boss is known for her calm approach. Fewer bad m oods at t he t op m ean fewer t hroughout t he organizat ion. Second, self- regulat ion is im port ant for com pet it ive reasons. Everyone knows t hat business t oday is rife wit h am biguit y and change. Com panies m erge and break apart regularly. Technology t ransform s work at a dizzying pace. People who have m ast ered t heir em ot ions are able t o roll wit h t he changes. When a new program is announced, t hey don’t panic; inst ead, t hey are able t o suspend j udgm ent , seek out inform at ion, and list en t o t he execut ives as t hey explain t he new program . As t he init iat ive m oves forward, t hese people are able t o m ove wit h it . Som et im es t hey even lead t he way. Consider t he case of a m anager at a large m anufact uring com pany. Like her colleagues, she had used a cert ain soft ware program for five years. The program drove how she collect ed and report ed dat a and how she t hought about t he com pany’s st rat egy. One day, senior execut ives announced t hat a new program was t o be inst alled t hat would radically change how inform at ion was gat hered and assessed wit hin t he organizat ion. While m any people in t he com pany com plained bit t erly about how disrupt ive t he change would be, t he m anager m ulled over t he reasons for t he new program and was convinced of it s pot ent ial t o im prove perform ance. She eagerly at t ended t raining sessions—som e of her colleagues refused t o do so—and was event ually prom ot ed t o run several divisions, in part because she used t he new t echnology so effect ively. I want t o push t he im port ance of self- regulat ion t o leadership even furt her and m ake t he case t hat it enhances int egrit y, which is not only a personal virt ue but also an organizat ional st rengt h. Many of t he bad t hings t hat happen in com panies are a funct ion of im pulsive behavior. People rarely plan t o exaggerat e profit s, pad expense account s,

dip int o t he t ill, or abuse power for selfish ends. I nst ead, an opport unit y present s it self, and people wit h low im pulse cont rol j ust say yes. By cont rast , consider t he behavior of t he senior execut ive at a large food com pany. The execut ive was scrupulously honest in his negot iat ions wit h local dist ribut ors. He would rout inely lay out his cost st ruct ure in det ail, t hereby giving t he dist ribut ors a realist ic underst anding of t he com pany’s pricing. This approach m eant t he execut ive couldn’t always drive a hard bargain. Now, on occasion, he felt t he urge t o increase profit s by wit hholding inform at ion about t he com pany’s cost s. But he challenged t hat im pulse—he saw t hat it m ade m ore sense in t he long run t o count eract it . His em ot ional selfregulat ion paid off in st rong, last ing relat ionships wit h dist ribut ors t hat benefit ed t he com pany m ore t han any short - t erm financial gains would have. The signs of em ot ional self- regulat ion, t herefore, are easy t o see: a propensit y for reflect ion and t hought fulness; com fort wit h am biguit y and change; and int egrit y—an abilit y t o say no t o im pulsive urges. Like self- awareness, self- regulat ion oft en does not get it s due. People who can m ast er t heir em ot ions are som et im es seen as cold fish—t heir considered responses are t aken as a lack of passion. People wit h fiery t em peram ent s are frequent ly t hought of as “ classic” leaders—t heir out burst s are considered hallm arks of charism a and power. But when such people m ake it t o t he t op, t heir im pulsiveness oft en works against t hem . I n m y research, ext rem e displays of negat ive em ot ion have never em erged as a driver of good leadership. M ot iva t ion I f t here is one t rait t hat virt ually all effect ive leaders have, it is m ot ivat ion. They are driven t o achieve beyond expect at ions—t heir own and everyone else’s. The key word here is achieve. Plent y of people are m ot ivat ed by ext ernal fact ors, such as a big salary or t he st at us t hat com es from having an im pressive t it le or being part of a prest igious com pany. By cont rast , t hose wit h leadership pot ent ial are m ot ivat ed by a deeply em bedded desire t o achieve for t he sake of achievem ent . I f you are looking for leaders, how can you ident ify people who are m ot ivat ed by t he drive t o achieve rat her t han by ext ernal rewards? The first sign is a passion for t he work it self—such people seek out creat ive challenges, love t o learn, and t ake great pride in a j ob well done. They also display an unflagging energy t o do t hings bet t er. People wit h such energy oft en seem rest less wit h t he st at us quo. They are persist ent wit h t heir quest ions about why t hings are done one way rat her t han anot her; t hey are eager t o explore new approaches t o t heir work. A cosm et ics com pany m anager, for exam ple, was frust rat ed t hat he had t o wait t wo weeks t o get sales result s from people in t he field. He finally t racked down an aut om at ed phone syst em t hat would beep each of his salespeople at 5 pm every day. An aut om at ed m essage t hen prom pt ed t hem t o punch in t heir num bers—how m any calls and sales t hey had m ade t hat day. The syst em short ened t he feedback t im e on sales result s from weeks t o hours. That st ory illust rat es t wo ot her com m on t rait s of people who are driven t o achieve. They are forever raising t he perform ance bar, and t hey like t o keep score. Take t he perform ance bar first . During perform ance reviews, people wit h high levels of m ot ivat ion m ight ask t o be “ st ret ched” by t heir superiors. Of course, an em ployee who com bines self- awareness wit h int ernal m ot ivat ion will recognize her lim it s—but she won’t set t le for obj ect ives t hat seem t oo easy t o fulfill. And it follows nat urally t hat people who are driven t o do bet t er also want a way of t racking progress—t heir own, t heir t eam ’s, and t heir com pany’s. Whereas people wit h low achievem ent m ot ivat ion are oft en fuzzy about result s, t hose wit h high achievem ent m ot ivat ion oft en keep score by t racking such hard m easures as profit abilit y or m arket share. I know of a m oney m anager who st art s and ends his day on t he I nt ernet , gauging t he perform ance of his st ock fund against four indust ry- set benchm arks. I nt erest ingly, people wit h high m ot ivat ion rem ain opt im ist ic even when t he score is against t hem . I n such cases, self- regulat ion com bines wit h achievem ent m ot ivat ion t o overcom e t he frust rat ion and depression t hat com e aft er a set back or failure. Take t he case of an anot her port folio m anager at a large invest m ent com pany. Aft er several successful years, her fund t um bled for t hree consecut ive quart ers, leading t hree large inst it ut ional client s t o shift t heir business elsewhere. Som e execut ives would have blam ed t he nosedive on circum st ances out side t heir

cont rol; ot hers m ight have seen t he set back as evidence of personal failure. This port folio m anager, however, saw an opport unit y t o prove she could lead a t urnaround. Two years lat er, when she was prom ot ed t o a very senior level in t he com pany, she described t he experience as “ t he best t hing t hat ever happened t o m e; I learned so m uch from it .” Execut ives t rying t o recognize high levels of achievem ent m ot ivat ion in t heir people can look for one last piece of evidence: com m it m ent t o t he organizat ion. When people love t heir j obs for t he work it self, t hey oft en feel com m it t ed t o t he organizat ions t hat m ake t hat work possible. Com m it t ed em ployees are likely t o st ay wit h an organizat ion even when t hey are pursued by headhunt ers waving m oney. I t ’s not difficult t o underst and how and why a m ot ivat ion t o achieve t ranslat es int o st rong leadership. I f you set t he perform ance bar high for yourself, you will do t he sam e for t he organizat ion when you are in a posit ion t o do so. Likewise, a drive t o surpass goals and an int erest in keeping score can be cont agious. Leaders wit h t hese t rait s can oft en build a t eam of m anagers around t hem wit h t he sam e t rait s. And of course, opt im ism and organizat ional com m it m ent are fundam ent al t o leadership—j ust t ry t o im agine running a com pany wit hout t hem . Em pa t h y Of all t he dim ensions of em ot ional int elligence, em pat hy is t he m ost easily recognized. We have all felt t he em pat hy of a sensit ive t eacher or friend; we have all been st ruck by it s absence in an unfeeling coach or boss. But when it com es t o business, we rarely hear people praised, let alone rewarded, for t heir em pat hy. The very word seem s unbusinesslike, out of place am id t he t ough realit ies of t he m arket place. But em pat hy doesn’t m ean a kind of “ I ’m OK, you’re OK” m ushiness. For a leader, t hat is, it doesn’t m ean adopt ing ot her people’s em ot ions as one’s own and t rying t o please everybody. That would be a night m are—it would m ake act ion im possible. Rat her, em pat hy m eans t hought fully considering em ployees’ feelings—along wit h ot her fact ors— in t he process of m aking int elligent decisions. For an exam ple of em pat hy in act ion, consider what happened when t wo giant brokerage com panies m erged, creat ing redundant j obs in all t heir divisions. One division m anager called his people t oget her and gave a gloom y speech t hat em phasized t he num ber of people who would soon be fired. The m anager of anot her division gave his people a different kind of speech. He was up- front about his own worry and confusion, and he prom ised t o keep people inform ed and t o t reat everyone fairly. The difference bet ween t hese t wo m anagers was em pat hy. The first m anager was t oo worried about his own fat e t o consider t he feelings of his anxiet y- st ricken colleagues. The second knew int uit ively what his people were feeling, and he acknowledged t heir fears wit h his words. I s it any surprise t hat t he first m anager saw his division sink as m any dem oralized people, especially t he m ost t alent ed, depart ed? By cont rast , t he second m anager cont inued t o be a st rong leader, his best people st ayed, and his division rem ained as product ive as ever. Em pat hy is part icularly im port ant t oday as a com ponent of leadership for at least t hree reasons: t he increasing use of t eam s; t he rapid pace of globalizat ion; and t he growing need t o ret ain t alent . Consider t he challenge of leading a t eam . As anyone who has ever been a part of one can at t est , t eam s are cauldrons of bubbling em ot ions. They are oft en charged wit h reaching a consensus—which is hard enough wit h t wo people and m uch m ore difficult as t he num bers increase. Even in groups wit h as few as four or five m em bers, alliances form and clashing agendas get set . A t eam ’s leader m ust be able t o sense and underst and t he viewpoint s of everyone around t he t able. That ’s exact ly what a m arket ing m anager at a large inform at ion t echnology com pany was able t o do when she was appoint ed t o lead a t roubled t eam . The group was in t urm oil, overloaded by work and m issing deadlines. Tensions were high am ong t he m em bers. Tinkering wit h procedures was not enough t o bring t he group t oget her and m ake it an effect ive part of t he com pany. So t he m anager t ook several st eps. I n a series of one- on- one sessions, she t ook t he t im e t o list en t o everyone in t he group—what was frust rat ing t hem , how t hey rat ed t heir colleagues, whet her t hey felt t hey had been ignored. And t hen she direct ed t he t eam in a way t hat brought it t oget her: She encouraged people t o speak m ore openly about t heir frust rat ions, and she helped people raise const ruct ive com plaint s during m eet ings. I n

short , her em pat hy allowed her t o underst and her t eam ’s em ot ional m akeup. The result was not j ust height ened collaborat ion am ong m em bers but also added business, as t he t eam was called on for help by a wider range of int ernal client s. Globalizat ion is anot her reason for t he rising im port ance of em pat hy for business leaders. Cross- cult ural dialogue can easily lead t o m iscues and m isunderst andings. Em pat hy is an ant idot e. People who have it are at t uned t o subt let ies in body language; t hey can hear t he m essage beneat h t he words being spoken. Beyond t hat , t hey have a deep underst anding of bot h t he exist ence and t he im port ance of cult ural and et hnic differences. Consider t he case of an Am erican consult ant whose t eam had j ust pit ched a proj ect t o a pot ent ial Japanese client . I n it s dealings wit h Am ericans, t he t eam was accust om ed t o being bom barded wit h quest ions aft er such a proposal, but t his t im e it was greet ed wit h a long silence. Ot her m em bers of t he t eam , t aking t he silence as disapproval, were ready t o pack and leave. The lead consult ant gest ured t hem t o st op. Alt hough he was not part icularly fam iliar wit h Japanese cult ure, he read t he client ’s face and post ure and sensed not rej ect ion but int erest —even deep considerat ion. He was right : When t he client finally spoke, it was t o give t he consult ing firm t he j ob. Finally, em pat hy plays a key role in t he ret ent ion of t alent , part icularly in t oday’s inform at ion econom y. Leaders have always needed em pat hy t o develop and keep good people, but t oday t he st akes are higher. When good people leave, t hey t ake t he com pany’s knowledge wit h t hem . That ’s where coaching and m ent oring com e in. I t has repeat edly been shown t hat coaching and m ent oring pay off not j ust in bet t er perform ance but also in increased j ob sat isfact ion and decreased t urnover. But what m akes coaching and m ent oring work best is t he nat ure of t he relat ionship. Out st anding coaches and m ent ors get inside t he heads of t he people t hey are helping. They sense how t o give effect ive feedback. They know when t o push for bet t er perform ance and when t o hold back. I n t he way t hey m ot ivat e t heir prot égés, t hey dem onst rat e em pat hy in act ion. I n what is probably sounding like a refrain, let m e repeat t hat em pat hy doesn’t get m uch respect in business. People wonder how leaders can m ake hard decisions if t hey are “ feeling” for all t he people who will be affect ed. But leaders wit h em pat hy do m ore t han sym pat hize wit h people around t hem : They use t heir knowledge t o im prove t heir com panies in subt le but im port ant ways. Socia l Sk ill The first t hree com ponent s of em ot ional int elligence are self- m anagem ent skills. The last t wo, em pat hy and social skill, concern a person’s abilit y t o m anage relat ionships wit h ot hers. As a com ponent of em ot ional int elligence, social skill is not as sim ple as it sounds. I t ’s not j ust a m at t er of friendliness, alt hough people wit h high levels of social skill are rarely m ean- spirit ed. Social skill, rat her, is friendliness wit h a purpose: m oving people in t he direct ion you desire, whet her t hat ’s agreem ent on a new m arket ing st rat egy or ent husiasm about a new product . Socially skilled people t end t o have a wide circle of acquaint ances, and t hey have a knack for finding com m on ground wit h people of all kinds—a knack for building rapport . That doesn’t m ean t hey socialize cont inually; it m eans t hey work according t o t he assum pt ion t hat not hing im port ant get s done alone. Such people have a net work in place when t he t im e for act ion com es. Social skill is t he culm inat ion of t he ot her dim ensions of em ot ional int elligence. People t end t o be very effect ive at m anaging relat ionships when t hey can underst and and cont rol t heir own em ot ions and can em pat hize wit h t he feelings of ot hers. Even m ot ivat ion cont ribut es t o social skill. Rem em ber t hat people who are driven t o achieve t end t o be opt im ist ic, even in t he face of set backs or failure. When people are upbeat , t heir “ glow” is cast upon conversat ions and ot her social encount ers. They are popular, and for good reason. Because it is t he out com e of t he ot her dim ensions of em ot ional int elligence, social skill is recognizable on t he j ob in m any ways t hat will by now sound fam iliar. Socially skilled people, for inst ance, are adept at m anaging t eam s—t hat ’s t heir em pat hy at work. Likewise, t hey are expert persuaders—a m anifest at ion of self- awareness, self- regulat ion, and em pat hy com bined. Given t hose skills, good persuaders know when t o m ake an em ot ional plea, for inst ance, and when an appeal t o reason will work bet t er. And m ot ivat ion, when publicly visible, m akes such people excellent collaborat ors; t heir passion for t he work spreads t o ot hers, and t hey are driven t o find solut ions.

But som et im es social skill shows it self in ways t he ot her em ot ional int elligence com ponent s do not . For inst ance, socially skilled people m ay at t im es appear not t o be working while at work. They seem t o be idly schm oozing—chat t ing in t he hallways wit h colleagues or j oking around wit h people who are not even connect ed t o t heir “ real” j obs. Socially skilled people, however, don’t t hink it m akes sense t o arbit rarily lim it t he scope of t heir relat ionships. They build bonds widely because t hey know t hat in t hese fluid t im es, t hey m ay need help som eday from people t hey are j ust get t ing t o know t oday. For exam ple, consider t he case of an execut ive in t he st rat egy depart m ent of a global com put er m anufact urer. By 1993, he was convinced t hat t he com pany’s fut ure lay wit h t he I nt ernet . Over t he course of t he next year, he found kindred spirit s and used his social skill t o st it ch t oget her a virt ual com m unit y t hat cut across levels, divisions, and nat ions. He t hen used t his de fact o t eam t o put up a corporat e Web sit e, am ong t he first by a m aj or com pany. And, on his own init iat ive, wit h no budget or form al st at us, he signed up t he com pany t o part icipat e in an annual I nt ernet indust ry convent ion. Calling on his allies and persuading various divisions t o donat e funds, he recruit ed m ore t han 50 people from a dozen different unit s t o represent t he com pany at t he convent ion. Managem ent t ook not ice: Wit hin a year of t he conference, t he execut ive’s t eam form ed t he basis for t he com pany’s first I nt ernet division, and he was form ally put in charge of it . To get t here, t he execut ive had ignored convent ional boundaries, forging and m aint aining connect ions wit h people in every corner of t he organizat ion. I s social skill considered a key leadership capabilit y in m ost com panies? The answer is yes, especially when com pared wit h t he ot her com ponent s of em ot ional int elligence. People seem t o know int uit ively t hat leaders need t o m anage relat ionships effect ively; no leader is an island. Aft er all, t he leader’s t ask is t o get work done t hrough ot her people, and social skill m akes t hat possible. A leader who cannot express her em pat hy m ay as well not have it at all. And a leader’s m ot ivat ion will be useless if he cannot com m unicat e his passion t o t he organizat ion. Social skill allows leaders t o put t heir em ot ional int elligence t o work. I t would be foolish t o assert t hat good- old- fashioned I Q and t echnical abilit y are not im port ant ingredient s in st rong leadership. But t he recipe would not be com plet e wit hout em ot ional int elligence. I t was once t hought t hat t he com ponent s of em ot ional int elligence were “ nice t o have” in business leaders. But now we know t hat , for t he sake of perform ance, t hese are ingredient s t hat leaders “ need t o have.”

> | Ex e cu t ive Su m m a r y > | Pu r ch a se Re pr in t

I t is fort unat e, t hen, t hat em ot ional int elligence can be learned. The process is not easy. I t t akes t im e and, m ost of all, com m it m ent . But t he benefit s t hat com e from having a well- developed em ot ional int elligence, bot h for t he individual and for t he organizat ion, m ake it wort h t he effort .

> | Pr in t a ble Ve r sion > | E- m a il a Colle a gu e

Reprint Num ber R0401H | Harvard Business Review OnPoint edit ion 3790 | Harvard Business Review OnPoint collect ion 8156

View Back Issues Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. All right s reserved.

Click here t o visit : > | ht t p: / / www.hbsp.org

What Makes a Leader? I Q a n d t e ch n ica l sk ills a r e im por t a n t , bu t e m ot ion a l in t e llige n ce is t h e sin e qu a n on of le a de r sh ip.

by D a n ie l Gole m a n D a n ie l Gole m a n is t he aut hor of Em ot ional I nt elligence ( Bant am , 1995) and a coaut hor of Prim al Leadership: Realizing t he Power of Em ot ional I nt elligence ( Harvard Business School, 2002) . He is t he cochairm an of t he Consort ium for Research on Em ot ional I nt elligence in Organizat ions, which is based at Rut gers Universit y’s Graduat e School of Applied and Professional Psychology in Piscat away, New Jersey. He can be reached at D a n ie l.Gole m a n @ve r izon .n e t .

I t was Daniel Golem an who first brought t he t erm “ em ot ional int elligence” t o a wide audience wit h his 1995 book of t hat nam e, and it was Golem an who first applied t he concept t o business wit h his 1998 HBR art icle, reprint ed here. I n his research at nearly 200 large, global com panies, Golem an found t hat while t he qualit ies t radit ionally associat ed wit h leadership—such as int elligence, t oughness, det erm inat ion, and vision— are required for success, t hey are insufficient . Truly effect ive leaders are also dist inguished by a high degree of em ot ional int elligence, which includes self- awareness, self- regulat ion, m ot ivat ion, em pat hy, and social skill. These qualit ies m ay sound “ soft ” and unbusinesslike, but Golem an found direct t ies bet ween em ot ional int elligence and m easurable business result s. While em ot ional int elligence’s relevance t o business has cont inued t o spark debat e over t he past six years, Golem an’s art icle rem ains t he definit ive reference on t he subj ect , wit h a descript ion of each com ponent of em ot ional int elligence and a det ailed discussion of how t o recognize it in pot ent ial leaders, how and why it connect s t o perform ance, and how it can be learned.

Every businessperson knows a st ory about a highly int elligent , highly skilled execut ive who was prom ot ed int o a leadership posit ion only t o fail at t he j ob. And t hey also know a st ory about som eone wit h solid—but not ext raordinary—int ellect ual abilit ies and t echnical skills who was prom ot ed int o a sim ilar posit ion and t hen soared. Such anecdot es support t he widespread belief t hat ident ifying individuals wit h t he “ right st uff” t o be leaders is m ore art t han science. Aft er all, t he personal st yles of superb leaders vary: Som e leaders are subdued and analyt ical; ot hers shout t heir m anifest os from t he m ount aint ops. And j ust as im port ant , different sit uat ions call for different t ypes of leadership. Most m ergers need a sensit ive negot iat or at t he helm , whereas m any t urnarounds require a m ore forceful aut horit y. I have found, however, t hat t he m ost effect ive leaders are alike in one crucial way: They all have a high degree of what has com e t o be known as em ot ional int elligence. I t ’s not

t hat I Q and t echnical skills are irrelevant . They do m at t er, but m ainly as “ t hreshold capabilit ies” ; t hat is, t hey are t he ent ry- level requirem ent s for execut ive posit ions. But m y research, along wit h ot her recent st udies, clearly shows t hat em ot ional int elligence is t he sine qua non of leadership. Wit hout it , a person can have t he best t raining in t he world, an incisive, analyt ical m ind, and an endless supply of sm art ideas, but he st ill won’t m ake a great leader. I n t he course of t he past year, m y colleagues and I have focused on how em ot ional int elligence operat es at work. We have exam ined t he relat ionship bet ween em ot ional int elligence and effect ive perform ance, especially in leaders. And we have observed how em ot ional int elligence shows it self on t he j ob. How can you t ell if som eone has high em ot ional int elligence, for exam ple, and how can you recognize it in yourself? I n t he following pages, we’ll explore t hese quest ions, t aking each of t he com ponent s of em ot ional int elligence—self- awareness, self- regulat ion, m ot ivat ion, em pat hy, and social skill—in t urn.

Eva lu a t in g Em ot ion a l I n t e llige n ce Most large com panies t oday have em ployed t rained psychologist s t o develop what are known as “ com pet ency m odels” t o aid t hem in ident ifying, t raining, and prom ot ing likely st ars in t he leadership firm am ent . The psychologist s have also developed such m odels for lower- level posit ions. And in recent years, I have analyzed com pet ency m odels from 188 com panies, m ost of which were large and global and included t he likes of Lucent Technologies, Brit ish Airways, and Credit Suisse. I n carrying out t his work, m y obj ect ive was t o det erm ine which personal capabilit ies drove out st anding perform ance wit hin t hese organizat ions, and t o what degree t hey did so. I grouped capabilit ies int o t hree cat egories: purely t echnical skills like account ing and business planning; cognit ive abilit ies like analyt ical reasoning; and com pet encies dem onst rat ing em ot ional int elligence, such as t he abilit y t o work wit h ot hers and

effect iveness in leading change. To creat e som e of t he com pet ency m odels, psychologist s asked senior m anagers at t he com panies t o ident ify t he capabilit ies t hat t ypified t he organizat ion’s m ost out st anding leaders. To creat e ot her m odels, t he psychologist s used obj ect ive crit eria, such as a division’s profit abilit y, t o different iat e t he st ar perform ers at senior levels wit hin t heir organizat ions from t he average ones. Those individuals were t hen ext ensively int erviewed and t est ed, and t heir capabilit ies were com pared. This process result ed in t he creat ion of list s of ingredient s for highly effect ive leaders. The list s ranged in lengt h from seven t o 15 it em s and included such ingredient s as init iat ive and st rat egic vision. When I analyzed all t his dat a, I found dram at ic result s. To be sure, int ellect was a driver of out st anding perform ance. Cognit ive skills such as big- pict ure t hinking and long- t erm vision were part icularly im port ant . But when I calculat ed t he rat io of t echnical skills, I Q, and em ot ional int elligence as ingredient s of excellent perform ance, em ot ional int elligence proved t o be t wice as im port ant as t he ot hers for j obs at all levels. Moreover, m y analysis showed t hat em ot ional int elligence played an increasingly im port ant role at t he highest levels of t he com pany, where differences in t echnical skills are of negligible im port ance. I n ot her words, t he higher t he rank of a person considered t o be a st ar perform er, t he m ore em ot ional int elligence capabilit ies showed up as t he reason for his or her effect iveness. When I com pared st ar perform ers wit h average ones in senior leadership posit ions, nearly 90% of t he difference in t heir profiles was at t ribut able t o em ot ional int elligence fact ors rat her t han cognit ive abilit ies. Ot her researchers have confirm ed t hat em ot ional int elligence not only dist inguishes out st anding leaders but can also be linked t o st rong perform ance. The findings of t he lat e David McClelland, t he renowned researcher in hum an and organizat ional behavior, are a good exam ple. I n a 1996 st udy of a global food and beverage com pany, McClelland found t hat when senior m anagers had a crit ical m ass of em ot ional int elligence capabilit ies, t heir divisions out perform ed yearly earnings goals by 20% . Meanwhile, division leaders wit hout t hat crit ical m ass underperform ed by alm ost t he sam e am ount . McClelland’s findings, int erest ingly, held as t rue in t he com pany’s U.S. divisions as in it s divisions in Asia and Europe. I n short , t he num bers are beginning t o t ell us a persuasive st ory about t he link bet ween a com pany’s success and t he em ot ional int elligence of it s leaders. And j ust as im port ant , research is also dem onst rat ing t hat people can, if t hey t ake t he right approach, develop t heir em ot ional int elligence. ( See t he sidebar “ Can Em ot ional I nt elligence Be Learned?” ) Ca n Em ot ion a l I n t e llige n ce Be Le a r n e d? Sidebar R0 4 0 1 H _ A (Locat ed at t he end of t his art icle)

Se lf- Aw a r e n e ss Self- awareness is t he first com ponent of em ot ional int elligence—which m akes sense when one considers t hat t he Delphic oracle gave t he advice t o “ know t hyself” t housands of years ago. Self- awareness m eans having a deep underst anding of one’s em ot ions, st rengt hs, weaknesses, needs, and drives. People wit h st rong self- awareness are neit her overly crit ical nor unrealist ically hopeful. Rat her, t hey are honest —wit h t hem selves and wit h ot hers. People who have a high degree of self- awareness recognize how t heir feelings affect t hem , ot her people, and t heir j ob perform ance. Thus, a self- aware person who knows

t hat t ight deadlines bring out t he worst in him plans his t im e carefully and get s his work done well in advance. Anot her person wit h high self- awareness will be able t o work wit h a dem anding client . She will underst and t he client ’s im pact on her m oods and t he deeper reasons for her frust rat ion. “ Their t rivial dem ands t ake us away from t he real work t hat needs t o be done,” she m ight explain. And she will go one st ep furt her and t urn her anger int o som et hing const ruct ive. Self- awareness ext ends t o a person’s underst anding of his or her values and goals. Som eone who is highly self- aware knows where he is headed and why; so, for exam ple, he will be able t o be firm in t urning down a j ob offer t hat is t em pt ing financially but does not fit wit h his principles or long- t erm goals. A person who lacks self- awareness is apt t o m ake decisions t hat bring on inner t urm oil by t reading on buried values. “ The m oney looked good so I signed on,” som eone m ight say t wo years int o a j ob, “ but t he work m eans so lit t le t o m e t hat I ’m const ant ly bored.” The decisions of self- aware people m esh wit h t heir values; consequent ly, t hey oft en find work t o be energizing. How can one recognize self- awareness? First and forem ost , it shows it self as candor and an abilit y t o assess oneself realist ically. People wit h high self- awareness are able t o speak accurat ely and openly—alt hough not necessarily effusively or confessionally— about t heir em ot ions and t he im pact t hey have on t heir work. For inst ance, one m anager I know of was skept ical about a new personal- shopper service t hat her com pany, a m aj or depart m ent - st ore chain, was about t o int roduce. Wit hout prom pt ing from her t eam or her boss, she offered t hem an explanat ion: “ I t ’s hard for m e t o get behind t he rollout of t his service,” she adm it t ed, “ because I really want ed t o run t he proj ect , but I wasn’t select ed. Bear wit h m e while I deal wit h t hat .” The m anager did indeed exam ine her feelings; a week lat er, she was support ing t he proj ect fully. Such self- knowledge oft en shows it self in t he hiring process. Ask a candidat e t o describe a t im e he got carried away by his feelings and did som et hing he lat er regret t ed. Selfaware candidat es will be frank in adm it t ing t o failure—and will oft en t ell t heir t ales wit h a sm ile. One of t he hallm arks of self- awareness is a self- deprecat ing sense of hum or. Self- awareness can also be ident ified during perform ance reviews. Self- aware people know—and are com fort able t alking about —t heir lim it at ions and st rengt hs, and t hey oft en dem onst rat e a t hirst for const ruct ive crit icism . By cont rast , people wit h low selfawareness int erpret t he m essage t hat t hey need t o im prove as a t hreat or a sign of failure. Self- aware people can also be recognized by t heir self- confidence. They have a firm grasp of t heir capabilit ies and are less likely t o set t hem selves up t o fail by, for exam ple, overst ret ching on assignm ent s. They know, t oo, when t o ask for help. And t he risks t hey t ake on t he j ob are calculat ed. They won’t ask for a challenge t hat t hey know t hey can’t handle alone. They’ll play t o t heir st rengt hs. Consider t he act ions of a m idlevel em ployee who was invit ed t o sit in on a st rat egy m eet ing wit h her com pany’s t op execut ives. Alt hough she was t he m ost j unior person in t he room , she did not sit t here quiet ly, list ening in awest ruck or fearful silence. She knew she had a head for clear logic and t he skill t o present ideas persuasively, and she offered cogent suggest ions about t he com pany’s st rat egy. At t he sam e t im e, her selfawareness st opped her from wandering int o t errit ory where she knew she was weak. Despit e t he value of having self- aware people in t he workplace, m y research indicat es t hat senior execut ives don’t oft en give self- awareness t he credit it deserves when t hey look for pot ent ial leaders. Many execut ives m ist ake candor about feelings for “ wim piness” and fail t o give due respect t o em ployees who openly acknowledge t heir short com ings. Such people are t oo readily dism issed as “ not t ough enough” t o lead

ot hers. I n fact , t he opposit e is t rue. I n t he first place, people generally adm ire and respect candor. Furt herm ore, leaders are const ant ly required t o m ake j udgm ent calls t hat require a candid assessm ent of capabilit ies—t heir own and t hose of ot hers. Do we have t he m anagem ent expert ise t o acquire a com pet it or? Can we launch a new product wit hin six m ont hs? People who assess t hem selves honest ly—t hat is, self- aware people—are well suit ed t o do t he sam e for t he organizat ions t hey run. Se lf- Re gu la t ion Biological im pulses drive our em ot ions. We cannot do away wit h t hem —but we can do m uch t o m anage t hem . Self- regulat ion, which is like an ongoing inner conversat ion, is t he com ponent of em ot ional int elligence t hat frees us from being prisoners of our feelings. People engaged in such a conversat ion feel bad m oods and em ot ional im pulses j ust as everyone else does, but t hey find ways t o cont rol t hem and even t o channel t hem in useful ways. I m agine an execut ive who has j ust wat ched a t eam of his em ployees present a bot ched analysis t o t he com pany’s board of direct ors. I n t he gloom t hat follows, t he execut ive m ight find him self t em pt ed t o pound on t he t able in anger or kick over a chair. He could leap up and scream at t he group. Or he m ight m aint ain a grim silence, glaring at everyone before st alking off. But if he had a gift for self- regulat ion, he would choose a different approach. He would pick his words carefully, acknowledging t he t eam ’s poor perform ance wit hout rushing t o any hast y j udgm ent . He would t hen st ep back t o consider t he reasons for t he failure. Are t hey personal—a lack of effort ? Are t here any m it igat ing fact ors? What was his role in t he debacle? Aft er considering t hese quest ions, he would call t he t eam t oget her, lay out t he incident ’s consequences, and offer his feelings about it . He would t hen present his analysis of t he problem and a well- considered solut ion. Why does self- regulat ion m at t er so m uch for leaders? First of all, people who are in cont rol of t heir feelings and im pulses—t hat is, people who are reasonable—are able t o creat e an environm ent of t rust and fairness. I n such an environm ent , polit ics and infight ing are sharply reduced and product ivit y is high. Talent ed people flock t o t he organizat ion and aren’t t em pt ed t o leave. And self- regulat ion has a t rickle- down effect . No one want s t o be known as a hot head when t he boss is known for her calm approach. Fewer bad m oods at t he t op m ean fewer t hroughout t he organizat ion. Second, self- regulat ion is im port ant for com pet it ive reasons. Everyone knows t hat business t oday is rife wit h am biguit y and change. Com panies m erge and break apart regularly. Technology t ransform s work at a dizzying pace. People who have m ast ered t heir em ot ions are able t o roll wit h t he changes. When a new program is announced, t hey don’t panic; inst ead, t hey are able t o suspend j udgm ent , seek out inform at ion, and list en t o t he execut ives as t hey explain t he new program . As t he init iat ive m oves forward, t hese people are able t o m ove wit h it . Som et im es t hey even lead t he way. Consider t he case of a m anager at a large m anufact uring com pany. Like her colleagues, she had used a cert ain soft ware program for five years. The program drove how she collect ed and report ed dat a and how she t hought about t he com pany’s st rat egy. One day, senior execut ives announced t hat a new program was t o be inst alled t hat would radically change how inform at ion was gat hered and assessed wit hin t he organizat ion. While m any people in t he com pany com plained bit t erly about how disrupt ive t he change would be, t he m anager m ulled over t he reasons for t he new program and was convinced of it s pot ent ial t o im prove

perform ance. She eagerly at t ended t raining sessions—som e of her colleagues refused t o do so—and was event ually prom ot ed t o run several divisions, in part because she used t he new t echnology so effect ively. I want t o push t he im port ance of self- regulat ion t o leadership even furt her and m ake t he case t hat it enhances int egrit y, which is not only a personal virt ue but also an organizat ional st rengt h. Many of t he bad t hings t hat happen in com panies are a funct ion of im pulsive behavior. People rarely plan t o exaggerat e profit s, pad expense account s, dip int o t he t ill, or abuse power for selfish ends. I nst ead, an opport unit y present s it self, and people wit h low im pulse cont rol j ust say yes. By cont rast , consider t he behavior of t he senior execut ive at a large food com pany. The execut ive was scrupulously honest in his negot iat ions wit h local dist ribut ors. He would rout inely lay out his cost st ruct ure in det ail, t hereby giving t he dist ribut ors a realist ic underst anding of t he com pany’s pricing. This approach m eant t he execut ive couldn’t always drive a hard bargain. Now, on occasion, he felt t he urge t o increase profit s by wit hholding inform at ion about t he com pany’s cost s. But he challenged t hat im pulse—he saw t hat it m ade m ore sense in t he long run t o count eract it . His em ot ional selfregulat ion paid off in st rong, last ing relat ionships wit h dist ribut ors t hat benefit ed t he com pany m ore t han any short - t erm financial gains would have. The signs of em ot ional self- regulat ion, t herefore, are easy t o see: a propensit y for reflect ion and t hought fulness; com fort wit h am biguit y and change; and int egrit y—an abilit y t o say no t o im pulsive urges. Like self- awareness, self- regulat ion oft en does not get it s due. People who can m ast er t heir em ot ions are som et im es seen as cold fish—t heir considered responses are t aken as a lack of passion. People wit h fiery t em peram ent s are frequent ly t hought of as “ classic” leaders—t heir out burst s are considered hallm arks of charism a and power. But when such people m ake it t o t he t op, t heir im pulsiveness oft en works against t hem . I n m y research, ext rem e displays of negat ive em ot ion have never em erged as a driver of good leadership. M ot iva t ion I f t here is one t rait t hat virt ually all effect ive leaders have, it is m ot ivat ion. They are driven t o achieve beyond expect at ions—t heir own and everyone else’s. The key word here is achieve. Plent y of people are m ot ivat ed by ext ernal fact ors, such as a big salary or t he st at us t hat com es from having an im pressive t it le or being part of a prest igious com pany. By cont rast , t hose wit h leadership pot ent ial are m ot ivat ed by a deeply em bedded desire t o achieve for t he sake of achievem ent . I f you are looking for leaders, how can you ident ify people who are m ot ivat ed by t he drive t o achieve rat her t han by ext ernal rewards? The first sign is a passion for t he work it self—such people seek out creat ive challenges, love t o learn, and t ake great pride in a j ob well done. They also display an unflagging energy t o do t hings bet t er. People wit h such energy oft en seem rest less wit h t he st at us quo. They are persist ent wit h t heir quest ions about why t hings are done one way rat her t han anot her; t hey are eager t o explore new approaches t o t heir work. A cosm et ics com pany m anager, for exam ple, was frust rat ed t hat he had t o wait t wo weeks t o get sales result s from people in t he field. He finally t racked down an aut om at ed phone syst em t hat would beep each of his salespeople at 5 pm every day. An aut om at ed m essage t hen prom pt ed t hem t o punch in t heir num bers—how m any calls and sales t hey had m ade t hat day. The syst em short ened t he feedback t im e on sales result s from weeks t o hours.

That st ory illust rat es t wo ot her com m on t rait s of people who are driven t o achieve. They are forever raising t he perform ance bar, and t hey like t o keep score. Take t he perform ance bar first . During perform ance reviews, people wit h high levels of m ot ivat ion m ight ask t o be “ st ret ched” by t heir superiors. Of course, an em ployee who com bines self- awareness wit h int ernal m ot ivat ion will recognize her lim it s—but she won’t set t le for obj ect ives t hat seem t oo easy t o fulfill. And it follows nat urally t hat people who are driven t o do bet t er also want a way of t racking progress—t heir own, t heir t eam ’s, and t heir com pany’s. Whereas people wit h low achievem ent m ot ivat ion are oft en fuzzy about result s, t hose wit h high achievem ent m ot ivat ion oft en keep score by t racking such hard m easures as profit abilit y or m arket share. I know of a m oney m anager who st art s and ends his day on t he I nt ernet , gauging t he perform ance of his st ock fund against four indust ry- set benchm arks. I nt erest ingly, people wit h high m ot ivat ion rem ain opt im ist ic even when t he score is against t hem . I n such cases, self- regulat ion com bines wit h achievem ent m ot ivat ion t o overcom e t he frust rat ion and depression t hat com e aft er a set back or failure. Take t he case of an anot her port folio m anager at a large invest m ent com pany. Aft er several successful years, her fund t um bled for t hree consecut ive quart ers, leading t hree large inst it ut ional client s t o shift t heir business elsewhere. Som e execut ives would have blam ed t he nosedive on circum st ances out side t heir cont rol; ot hers m ight have seen t he set back as evidence of personal failure. This port folio m anager, however, saw an opport unit y t o prove she could lead a t urnaround. Two years lat er, when she was prom ot ed t o a very senior level in t he com pany, she described t he experience as “ t he best t hing t hat ever happened t o m e; I learned so m uch from it .” Execut ives t rying t o recognize high levels of achievem ent m ot ivat ion in t heir people can look for one last piece of evidence: com m it m ent t o t he organizat ion. When people love t heir j obs for t he work it self, t hey oft en feel com m it t ed t o t he organizat ions t hat m ake t hat work possible. Com m it t ed em ployees are likely t o st ay wit h an organizat ion even when t hey are pursued by headhunt ers waving m oney. I t ’s not difficult t o underst and how and why a m ot ivat ion t o achieve t ranslat es int o st rong leadership. I f you set t he perform ance bar high for yourself, you will do t he sam e for t he organizat ion when you are in a posit ion t o do so. Likewise, a drive t o surpass goals and an int erest in keeping score can be cont agious. Leaders wit h t hese t rait s can oft en build a t eam of m anagers around t hem wit h t he sam e t rait s. And of course, opt im ism and organizat ional com m it m ent are fundam ent al t o leadership—j ust t ry t o im agine running a com pany wit hout t hem . Em pa t h y Of all t he dim ensions of em ot ional int elligence, em pat hy is t he m ost easily recognized. We have all felt t he em pat hy of a sensit ive t eacher or friend; we have all been st ruck by it s absence in an unfeeling coach or boss. But when it com es t o business, we rarely hear people praised, let alone rewarded, for t heir em pat hy. The very word seem s unbusinesslike, out of place am id t he t ough realit ies of t he m arket place. But em pat hy doesn’t m ean a kind of “ I ’m OK, you’re OK” m ushiness. For a leader, t hat is, it doesn’t m ean adopt ing ot her people’s em ot ions as one’s own and t rying t o please everybody. That would be a night m are—it would m ake act ion im possible. Rat her, em pat hy m eans t hought fully considering em ployees’ feelings—along wit h ot her fact ors— in t he process of m aking int elligent decisions.

For an exam ple of em pat hy in act ion, consider what happened when t wo giant brokerage com panies m erged, creat ing redundant j obs in all t heir divisions. One division m anager called his people t oget her and gave a gloom y speech t hat em phasized t he num ber of people who would soon be fired. The m anager of anot her division gave his people a different kind of speech. He was up- front about his own worry and confusion, and he prom ised t o keep people inform ed and t o t reat everyone fairly. The difference bet ween t hese t wo m anagers was em pat hy. The first m anager was t oo worried about his own fat e t o consider t he feelings of his anxiet y- st ricken colleagues. The second knew int uit ively what his people were feeling, and he acknowledged t heir fears wit h his words. I s it any surprise t hat t he first m anager saw his division sink as m any dem oralized people, especially t he m ost t alent ed, depart ed? By cont rast , t he second m anager cont inued t o be a st rong leader, his best people st ayed, and his division rem ained as product ive as ever. Em pat hy is part icularly im port ant t oday as a com ponent of leadership for at least t hree reasons: t he increasing use of t eam s; t he rapid pace of globalizat ion; and t he growing need t o ret ain t alent . Consider t he challenge of leading a t eam . As anyone who has ever been a part of one can at t est , t eam s are cauldrons of bubbling em ot ions. They are oft en charged wit h reaching a consensus—which is hard enough wit h t wo people and m uch m ore difficult as t he num bers increase. Even in groups wit h as few as four or five m em bers, alliances form and clashing agendas get set . A t eam ’s leader m ust be able t o sense and underst and t he viewpoint s of everyone around t he t able. That ’s exact ly what a m arket ing m anager at a large inform at ion t echnology com pany was able t o do when she was appoint ed t o lead a t roubled t eam . The group was in t urm oil, overloaded by work and m issing deadlines. Tensions were high am ong t he m em bers. Tinkering wit h procedures was not enough t o bring t he group t oget her and m ake it an effect ive part of t he com pany. So t he m anager t ook several st eps. I n a series of one- on- one sessions, she t ook t he t im e t o list en t o everyone in t he group—what was frust rat ing t hem , how t hey rat ed t heir colleagues, whet her t hey felt t hey had been ignored. And t hen she direct ed t he t eam in a way t hat brought it t oget her: She encouraged people t o speak m ore openly about t heir frust rat ions, and she helped people raise const ruct ive com plaint s during m eet ings. I n short , her em pat hy allowed her t o underst and her t eam ’s em ot ional m akeup. The result was not j ust height ened collaborat ion am ong m em bers but also added business, as t he t eam was called on for help by a wider range of int ernal client s. Globalizat ion is anot her reason for t he rising im port ance of em pat hy for business leaders. Cross- cult ural dialogue can easily lead t o m iscues and m isunderst andings. Em pat hy is an ant idot e. People who have it are at t uned t o subt let ies in body language; t hey can hear t he m essage beneat h t he words being spoken. Beyond t hat , t hey have a deep underst anding of bot h t he exist ence and t he im port ance of cult ural and et hnic differences. Consider t he case of an Am erican consult ant whose t eam had j ust pit ched a proj ect t o a pot ent ial Japanese client . I n it s dealings wit h Am ericans, t he t eam was accust om ed t o being bom barded wit h quest ions aft er such a proposal, but t his t im e it was greet ed wit h a long silence. Ot her m em bers of t he t eam , t aking t he silence as disapproval, were ready t o pack and leave. The lead consult ant gest ured t hem t o st op. Alt hough he was not part icularly fam iliar wit h Japanese cult ure, he read t he client ’s face and post ure and sensed not rej ect ion but int erest —even deep considerat ion. He was right : When t he

client finally spoke, it was t o give t he consult ing firm t he j ob. Finally, em pat hy plays a key role in t he ret ent ion of t alent , part icularly in t oday’s inform at ion econom y. Leaders have always needed em pat hy t o develop and keep good people, but t oday t he st akes are higher. When good people leave, t hey t ake t he com pany’s knowledge wit h t hem . That ’s where coaching and m ent oring com e in. I t has repeat edly been shown t hat coaching and m ent oring pay off not j ust in bet t er perform ance but also in increased j ob sat isfact ion and decreased t urnover. But what m akes coaching and m ent oring work best is t he nat ure of t he relat ionship. Out st anding coaches and m ent ors get inside t he heads of t he people t hey are helping. They sense how t o give effect ive feedback. They know when t o push for bet t er perform ance and when t o hold back. I n t he way t hey m ot ivat e t heir prot égés, t hey dem onst rat e em pat hy in act ion. I n what is probably sounding like a refrain, let m e repeat t hat em pat hy doesn’t get m uch respect in business. People wonder how leaders can m ake hard decisions if t hey are “ feeling” for all t he people who will be affect ed. But leaders wit h em pat hy do m ore t han sym pat hize wit h people around t hem : They use t heir knowledge t o im prove t heir com panies in subt le but im port ant ways. Socia l Sk ill The first t hree com ponent s of em ot ional int elligence are self- m anagem ent skills. The last t wo, em pat hy and social skill, concern a person’s abilit y t o m anage relat ionships wit h ot hers. As a com ponent of em ot ional int elligence, social skill is not as sim ple as it sounds. I t ’s not j ust a m at t er of friendliness, alt hough people wit h high levels of social skill are rarely m ean- spirit ed. Social skill, rat her, is friendliness wit h a purpose: m oving people in t he direct ion you desire, whet her t hat ’s agreem ent on a new m arket ing st rat egy or ent husiasm about a new product . Socially skilled people t end t o have a wide circle of acquaint ances, and t hey have a knack for finding com m on ground wit h people of all kinds—a knack for building rapport . That doesn’t m ean t hey socialize cont inually; it m eans t hey work according t o t he assum pt ion t hat not hing im port ant get s done alone. Such people have a net work in place when t he t im e for act ion com es. Social skill is t he culm inat ion of t he ot her dim ensions of em ot ional int elligence. People t end t o be very effect ive at m anaging relat ionships when t hey can underst and and cont rol t heir own em ot ions and can em pat hize wit h t he feelings of ot hers. Even m ot ivat ion cont ribut es t o social skill. Rem em ber t hat people who are driven t o achieve t end t o be opt im ist ic, even in t he face of set backs or failure. When people are upbeat , t heir “ glow” is cast upon conversat ions and ot her social encount ers. They are popular, and for good reason. Because it is t he out com e of t he ot her dim ensions of em ot ional int elligence, social skill is recognizable on t he j ob in m any ways t hat will by now sound fam iliar. Socially skilled people, for inst ance, are adept at m anaging t eam s—t hat ’s t heir em pat hy at work. Likewise, t hey are expert persuaders—a m anifest at ion of self- awareness, self- regulat ion, and em pat hy com bined. Given t hose skills, good persuaders know when t o m ake an em ot ional plea, for inst ance, and when an appeal t o reason will work bet t er. And m ot ivat ion, when publicly visible, m akes such people excellent collaborat ors; t heir passion for t he work spreads t o ot hers, and t hey are driven t o find solut ions. But som et im es social skill shows it self in ways t he ot her em ot ional int elligence com ponent s do not . For inst ance, socially skilled people m ay at t im es appear not t o be

working while at work. They seem t o be idly schm oozing—chat t ing in t he hallways wit h colleagues or j oking around wit h people who are not even connect ed t o t heir “ real” j obs. Socially skilled people, however, don’t t hink it m akes sense t o arbit rarily lim it t he scope of t heir relat ionships. They build bonds widely because t hey know t hat in t hese fluid t im es, t hey m ay need help som eday from people t hey are j ust get t ing t o know t oday. For exam ple, consider t he case of an execut ive in t he st rat egy depart m ent of a global com put er m anufact urer. By 1993, he was convinced t hat t he com pany’s fut ure lay wit h t he I nt ernet . Over t he course of t he next year, he found kindred spirit s and used his social skill t o st it ch t oget her a virt ual com m unit y t hat cut across levels, divisions, and nat ions. He t hen used t his de fact o t eam t o put up a corporat e Web sit e, am ong t he first by a m aj or com pany. And, on his own init iat ive, wit h no budget or form al st at us, he signed up t he com pany t o part icipat e in an annual I nt ernet indust ry convent ion. Calling on his allies and persuading various divisions t o donat e funds, he recruit ed m ore t han 50 people from a dozen different unit s t o represent t he com pany at t he convent ion. Managem ent t ook not ice: Wit hin a year of t he conference, t he execut ive’s t eam form ed t he basis for t he com pany’s first I nt ernet division, and he was form ally put in charge of it . To get t here, t he execut ive had ignored convent ional boundaries, forging and m aint aining connect ions wit h people in every corner of t he organizat ion. I s social skill considered a key leadership capabilit y in m ost com panies? The answer is yes, especially when com pared wit h t he ot her com ponent s of em ot ional int elligence. People seem t o know int uit ively t hat leaders need t o m anage relat ionships effect ively; no leader is an island. Aft er all, t he leader’s t ask is t o get work done t hrough ot her people, and social skill m akes t hat possible. A leader who cannot express her em pat hy m ay as well not have it at all. And a leader’s m ot ivat ion will be useless if he cannot com m unicat e his passion t o t he organizat ion. Social skill allows leaders t o put t heir em ot ional int elligence t o work. I t would be foolish t o assert t hat good- old- fashioned I Q and t echnical abilit y are not im port ant ingredient s in st rong leadership. But t he recipe would not be com plet e wit hout em ot ional int elligence. I t was once t hought t hat t he com ponent s of em ot ional int elligence were “ nice t o have” in business leaders. But now we know t hat , for t he sake of perform ance, t hese are ingredient s t hat leaders “ need t o have.” I t is fort unat e, t hen, t hat em ot ional int elligence can be learned. The process is not easy. I t t akes t im e and, m ost of all, com m it m ent . But t he benefit s t hat com e from having a well- developed em ot ional int elligence, bot h for t he individual and for t he organizat ion, m ake it wort h t he effort .

Reprint Num ber R0401H | HBR OnPoint edit ion 3790 | HBR OnPoint collect ion 8156

Ca n Em ot ion a l I n t e llige n ce Be Le a r n e d?

Sidebar R0 4 0 1 H _ A

For ages, people have debat ed if leaders are born or m ade. So t oo goes t he debat e about em ot ional int elligence. Are people born wit h cert ain levels of em pat hy, for exam ple, or do t hey acquire em pat hy as a result of life’s experiences? The answer is bot h. Scient ific inquiry st rongly suggest s t hat t here is a genet ic com ponent t o em ot ional int elligence. Psychological and developm ent al research indicat es t hat nurt ure plays a role as well. How m uch of each perhaps will never be known, but research and pract ice clearly dem onst rat e t hat em ot ional int elligence can be learned. One t hing is cert ain: Em ot ional int elligence increases wit h age. There is an old- fashioned word for t he phenom enon: m at urit y. Yet even wit h m at urit y, som e people st ill need t raining t o enhance t heir em ot ional int elligence. Unfort unat ely, far t oo m any t raining program s t hat int end t o build leadership skills—including em ot ional int elligence—are a wast e of t im e and m oney. The problem is sim ple: They focus on t he wrong part of t he brain. Em ot ional int elligence is born largely in t he neurot ransm it t ers of t he brain’s lim bic syst em , which governs feelings, im pulses, and drives. Research indicat es t hat t he lim bic syst em learns best t hrough m ot ivat ion, ext ended pract ice, and feedback. Com pare t his wit h t he kind of learning t hat goes on in t he neocort ex, which governs analyt ical and t echnical abilit y. The neocort ex grasps concept s and logic. I t is t he part of t he brain t hat figures out how t o use a com put er or m ake a sales call by reading a book. Not surprisingly—but m ist akenly—it is also t he part of t he brain t arget ed by m ost t raining program s aim ed at enhancing em ot ional int elligence. When such program s t ake, in effect , a neocort ical approach, m y research wit h t he Consort ium for Research on Em ot ional I nt elligence in Organizat ions has shown t hey can even have a negat ive im pact on people’s j ob perform ance. To enhance em ot ional int elligence, organizat ions m ust refocus t heir t raining t o include t he lim bic syst em . They m ust help people break old behavioral habit s and est ablish new ones. That not only t akes m uch m ore t im e t han convent ional t raining program s, it also requires an individualized approach. I m agine an execut ive who is t hought t o be low on em pat hy by her colleagues. Part of t hat deficit shows it self as an inabilit y t o list en; she int errupt s people and doesn’t pay close at t ent ion t o what t hey’re saying. To fix t he problem , t he execut ive needs t o be m ot ivat ed t o change, and t hen she needs pract ice and feedback from ot hers in t he com pany. A colleague or coach could be t apped t o let t he execut ive know when she has been observed failing t o list en. She would t hen have t o replay t he incident and give a bet t er response; t hat is, dem onst rat e her abilit y t o absorb what ot hers are saying. And t he execut ive could be direct ed t o observe cert ain execut ives who list en well and t o m im ic t heir behavior. Wit h persist ence and pract ice, such a process can lead t o last ing result s. I know one Wall St reet execut ive who sought t o im prove his em pat hy—specifically his abilit y t o read people’s react ions and see t heir perspect ives. Before beginning his quest , t he execut ive’s subordinat es were t errified of working wit h him . People even went so far as t o hide bad news from him . Nat urally, he was shocked when finally confront ed wit h t hese fact s. He went hom e and t old his fam ily—but t hey only confirm ed what he had heard at work. When t heir opinions on any given subj ect did not m esh wit h his, t hey, t oo, were fright ened of him . Enlist ing t he help of a coach, t he execut ive went t o work t o height en his em pat hy t hrough pract ice and feedback. His first st ep was t o t ake a vacat ion t o a foreign count ry where he did not speak t he language. While t here, he m onit ored his react ions t o t he unfam iliar and his openness t o people who were different from him . When he ret urned

hom e, hum bled by his week abroad, t he execut ive asked his coach t o shadow him for part s of t he day, several t im es a week, t o crit ique how he t reat ed people wit h new or different perspect ives. At t he sam e t im e, he consciously used on- t he- j ob int eract ions as opport unit ies t o pract ice “ hearing” ideas t hat differed from his. Finally, t he execut ive had him self videot aped in m eet ings and asked t hose who worked for and wit h him t o crit ique his abilit y t o acknowledge and underst and t he feelings of ot hers. I t t ook several m ont hs, but t he execut ive’s em ot ional int elligence did ult im at ely rise, and t he im provem ent was reflect ed in his overall perform ance on t he j ob. I t ’s im port ant t o em phasize t hat building one’s em ot ional int elligence cannot —will not — happen wit hout sincere desire and concert ed effort . A brief sem inar won’t help; nor can one buy a how- t o m anual. I t is m uch harder t o learn t o em pat hize—t o int ernalize em pat hy as a nat ural response t o people—t han it is t o becom e adept at regression analysis. But it can be done. “ Not hing great was ever achieved wit hout ent husiasm ,” wrot e Ralph Waldo Em erson. I f your goal is t o becom e a real leader, t hese words can serve as a guidepost in your effort s t o develop high em ot ional int elligence.

Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. This cont ent m ay not be reproduced or t ransm it t ed in any form or by any m eans, elect ronic or m echanical, including phot ocopy, recording, or any inform at ion st orage or ret rieval syst em , wit hout writ t en perm ission. Request s for perm ission should be direct ed t o perm [email protected], 1- 888- 500- 1020, or m ailed t o Perm issions, Harvard Business School Publishing, 60 Harvard Way, Bost on, MA 02163.

Click here t o visit :

View Back Issues | January 2004 > What Makes a Leader? > Can Em ot ional I nt elligence Be Learned?

W h a t M a k e s a Le a de r ?

Can Em ot ional I nt elligence Be Learned? For ages, people have debat ed if leaders are born or m ade. So t oo goes t he debat e about em ot ional int elligence. Are people born wit h cert ain levels of em pat hy, for exam ple, or do t hey acquire em pat hy as a result of life’s experiences? The answer is bot h. Scient ific inquiry st rongly suggest s t hat t here is a genet ic com ponent t o em ot ional int elligence. Psychological and developm ent al research indicat es t hat nurt ure plays a role as well. How m uch of each perhaps will never be known, but research and pract ice clearly dem onst rat e t hat em ot ional int elligence can be learned. One t hing is cert ain: Em ot ional int elligence increases wit h age. There is an old- fashioned word for t he phenom enon: m at urit y. Yet even wit h m at urit y, som e people st ill need t raining t o enhance t heir em ot ional int elligence. Unfort unat ely, far t oo m any t raining program s t hat int end t o build leadership skills—including em ot ional int elligence—are a wast e of t im e and m oney. The problem is sim ple: They focus on t he wrong part of t he brain. Em ot ional int elligence is born largely in t he neurot ransm it t ers of t he brain’s lim bic syst em , which governs feelings, im pulses, and drives. Research indicat es t hat t he lim bic syst em learns best t hrough m ot ivat ion, ext ended pract ice, and feedback. Com pare t his wit h t he kind of learning t hat goes on in t he neocort ex, which governs analyt ical and t echnical abilit y. The neocort ex grasps concept s and logic. I t is t he part of t he brain t hat figures out how t o use a com put er or m ake a sales call by reading a book. Not surprisingly—but m ist akenly—it is also t he part of t he brain t arget ed by m ost t raining program s aim ed at enhancing em ot ional int elligence. When such program s t ake, in effect , a neocort ical approach, m y research wit h t he Consort ium for Research on Em ot ional I nt elligence in Organizat ions has shown t hey can even have a negat ive im pact on people’s j ob perform ance. To enhance em ot ional int elligence, organizat ions m ust refocus t heir t raining t o include t he lim bic syst em . They m ust help people break old behavioral habit s and est ablish new ones. That not only t akes m uch m ore t im e t han convent ional t raining program s, it also requires an individualized approach. I m agine an execut ive who is t hought t o be low on em pat hy by her colleagues. Part of t hat deficit shows it self as an inabilit y t o list en; she int errupt s people and doesn’t pay close at t ent ion t o what t hey’re saying. To fix t he problem , t he execut ive needs t o be m ot ivat ed t o change, and t hen she needs pract ice and feedback from ot hers in t he com pany. A colleague or coach could be t apped t o let t he execut ive know when she has been observed failing t o list en. She would t hen have t o replay t he incident and give a bet t er response; t hat is, dem onst rat e her abilit y t o absorb what ot hers are saying. And t he execut ive could be direct ed t o observe cert ain execut ives who list en well and t o m im ic t heir behavior. Wit h persist ence and pract ice, such a process can lead t o last ing result s. I know one Wall St reet execut ive who sought t o im prove his em pat hy—specifically his abilit y t o read people’s react ions and see t heir perspect ives. Before beginning his quest , t he execut ive’s subordinat es were t errified of working wit h him . People even went so far as t o hide bad news from him . Nat urally, he was shocked when finally confront ed wit h t hese fact s. He went hom e and t old his fam ily—but t hey only confirm ed what he had heard at work. When t heir opinions on any given subj ect did not m esh wit h his, t hey, t oo, were fright ened of him . Enlist ing t he help of a coach, t he execut ive went t o work t o height en his em pat hy t hrough pract ice and feedback. His first st ep was t o t ake a vacat ion t o a foreign count ry where he did not speak t he language. While t here, he m onit ored his react ions t o t he unfam iliar and his openness t o people who were different from him . When he ret urned hom e, hum bled by his week abroad, t he execut ive asked his coach t o shadow him for

part s of t he day, several t im es a week, t o crit ique how he t reat ed people wit h new or different perspect ives. At t he sam e t im e, he consciously used on- t he- j ob int eract ions as opport unit ies t o pract ice “ hearing” ideas t hat differed from his. Finally, t he execut ive had him self videot aped in m eet ings and asked t hose who worked for and wit h him t o crit ique his abilit y t o acknowledge and underst and t he feelings of ot hers. I t t ook several m ont hs, but t he execut ive’s em ot ional int elligence did ult im at ely rise, and t he im provem ent was reflect ed in his overall perform ance on t he j ob. I t ’s im port ant t o em phasize t hat building one’s em ot ional int elligence cannot —will not — happen wit hout sincere desire and concert ed effort . A brief sem inar won’t help; nor can one buy a how- t o m anual. I t is m uch harder t o learn t o em pat hize—t o int ernalize em pat hy as a nat ural response t o people—t han it is t o becom e adept at regression analysis. But it can be done. “ Not hing great was ever achieved wit hout ent husiasm ,” wrot e Ralph Waldo Em erson. I f your goal is t o becom e a real leader, t hese words can serve as a guidepost in your effort s t o develop high em ot ional int elligence.

< Back t o Art icle

Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. All right s reserved.

Click here t o visit :

View Back Issues | January 2004 > Narcissist ic Leaders: The I ncredible Pros, t he I nevit able Cons

> | Pu r ch a se Re pr in t > | Pr in t a ble Ve r sion

Narcissist ic Leaders

> | E- m a il a Colle a gu e

The Incredible Pros, the Inevitable Cons

> | Ex e cu t ive Su m m a r y

M a n y le a de r s dom in a t in g bu sin e ss t oda y h a ve w h a t psych oa n a lyst s ca ll a n a r cissist ic pe r son a lit y. Th a t ’s good n e w s for com pa n ie s t h a t n e e d pa ssion a n d da r in g t o br e a k n e w gr ou n d. Bu t e ve n pr odu ct ive n a r cissist s ca n be da n ge r ou s for or ga n iza t ion s. H e r e is som e a dvice on a voidin g t h e da n ge r s.

Fr om m 's Fou r t h Pe r son a lit y Type Th e Rise a n d Fa ll of a N a r cissist

by M ich a e l M a ccoby

When Michael Maccoby wrot e t his art icle, which was first published in early 2000, t he business world was st ill under t he spell of t he I nt ernet and it s revolut ionary prom ise. I t was a t im e, Maccoby wrot e, t hat called for larger- t han- life leaders who could see t he big pict ure and paint a com pelling port rait of a dram at ically different fut ure. And t hat , he argued, was one reason we saw t he em ergence of t he superst ar CEOs—t he grandiose, act ively self- prom ot ing, and genuinely narcissist ic leaders who dom inat ed t he covers of business m agazines at t hat t im e. Skilled orat ors and creat ive st rat egist s, narcissist s have vision and a great abilit y t o at t ract and inspire followers. The t im es have changed, and we’ve learned a lot about t he dangers of overreliance on big personalit ies, but t hat doesn’t m ean narcissism can’t be a useful leadership t rait . There’s cert ainly a dark side t o narcissism —narcissist s, Freud t old us, are em ot ionally isolat ed and highly dist rust ful. They’re usually poor list eners and lack em pat hy. Perceived t hreat s can t rigger rage. The challenge t oday—as Maccoby underst ood it t o be four years ago—is t o t ake advant age of t heir st rengt hs while t em pering t heir weaknesses.

There’s som et hing new and daring about t he CEOs who are t ransform ing t oday’s indust ries. Just com pare t hem wit h t he execut ives who ran large com panies in t he 1950s t hrough t he 1980s. Those execut ives shunned t he press and had t heir com m ent s carefully craft ed by corporat e PR depart m ent s. But t oday’s CEOs—superst ars such as Bill Gat es, Andy Grove, St eve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, and Jack Welch—hire t heir own publicist s, writ e books, grant spont aneous int erviews, and act ively prom ot e t heir personal philosophies. Their faces adorn t he covers of m agazines like BusinessWeek, Tim e, and t he Econom ist . What ’s m ore, t he world’s business personalit ies are increasingly seen as t he m akers and shapers of our public and personal agendas. They advise schools on what kids should learn and lawm akers on how t o invest t he public’s m oney. We look t o t hem for t hought s on everyt hing from t he fut ure of e- com m erce t o hot places t o vacat ion. There are m any reasons t oday’s business leaders have higher profiles t han ever before. One is t hat business plays a m uch bigger role in our lives t han it used t o, and it s leaders are m ore oft en in t he lim elight . Anot her is t hat t he business world is experiencing enorm ous changes t hat call for visionary and charism at ic leadership. But m y 25 years of consult ing bot h as a psychoanalyst in privat e pract ice and as an adviser t o t op m anagers suggest a t hird reason—nam ely, a pronounced change in t he personalit y of t he st rat egic leaders at t he t op. As an ant hropologist , I t ry t o underst and people in t he cont ext in which t hey operat e, and as a psychoanalyst , I t end t o see t hem t hrough a dist inct ly Freudian lens. Given what I know, I believe t hat t he larger- t han- life leaders we are seeing t oday closely resem ble t he personalit y t ype t hat Sigm und Freud dubbed narcissist ic. “ People of t his t ype im press ot hers as being ‘personalit ies,’” he wrot e, describing one of t he psychological t ypes t hat clearly fall wit hin t he range of norm alit y. “ They are especially suit ed t o act as a support for ot hers, t o t ake on t he role of leaders, and t o give a fresh st im ulus t o cult ural developm ent or dam age t he est ablished st at e of affairs.” Throughout hist ory, narcissist s have always em erged t o inspire people and t o shape t he

W or k in g for a N a r cissist

M ich a e l M a ccoby is an ant hropologist and a psychoanalyst . He is also t he founder and president of t he Maccoby Group, a m anagem ent consult ancy in Washingt on, DC, and was form erly direct or of t he Program on Technology, Public Policy, and Hum an Developm ent at Harvard Universit y’s Kennedy School of Governm ent in Cam bridge, Massachuset t s. This art icle was t he basis for t he book The Product ive Narcissist : The Prom ise and Peril of Visionary Leadership ( Broadway Books, 2003) .

> | H a r va r d Bu sin e ss Re vie w On Poin t Edit ion This art icle is enhanced wit h a sum m ary of key point s t o help you quickly absorb and apply t he concept s and a bibliography t o guide furt her explorat ion.

> | H a r va r d Bu sin e ss Re vie w On Poin t Colle ct ion This art icle is also part of t he specially priced OnPoint collect ion “ Ego Makes t he Leader, 2nd Edit ion,” which includes t hree OnPoint art icles wit h an overview com paring different perspect ives on t his t opic.

fut ure. When m ilit ary, religious, and polit ical arenas dom inat ed societ y, it was figures such as Napoléon Bonapart e, Mahat m a Gandhi, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt who det erm ined t he social agenda. But from t im e t o t im e, when business becam e t he engine of social change, it , t oo, generat ed it s share of narcissist ic leaders. That was t rue at t he beginning of t his cent ury, when m en like Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Thom as Edison, and Henry Ford exploit ed new t echnologies and rest ruct ured Am erican indust ry. And I t hink it is t rue again t oday. But Freud recognized t hat t here is a dark side t o narcissism . Narcissist s, he point ed out , are em ot ionally isolat ed and highly dist rust ful. Perceived t hreat s can t rigger rage. Achievem ent s can feed feelings of grandiosit y. That ’s why Freud t hought narcissist s were t he hardest personalit y t ypes t o analyze. Consider how an execut ive at Oracle describes his narcissist ic CEO Larry Ellison: “ The difference bet ween God and Larry is t hat God does not believe he is Larry.” That observat ion is am using, but it is also t roubling. Not surprisingly, m ost people t hink of narcissist s in a prim arily negat ive way. Aft er all, Freud nam ed t he t ype aft er t he m yt hical figure Narcissus, who died because of his pat hological preoccupat ion wit h him self. Yet narcissism can be ext raordinarily useful—even necessary. Freud shift ed his views about narcissism over t im e and recognized t hat we are all som ewhat narcissist ic. More recent ly, psychoanalyst Heinz Kohut built on Freud’s t heories and developed m et hods of t reat ing narcissist s. Of course, only professional clinicians are t rained t o t ell if narcissism is norm al or pat hological. I n t his art icle, I discuss t he differences bet ween product ive and unproduct ive narcissism but do not explore t he ext rem e pat hology of borderline condit ions and psychosis. Leaders such as Jack Welch and George Soros are exam ples of product ive narcissist s. They are gift ed and creat ive st rat egist s who see t he big pict ure and find m eaning in t he risky challenge of changing t he world and leaving behind a legacy. I ndeed, one reason we look t o product ive narcissist s in t im es of great t ransit ion is t hat t hey have t he audacit y t o push t hrough t he m assive t ransform at ions t hat societ y periodically undert akes. Product ive narcissist s are not only risk t akers willing t o get t he j ob done but also charm ers who can convert t he m asses wit h t heir rhet oric. The danger is t hat narcissism can t urn unproduct ive when, lacking self- knowledge and rest raining anchors, narcissist s becom e unrealist ic dream ers. They nurt ure grand schem es and harbor t he illusion t hat only circum st ances or enem ies block t heir success. This t endency t oward grandiosit y and dist rust is t he Achilles’ heel of narcissist s. Because of it , even brilliant narcissist s can com e under suspicion for self- involvem ent , unpredict abilit y, and—in ext rem e cases—paranoia.

Pr odu ct ive n a r cissist s h a ve t h e a u da cit y t o pu sh t h r ou gh t h e m a ssive t r a n sfor m a t ion s t h a t socie t y pe r iodica lly u n de r t a k e s. I t ’s easy t o see why narcissist ic leadership doesn’t always m ean successful leadership. Consider t he case of Volvo’s Pehr Gyllenham m ar. He had a dream t hat appealed t o a broad int ernat ional audience—a plan t o revolut ionize t he indust rial workplace by replacing t he dehum anizing assem bly line caricat ured in Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Tim es. His wildly popular vision called for t eam - based craft sm anship. Model fact ories were built and publicized t o int ernat ional acclaim . But his success in pushing t hrough t hese dram at ic changes also sowed t he seeds for his downfall. Gyllenham m ar st art ed t o feel t hat he could ignore t he concerns of his operat ional m anagers. He pursued chancy and expensive business deals, which he publicized on t elevision and in t he press. On one level, you can ascribe Gyllenham m ar’s falling out of t ouch wit h his workforce sim ply t o fault y st rat egy. But it is also possible t o at t ribut e it t o his narcissist ic personalit y. His overest im at ion of him self led him t o believe t hat ot hers would want him t o be t he czar of a m ult inat ional ent erprise. I n t urn, t hese fant asies led him t o pursue a m erger wit h Renault , which was t rem endously unpopular wit h Swedish em ployees. Because Gyllenham m ar was deaf t o com plaint s about Renault , Swedish m anagers were forced t o t ake t heir case public. I n t he end, shareholders aggressively rej ect ed Gyllenham m ar’s plan, leaving him wit h no opt ion but t o resign. Given t he large num ber of narcissist s at t he helm of corporat ions t oday, t he challenge facing organizat ions is t o ensure t hat such leaders do not self- dest ruct or lead t he com pany t o disast er. That can t ake som e doing because it is very hard for narcissist s t o work t hrough t heir issues—and virt ually im possible for t hem t o do it alone. Narcissist s need colleagues and even t herapist s if t hey hope t o break free from t heir lim it at ions. But because of t heir ext rem e independence and self- prot ect iveness, it is very difficult t o get near t hem . Kohut m aint ained t hat a t herapist would have t o dem onst rat e an

ext raordinarily profound em pat hic underst anding and sym pat hy for t he narcissist ’s feelings in order t o gain his t rust . On t op of t hat , narcissist s m ust recognize t hat t hey can benefit from such help. For t heir part , em ployees m ust learn how t o recognize—and work around—narcissist ic bosses. To help t hem in t his endeavor, let ’s first t ake a closer look at Freud’s t heory of personalit y t ypes. Th r e e M a in Pe r son a lit y Type s While Freud recognized t hat t here are an alm ost infinit e variet y of personalit ies, he ident ified t hree m ain t ypes: erot ic, obsessive, and narcissist ic. Most of us have elem ent s of all t hree. We are all, for exam ple, som ewhat narcissist ic. I f t hat were not so, we would not be able t o survive or assert our needs. The point is, one of t he dynam ic t endencies usually dom inat es t he ot hers, m aking each of us react different ly t o success and failure. Freud’s definit ions of personalit y t ypes differed over t im e. When t alking about t he erot ic personalit y t ype, however, Freud generally did not m ean a sexual personalit y but rat her one for whom loving and above all being loved is m ost im port ant . This t ype of individual is dependent on t hose people t hey fear will st op loving t hem . Many erot ics are t eachers, nurses, and social workers. At t heir m ost product ive, t hey are developers of t he young as well as enablers and helpers at work. As m anagers, t hey are caring and support ive, but t hey avoid conflict and m ake people dependent on t hem . They are, according t o Freud, out er- direct ed people. Obsessives, in cont rast , are inner- direct ed. They are self- reliant and conscient ious. They creat e and m aint ain order and m ake t he m ost effect ive operat ional m anagers. They look const ant ly for ways t o help people list en bet t er, resolve conflict , and find win- win opport unit ies. They buy self- im provem ent books such as St ephen Covey’s The 7 Habit s of Highly Effect ive People. Obsessives are also ruled by a st rict conscience—t hey like t o focus on cont inuous im provem ent at work because it fit s in wit h t heir sense of m oral im provem ent . As ent repreneurs, obsessives st art businesses t hat express t heir values, but t hey lack t he vision, daring, and charism a it t akes t o t urn a good idea int o a great one. The best obsessives set high st andards and com m unicat e very effect ively. They m ake sure t hat inst ruct ions are followed and cost s are kept wit hin budget . The m ost product ive are great m ent ors and t eam players. The unproduct ive and t he uncooperat ive becom e narrow expert s and rule- bound bureaucrat s. Narcissist s, t he t hird t ype, are independent and not easily im pressed. They are innovat ors, driven in business t o gain power and glory. Product ive narcissist s are expert s in t heir indust ries, but t hey go beyond it . They also pose t he crit ical quest ions. They want t o learn everyt hing about everyt hing t hat affect s t he com pany and it s product s. Unlike erot ics, t hey want t o be adm ired, not loved. And unlike obsessives, t hey are not t roubled by a punishing superego, so t hey are able t o aggressively pursue t heir goals. Of all t he personalit y t ypes, narcissist s run t he great est risk of isolat ing t hem selves at t he m om ent of success. And because of t heir independence and aggressiveness, t hey are const ant ly looking out for enem ies, som et im es degenerat ing int o paranoia when t hey are under ext rem e st ress. ( For m ore on personalit y t ypes, see t he sidebar “ From m ’s Fourt h Personalit y Type.” ) Fr om m 's Fou r t h Pe r son a lit y Type St r e n gt h s of t h e N a r cissist ic Le a de r When it com es t o leadership, personalit y t ype can be inst ruct ive. Erot ic personalit ies generally m ake poor m anagers—t hey need t oo m uch approval. Obsessives m ake bet t er leaders—t hey are your operat ional m anagers: crit ical and caut ious. But it is narcissist s who com e closest t o our collect ive im age of great leaders. There are t wo reasons for t his: t hey have com pelling, even gripping, visions for com panies, and t hey have an abilit y t o at t ract followers. Gr e a t Vision . I once asked a group of m anagers t o define a leader. “ A person wit h vision” was a t ypical response. Product ive narcissist s underst and t he vision t hing part icularly well, because t hey are by nat ure people who see t he big pict ure. They are not analyzers who can break up big quest ions int o m anageable problem s; t hey aren’t num ber crunchers eit her ( t hese are usually t he obsessives) . Nor do t hey t ry t o ext rapolat e t o underst and t he fut ure—t hey at t em pt t o creat e it . To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, som e people see t hings as t hey are and ask why; narcissist s see t hings t hat never were and ask why not . Consider t he difference bet ween Bob Allen, a product ive obsessive, and Mike Arm st rong,

a product ive narcissist . I n 1997, Allen t ried t o expand AT&T t o reest ablish t he end- t oend service of t he Bell Syst em by reselling local service from t he regional Bell operat ing com panies ( RBOCs) . Alt hough t his was a wort hwhile endeavor for shareholders and cust om ers, it was hardly eart h- shat t ering. By cont rast , t hrough a st rat egy of com bining voice, t elecom m unicat ions, and I nt ernet access by high- speed broadband t elecom m unicat ion over cable, Mike Arm st rong has “ creat ed a new space wit h his nam e on it ,” as one of his colleagues put s it . Arm st rong is bet t ing t hat his cost ly st rat egy will beat out t he RBOC’s less expensive solut ion of digit al subscriber lines over copper wire. This exam ple illust rat es t he different approaches of obsessives and narcissist s. The risk Arm st rong t ook is one t hat few obsessives would feel com fort able t aking. His vision is galvanizing AT&T. Who but a narcissist ic leader could achieve such a t hing? As Napoléon —a classic narcissist —once rem arked, “ Revolut ions are ideal t im es for soldiers wit h a lot of wit —and t he courage t o act .” As in t he days of t he French Revolut ion, t he world is now changing in ast ounding ways; narcissist s have opport unit ies t hey would never have in ordinary t im es. I n short , t oday’s narcissist ic leaders have t he chance t o change t he very rules of t he gam e. Consider Robert B. Shapiro, CEO of Monsant o. Shapiro described his vision of genet ically m odifying crops as “ t he single m ost successful int roduct ion of t echnology in t he hist ory of agricult ure, including t he plow” ( New York Tim es, August 5, 1999) . This is cert ainly a huge claim —t here are st ill m any quest ions about t he safet y and public accept ance of genet ically engineered fruit s and veget ables. But indust ries like agricult ure are desperat e for radical change. I f Shapiro’s gam ble is successful, t he indust ry will be t ransform ed in t he im age of Monsant o. That ’s why he can get away wit h paint ing a pict ure of Monsant o as a highly profit able “ life sciences” com pany—despit e t he fact t hat Monsant o’s st ock has fallen 12% from 1998 t o t he end of t he t hird quart er of 1999. ( During t he sam e period, t he S&P was up 41% .) Unlike Arm st rong and Shapiro, it was enough for Bob Allen t o win against his com pet it ors in a gam e m easured prim arily by t he st ock m arket . But narcissist ic leaders are aft er som et hing m ore. They want —and need—t o leave behind a legacy. Scor e s of Follow e r s. Narcissist s have vision—but t hat ’s not enough. People in m ent al hospit als also have visions. The sim plest definit ion of a leader is som eone whom ot her people follow. I ndeed, narcissist s are especially gift ed in at t ract ing followers, and m ore oft en t han not , t hey do so t hrough language. Narcissist s believe t hat words can m ove m ount ains and t hat inspiring speeches can change people. Narcissist ic leaders are oft en skillful orat ors, and t his is one of t he t alent s t hat m akes t hem so charism at ic. I ndeed, anyone who has seen narcissist s perform can at t est t o t heir personal m agnet ism and t heir abilit y t o st ir ent husiasm am ong audiences. Yet t his charism at ic gift is m ore of a t wo- way affair t han m ost people t hink. Alt hough it is not always obvious, narcissist ic leaders are quit e dependent on t heir followers—t hey need affirm at ion, and preferably adulat ion. Think of Winst on Churchill’s wart im e broadcast s or J.F.K.’s “ Ask not what your count ry can do for you” inaugural address. The adulat ion t hat follows from such speeches bolst ers t he self- confidence and convict ion of t he speakers. But if no one responds, t he narcissist usually becom es insecure, overly shrill, and insist ent —j ust as Ross Perot did. Even when people respond posit ively t o a narcissist , t here are dangers. That ’s because charism a is a double- edged sword—it fost ers bot h closeness and isolat ion. As he becom es increasingly self- assured, t he narcissist becom es m ore spont aneous. He feels free of const raint s. I deas flow. He t hinks he’s invincible. This energy and confidence furt her inspire his followers. But t he very adulat ion t hat t he narcissist dem ands can have a corrosive effect . As he expands, he list ens even less t o words of caut ion and advice. Aft er all, he has been right before, when ot hers had t heir doubt s. Rat her t han t ry t o persuade t hose who disagree wit h him , he feels j ust ified in ignoring t hem —creat ing furt her isolat ion. The result is som et im es flagrant risk t aking t hat can lead t o cat ast rophe. I n t he polit ical realm , t here is no clearer exam ple of t his t han Bill Clint on. W e a k n e sse s of t h e N a r cissist ic Le a de r Despit e t he warm feelings t heir charism a can evoke, narcissist s are t ypically not com fort able wit h t heir own em ot ions. They list en only for t he kind of inform at ion t hey seek. They don’t learn easily from ot hers. They don’t like t o t each but prefer t o indoct rinat e and m ake speeches. They dom inat e m eet ings wit h subordinat es. The result for t he organizat ion is great er int ernal com pet it iveness at a t im e when everyone is already under as m uch pressure as t hey can possibly st and. Perhaps t he m ain problem is t hat t he narcissist ’s fault s t end t o becom e even m ore pronounced as he becom es m ore successful.

Se n sit ive t o Cr it icism . Because t hey are ext raordinarily sensit ive, narcissist ic leaders shun em ot ions as a whole. I ndeed, perhaps one of t he great est paradoxes in t his age of t eam work and part nering is t hat t he best corporat e leader in t he cont em porary world is t he t ype of person who is em ot ionally isolat ed. Narcissist ic leaders t ypically keep ot hers at arm ’s lengt h. They can put up a wall of defense as t hick as t he Pent agon. And given t heir difficult y wit h knowing or acknowledging t heir own feelings, t hey are uncom fort able wit h ot her people expressing t heirs—especially t heir negat ive feelings. I ndeed, even product ive narcissist s are ext rem ely sensit ive t o crit icism or slight s, which feel t o t hem like knives t hreat ening t heir self- im age and t heir confidence in t heir visions. Narcissist s are alm ost unim aginably t hin- skinned. Like t he fairy- t ale princess who slept on m any m at t resses and yet knew she was sleeping on a pea, narcissist s—even powerful CEOs—bruise easily. This is one explanat ion why narcissist ic leaders do not want t o know what people t hink of t hem unless it is causing t hem a real problem . They cannot t olerat e dissent . I n fact , t hey can be ext rem ely abrasive wit h em ployees who doubt t hem or wit h subordinat es who are t ough enough t o fight back. St eve Jobs, for exam ple, publicly hum iliat es subordinat es. Thus, alt hough narcissist ic leaders oft en say t hat t hey want t eam work, what t hat m eans in pract ice is t hat t hey want a group of yes- m en. As t he m ore independent - m inded players leave or are pushed out , succession becom es a part icular problem . Poor List e n e r s. One serious consequence of t his oversensit ivit y t o crit icism is t hat narcissist ic leaders oft en do not list en when t hey feel t hreat ened or at t acked. Consider t he response of one narcissist ic CEO I had worked wit h for t hree years who asked m e t o int erview his im m ediat e t eam and report back t o him on what t hey were t hinking. He invit ed m e t o his sum m er hom e t o discuss what I had found. “ So what do t hey t hink of m e?” he asked wit h seem ing nonchalance. “ They t hink you are very creat ive and courageous,” I t old him , “ but t hey also feel t hat you don’t list en.” “ Excuse m e, what did you say?” he shot back at once, pret ending not t o hear. His response was hum orous, but it was also t ragic. I n a very real way, t his CEO could not hear m y crit icism because it was t oo painful t o t olerat e. Som e narcissist s are so defensive t hat t hey go so far as t o m ake a virt ue of t he fact t hat t hey don’t list en. As anot her CEO blunt ly put it , “ I didn’t get here by list ening t o people! ” I ndeed, on one occasion when t his CEO proposed a daring st rat egy, none of his subordinat es believed it would work. His subsequent success st rengt hened his convict ion t hat he had not hing t o learn about st rat egy from his lieut enant s. But success is no excuse for narcissist ic leaders not t o list en. La ck of Em pa t h y. Best - selling business writ ers t oday have t aken up t he slogan of “ em ot ional com pet encies” —t he belief t hat successful leadership requires a st rongly developed sense of em pat hy. But alt hough t hey crave em pat hy from ot hers, product ive narcissist s are not not ed for being part icularly em pat het ic t hem selves. I ndeed, lack of em pat hy is a charact erist ic short com ing of som e of t he m ost charism at ic and successful narcissist s, including Bill Gat es and Andy Grove. Of course, leaders do need t o com m unicat e persuasively. But a lack of em pat hy did not prevent som e of hist ory’s great est narcissist ic leaders from knowing how t o com m unicat e—and inspire. Neit her Churchill, de Gaulle, St alin, nor Mao Tse- t ung were em pat het ic. And yet t hey inspired people because of t heir passion and t heir convict ion at a t im e when people longed for cert aint y. I n fact , in t im es of radical change, lack of em pat hy can act ually be a st rengt h. A narcissist finds it easier t han ot her personalit y t ypes t o buy and sell com panies, t o close and m ove facilit ies, and t o lay off em ployees—decisions t hat inevit ably m ake m any people angry and sad. But narcissist ic leaders t ypically have few regret s. As one CEO says, “ I f I list ened t o m y em ployees’ needs and dem ands, t hey would eat m e alive.” Given t his lack of em pat hy, it ’s hardly surprising t hat narcissist ic leaders don’t score part icularly well on evaluat ions of t heir int erpersonal st yle. What ’s m ore, neit her 360degree evaluat ions of t heir m anagem ent st yle nor workshops in list ening will m ake t hem m ore em pat hic. Narcissist s don’t want t o change—and as long as t hey are successful, t hey don’t t hink t hey have t o. They m ay see t he need for operat ional m anagers t o get t ouchy- feely t raining, but t hat ’s not for t hem . There is a kind of em ot ional int elligence associat ed wit h narcissist s, but it ’s m ore st reet sm art s t han em pat hy. Narcissist ic leaders are acut ely aware of whet her or not people are wit h t hem wholeheart edly. They know whom t hey can use. They can be brut ally exploit at ive. That ’s why, even t hough narcissist s undoubt edly have “ st ar qualit y,” t hey are oft en unlikable. They easily st ir up people against t hem , and it is only in t um ult uous t im es, when t heir gift s are desperat ely needed, t hat people are willing t o t olerat e

narcissist s as leaders.

N a r cissist ic le a de r s oft e n sa y t h a t t h e y w a n t t e a m w or k . W h a t t h a t m e a n s in pr a ct ice is t h a t t h e y w a n t a gr ou p of ye s- m e n . D ist a st e for M e n t or in g. Lack of em pat hy and ext rem e independence m ake it difficult for narcissist s t o m ent or and be m ent ored. Generally speaking, narcissist ic leaders set very lit t le st ore by m ent oring. They seldom m ent or ot hers, and when t hey do t hey t ypically want t heir prot égés t o be pale reflect ions of t hem selves. Even t hose narcissist s like Jack Welch who are held up as st rong m ent ors are usually m ore int erest ed in inst ruct ing t han in coaching. Narcissist s cert ainly don’t credit m ent oring or educat ional program s for t heir own developm ent as leaders. A few narcissist ic leaders such as Bill Gat es m ay find a friend or consult ant —for inst ance, Warren Buffet , a superproduct ive obsessive—whom t hey can t rust t o be t heir guide and confidant . But m ost narcissist s prefer “ m ent ors” t hey can cont rol. A 32- year- old m arket ing vice president , a narcissist wit h CEO pot ent ial, t old m e t hat she had rej ect ed her boss as a m ent or. As she put it , “ First of all, I want t o keep t he relat ionship at a dist ance. I don’t want t o be influenced by em ot ions. Second, t here are t hings I don’t want him t o know. I ’d rat her hire an out side consult ant t o be m y coach.” Alt hough narcissist ic leaders appear t o be at ease wit h ot hers, t hey find int im acy—which is a prerequisit e for m ent oring—t o be difficult . Younger narcissist s will est ablish peer relat ions wit h aut horit y rat her t han seek a parent like m ent oring relat ionship. They want result s and are willing t o t ake chances arguing wit h aut horit y. An I n t e n se D e sir e t o Com pe t e . Narcissist ic leaders are relent less and rut hless in t heir pursuit of vict ory. Gam es are not gam es but t est s of t heir survival skills. Of course, all successful m anagers want t o win, but narcissist s are not rest rained by conscience. Organizat ions led by narcissist s are generally charact erized by int ense int ernal com pet it ion. Their passion t o win is m arked by bot h t he prom ise of glory and t he prim it ive danger of ext inct ion. I t is a pot ent brew t hat energizes com panies, creat ing a sense of urgency, but it can also be dangerous. These leaders see everyt hing as a t hreat . As Andy Grove put s it , brilliant ly art iculat ing t he narcissist ’s fear, dist rust , and aggression, “ Only t he paranoid survive.” The concern, of course, is t hat t he narcissist finds enem ies t hat aren’t t here—even am ong his colleagues. Th e Rise a n d Fa ll of a N a r cissist Avoidin g t h e Tr a ps There is very lit t le business lit erat ure t hat t ells narcissist ic leaders how t o avoid t he pit falls. There are t wo reasons for t his. First , relat ively few narcissist ic leaders are int erest ed in looking inward. And second, psychoanalyst s don’t usually get close enough t o t hem , especially in t he workplace, t o writ e about t hem . ( The not ed psychoanalyst Harry Levinson is an except ion.) As a result , advice on leadership focuses on obsessives, which explains why so m uch of it is about creat ing t eam work and being m ore recept ive t o subordinat es. But as we’ve already seen, t his lit erat ure is of lit t le int erest t o narcissist s, nor is it likely t o help subordinat es underst and t heir narcissist ic leaders. The absence of m anagerial lit erat ure on narcissist ic leaders doesn’t m ean t hat it is im possible t o devise st rat egies for dealing wit h narcissism . I n t he course of a long career counseling CEOs, I have ident ified t hree basic ways in which product ive narcissist s can avoid t he t raps of t heir own personalit y. Fin d a t r u st e d side k ick . Many narcissist s can develop a close relat ionship wit h one person, a sidekick who act s as an anchor, keeping t he narcissist ic part ner grounded. However, given t hat narcissist ic leaders t rust only t heir own insight s and view of realit y, t he sidekick has t o underst and t he narcissist ic leader and what he is t rying t o achieve. The narcissist m ust feel t hat t his person, or in som e cases persons, is pract ically an ext ension of him self. The sidekick m ust also be sensit ive enough t o m anage t he relat ionship. Don Quixot e is a classic exam ple of a narcissist who was out of t ouch wit h realit y but who was const ant ly saved from disast er by his squire Sancho Panza. Not surprisingly, m any narcissist ic leaders rely heavily on t heir spouses, t he people t hey are closest t o. But dependence on spouses can be risky, because t hey m ay furt her isolat e t he narcissist ic leader from his com pany by support ing his grandiosit y and feeding his paranoia. I once knew a CEO in t his kind of relat ionship wit h his spouse. He t ook t o accusing loyal subordinat es of plot t ing against him j ust because t hey vent ured a few crit icism s of his ideas. I t is m uch bet t er for a narcissist ic leader t o choose a colleague as his sidekick. Good

sidekicks are able t o point out t he operat ional requirem ent s of t he narcissist ic leader’s vision and keep him root ed in realit y. The best sidekicks are usually product ive obsessives. Gyllenham m ar, for inst ance, was m ost effect ive at Volvo when he had an obsessive COO, Håkan Frisinger, t o focus on im proving qualit y and cost , as well as an obsessive HR direct or, Bert h Jönsson, t o im plem ent his vision. Sim ilarly, Bill Gat es can t hink about t he fut ure from t he st rat osphere because St eve Ballm er, a t ough obsessive president , keeps t he show on t he road. At Oracle, CEO Larry Ellison can afford t o m iss key m eet ings and spend t im e on his boat cont em plat ing a fut ure wit hout PCs because he has a product ive obsessive COO in Ray Lane t o run t he com pany for him . But t he j ob of sidekick ent ails m ore t han j ust execut ing t he leader’s ideas. The sidekick also has t o get his leader t o accept new ideas. To do t his, he m ust be able t o show t he leader how t he new ideas fit wit h his views and serve his int erest s. ( For m ore on dealing wit h narcissist ic bosses, see t he sidebar “ Working for a Narcissist .” ) W or k in g for a N a r cissist I n doct r in a t e t h e or ga n iza t ion . The narcissist ic CEO want s all his subordinat es t o t hink t he way he does about t he business. Product ive narcissist s—people who oft en have a dash of t he obsessive personalit y—are good at convert ing people t o t heir point of view. One of t he m ost successful at t his is GE’s Jack Welch. Welch uses t oughness t o build a corporat e cult ure and t o im plem ent a daring business st rat egy, including t he buying and selling of scores of com panies. Unlike ot her narcissist ic leaders such as Gat es, Grove, and Ellison, who have t ransform ed indust ries wit h new product s, Welch was able t o t ransform his indust ry by focusing on execut ion and pushing com panies t o t he lim it s of qualit y and efficiency, bum ping up revenues and wringing out cost s. I n order t o do so, Welch ham m ers out a huge corporat e cult ure in his own im age—a cult ure t hat provides im pressive rewards for senior m anagers and shareholders. Welch’s approach t o cult ure building is widely m isunderst ood. Many observers, not ably Noel Tichy in The Leadership Engine, argue t hat Welch form s his com pany’s leadership cult ure t hrough t eaching. But Welch’s “ t eaching” involves a personal ideology t hat he indoct rinat es int o GE m anagers t hrough speeches, m em os, and confront at ions. Rat her t han creat e a dialogue, Welch m akes pronouncem ent s ( eit her be t he num ber one or t wo com pany in your m arket or get out ) , and he inst it ut es program s ( such as Six Sigm a qualit y) t hat becom e t he GE part y line. Welch’s st rat egy has been ext rem ely effect ive. GE m anagers m ust eit her int ernalize his vision, or t hey m ust leave. Clearly, t his is incent ive learning wit h a vengeance. I would even go so far as t o call Welch’s t eaching brainwashing. But Welch does have t he rare insight and know- how t o achieve what all narcissist ic business leaders are t rying t o do—nam ely, get t he organizat ion t o ident ify wit h t hem , t o t hink t he way t hey do, and t o becom e t he living em bodim ent of t heir com panies.

M or e a n d m or e la r ge cor por a t ion s a r e ge t t in g in t o be d w it h n a r cissist s. Th e y a r e fin din g t h a t t h e r e is n o su bst it u t e for n a r cissist ic le a de r s in a n a ge of in n ova t ion . Ge t in t o a n a lysis. Narcissist s are oft en m ore int erest ed in cont rolling ot hers t han in knowing and disciplining t hem selves. That ’s why, wit h very few except ions, even product ive narcissist s do not want t o explore t heir personalit ies wit h t he help of insight t herapies such as psychoanalysis. Yet since Heinz Kohut , t here has been a radical shift in psychoanalyt ic t hinking about what can be done t o help narcissist s work t hrough t heir rage, alienat ion, and grandiosit y. I ndeed, if t hey can be persuaded t o undergo t herapy, narcissist ic leaders can use t ools such as psychoanalysis t o overcom e vit al charact er flaws. Consider t he case of one except ional narcissist ic CEO who asked m e t o help him underst and why he so oft en lost his t em per wit h subordinat es. He lived far from m y hom e cit y, and so t he t herapy was sporadic and very unort hodox. Yet he kept a j ournal of his dream s, which we int erpret ed t oget her eit her by phone or when we m et . Our analysis uncovered painful feelings of being unappreciat ed t hat went back t o his inabilit y t o im press a cold fat her. He cam e t o realize t hat he dem anded an unreasonable am ount of praise and t hat when he felt unappreciat ed by his subordinat es, he becam e furious. Once he underst ood t hat , he was able t o recognize his narcissism and even laugh about it . I n t he m iddle of our work, he even announced t o his t op t eam t hat I was psychoanalyzing him and asked t hem what t hey t hought of t hat . Aft er a pregnant pause, one execut ive vice president piped up, “ What ever you’re doing, you should keep doing it , because you don’t get so angry anym ore.” I nst ead of being t rapped by narcissist ic rage, t his CEO was learning how t o express his concerns const ruct ively.

Leaders who can work on t hem selves in t hat way t end t o be t he m ost product ive narcissist s. I n addit ion t o being self- reflect ive, t hey are also likely t o be open, likable, and good- hum ored. Product ive narcissist s have perspect ive; t hey are able t o det ach t hem selves and laugh at t heir irrat ional needs. Alt hough serious about achieving t heir goals, t hey are also playful. As leaders, t hey are aware of being perform ers. A sense of hum or helps t hem m aint ain enough perspect ive and hum ilit y t o keep on learning. Th e Be st a n d W or st of Tim e s As I have point ed out , narcissist s t hrive in chaot ic t im es. I n m ore t ranquil t im es and places, however, even t he m ost brilliant narcissist will seem out of place. I n his short st ory The Curfew Tolls, St ephen Vincent Benét speculat es on what would have happened t o Napoléon if he had been born som e 30 years earlier. Ret ired in prerevolut ionary France, Napoléon is depict ed as a lonely art illery m aj or boast ing t o a vacat ioning Brit ish general about how he could have beat en t he English in I ndia. The point , of course, is t hat a visionary born in t he wrong t im e can seem like a pom pous buffoon. Hist orically, narcissist s in large corporat ions have been confined t o sales posit ions, where t hey use t heir persuasiveness and im aginat ion t o best effect . I n set t led t im es, t he problem at ic side of t he narcissist ic personalit y usually conspires t o keep narcissist s in t heir place, and t hey can t ypically rise t o t op m anagem ent posit ions only by st art ing t heir own com panies or by leaving t o lead upst art s. Consider Joe Nacchio, form erly in charge of bot h t he business and consum er divisions of AT&T. Nacchio was a supersalesm an and a popular leader in t he m id- 1990s. But his desire t o creat e a new net work for business cust om ers was t hwart ed by colleagues who found him abrasive, self- prom ot ing, and rut hlessly am bit ious. Two years ago, Nacchio left AT&T t o becom e CEO of Qwest , a com pany t hat is creat ing a long- dist ance fiber- opt ic cable net work. Nacchio had t he credibilit y—and charism a—t o sell Qwest ’s init ial public offering t o financial m arket s and gain a high valuat ion. Wit hin a short space of t im e, he t urned Qwest int o an at t ract ive t arget for t he RBOCs, which were looking t o m ove int o long- dist ance t elephony and I nt ernet services. Such a sale would have given Qwest ’s owners a handsom e profit on t heir invest m ent . But Nacchio want ed m ore. He want ed t o expand—t o com pet e wit h AT&T—and for t hat he needed local service. Rat her t han sell Qwest , he chose t o m ake a bid him self for local t elephone operat or U.S. West , using Qwest ’s highly valued st ock t o finance t he deal. The m arket vot ed on t his display of expansiveness wit h it s feet —Qwest ’s st ock price fell 40% bet ween last June, when he m ade t he deal, and t he end of t he t hird quart er of 1999. ( The S&P index dropped 5.7% during t he sam e period.) Like ot her narcissist s, Nacchio likes risk—and som et im es ignores t he cost s. But wit h t he dram at ic discont inuit ies going on in t he world t oday, m ore and m ore large corporat ions are get t ing int o bed wit h narcissist s. They are finding t hat t here is no subst it ut e for narcissist ic leaders in an age of innovat ion. Com panies need leaders who do not t ry t o ant icipat e t he fut ure so m uch as creat e it . But narcissist ic leaders—even t he m ost product ive of t hem —can self- dest ruct and lead t heir organizat ions t erribly ast ray. For com panies whose narcissist ic leaders recognize t heir lim it at ions, t hese will be t he best of t im es. For ot her com panies, t hese could t urn out t o be t he worst . > | Ex e cu t ive Su m m a r y Reprint Num ber R0401J | Harvard Business Review OnPoint edit ion 5904 | Harvard Business Review OnPoint collect ion 5070

> | Pu r ch a se Re pr in t > | Pr in t a ble Ve r sion > | E- m a il a Colle a gu e

View Back Issues Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. All right s reserved.

Click here t o visit : > | ht t p: / / www.hbsp.org

Narcissist ic Leaders The Incredible Pros, the Inevitable Cons M a n y le a de r s dom in a t in g bu sin e ss t oda y h a ve w h a t psych oa n a lyst s ca ll a n a r cissist ic pe r son a lit y. Th a t ’s good n e w s for com pa n ie s t h a t n e e d pa ssion a n d da r in g t o br e a k n e w gr ou n d. Bu t e ve n pr odu ct ive n a r cissist s ca n be da n ge r ou s for or ga n iza t ion s. H e r e is som e a dvice on a voidin g t h e da n ge r s.

by M ich a e l M a ccoby M ich a e l M a ccoby is an ant hropologist and a psychoanalyst . He is also t he founder and president of t he Maccoby Group, a m anagem ent consult ancy in Washingt on, DC, and was form erly direct or of t he Program on Technology, Public Policy, and Hum an Developm ent at Harvard Universit y’s Kennedy School of Governm ent in Cam bridge, Massachuset t s. This art icle was t he basis for t he book The Product ive Narcissist : The Prom ise and Peril of Visionary Leadership ( Broadway Books, 2003) .

When Michael Maccoby wrot e t his art icle, which was first published in early 2000, t he business world was st ill under t he spell of t he I nt ernet and it s revolut ionary prom ise. I t was a t im e, Maccoby wrot e, t hat called for larger- t han- life leaders who could see t he big pict ure and paint a com pelling port rait of a dram at ically different fut ure. And t hat , he argued, was one reason we saw t he em ergence of t he superst ar CEOs—t he grandiose, act ively self- prom ot ing, and genuinely narcissist ic leaders who dom inat ed t he covers of business m agazines at t hat t im e. Skilled orat ors and creat ive st rat egist s, narcissist s have vision and a great abilit y t o at t ract and inspire followers. The t im es have changed, and we’ve learned a lot about t he dangers of overreliance on big personalit ies, but t hat doesn’t m ean narcissism can’t be a useful leadership t rait . There’s cert ainly a dark side t o narcissism —narcissist s, Freud t old us, are em ot ionally isolat ed and highly dist rust ful. They’re usually poor list eners and lack em pat hy. Perceived t hreat s can t rigger rage. The challenge t oday—as Maccoby underst ood it t o be four years ago—is t o t ake advant age of t heir st rengt hs while t em pering t heir weaknesses.

There’s som et hing new and daring about t he CEOs who are t ransform ing t oday’s indust ries. Just com pare t hem wit h t he execut ives who ran large com panies in t he 1950s t hrough t he 1980s. Those execut ives shunned t he press and had t heir com m ent s carefully craft ed by corporat e PR depart m ent s. But t oday’s CEOs—superst ars such as Bill Gat es, Andy Grove, St eve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, and Jack Welch—hire t heir own publicist s, writ e books, grant spont aneous int erviews, and act ively prom ot e t heir personal philosophies. Their faces adorn t he covers of m agazines like BusinessWeek, Tim e, and t he Econom ist . What ’s m ore, t he world’s business personalit ies are increasingly seen as t he m akers and shapers of our public and personal agendas. They advise schools on what kids should learn and lawm akers on how t o invest t he public’s m oney. We look t o t hem for t hought s on everyt hing from t he fut ure of e- com m erce t o hot places t o vacat ion. There are m any reasons t oday’s business leaders have higher profiles t han ever before. One is t hat business plays a m uch bigger role in our lives t han it used t o, and it s leaders are m ore oft en in t he lim elight . Anot her is t hat t he business world is experiencing enorm ous changes t hat call for visionary and charism at ic leadership. But m y 25 years of consult ing bot h as a psychoanalyst in privat e pract ice and as an adviser t o t op m anagers suggest a t hird reason—nam ely, a pronounced change in t he personalit y of t he st rat egic leaders at t he t op. As an ant hropologist , I t ry t o underst and people in t he cont ext in which t hey operat e, and as a psychoanalyst , I t end t o see t hem t hrough a dist inct ly Freudian lens. Given what I know, I believe t hat t he larger- t han- life leaders we are seeing t oday closely resem ble t he personalit y t ype t hat Sigm und Freud dubbed narcissist ic. “ People of t his t ype im press ot hers as being ‘personalit ies,’” he wrot e, describing one of t he psychological t ypes t hat clearly fall wit hin t he range of norm alit y. “ They are especially suit ed t o act as a support for ot hers, t o t ake on t he role of leaders, and t o give a fresh st im ulus t o cult ural developm ent or dam age t he est ablished st at e of affairs.” Throughout hist ory, narcissist s have always em erged t o inspire people and t o shape t he fut ure. When m ilit ary, religious, and polit ical arenas dom inat ed societ y, it was figures such as Napoléon Bonapart e, Mahat m a Gandhi, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt who det erm ined t he social agenda. But from t im e t o t im e, when business becam e t he engine of social change, it , t oo, generat ed it s share of narcissist ic leaders. That was t rue at t he beginning of t his cent ury, when m en like Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Thom as Edison, and Henry Ford exploit ed new t echnologies and rest ruct ured Am erican indust ry. And I t hink it is t rue again t oday. But Freud recognized t hat t here is a dark side t o narcissism . Narcissist s, he point ed out , are em ot ionally isolat ed and highly dist rust ful. Perceived t hreat s can t rigger rage. Achievem ent s can feed feelings of grandiosit y. That ’s why Freud t hought narcissist s were t he hardest personalit y t ypes t o analyze. Consider how an execut ive at Oracle describes his narcissist ic CEO Larry Ellison: “ The difference bet ween God and Larry is t hat God does not believe he is Larry.” That observat ion is am using, but it is also t roubling. Not surprisingly, m ost people t hink of narcissist s in a prim arily negat ive way. Aft er all, Freud nam ed t he t ype aft er t he m yt hical figure Narcissus, who died because of his pat hological preoccupat ion wit h him self. Yet narcissism can be ext raordinarily useful—even necessary. Freud shift ed his views about narcissism over t im e and recognized t hat we are all som ewhat narcissist ic. More recent ly, psychoanalyst Heinz Kohut built on Freud’s t heories and developed m et hods of t reat ing narcissist s. Of course, only professional clinicians are t rained t o t ell if narcissism is norm al or pat hological. I n t his art icle, I discuss t he differences bet ween product ive and unproduct ive narcissism but do not explore t he ext rem e pat hology of borderline condit ions and psychosis.

Leaders such as Jack Welch and George Soros are exam ples of product ive narcissist s. They are gift ed and creat ive st rat egist s who see t he big pict ure and find m eaning in t he risky challenge of changing t he world and leaving behind a legacy. I ndeed, one reason we look t o product ive narcissist s in t im es of great t ransit ion is t hat t hey have t he audacit y t o push t hrough t he m assive t ransform at ions t hat societ y periodically undert akes. Product ive narcissist s are not only risk t akers willing t o get t he j ob done but also charm ers who can convert t he m asses wit h t heir rhet oric. The danger is t hat narcissism can t urn unproduct ive when, lacking self- knowledge and rest raining anchors, narcissist s becom e unrealist ic dream ers. They nurt ure grand schem es and harbor t he illusion t hat only circum st ances or enem ies block t heir success. This t endency t oward grandiosit y and dist rust is t he Achilles’ heel of narcissist s. Because of it , even brilliant narcissist s can com e under suspicion for self- involvem ent , unpredict abilit y, and—in ext rem e cases—paranoia.

Pr odu ct ive n a r cissist s h a ve t h e a u da cit y t o pu sh t h r ou gh t h e m a ssive t r a n sfor m a t ion s t h a t socie t y pe r iodica lly u n de r t a k e s. I t ’s easy t o see why narcissist ic leadership doesn’t always m ean successful leadership. Consider t he case of Volvo’s Pehr Gyllenham m ar. He had a dream t hat appealed t o a broad int ernat ional audience—a plan t o revolut ionize t he indust rial workplace by replacing t he dehum anizing assem bly line caricat ured in Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Tim es. His wildly popular vision called for t eam - based craft sm anship. Model fact ories were built and publicized t o int ernat ional acclaim . But his success in pushing t hrough t hese dram at ic changes also sowed t he seeds for his downfall. Gyllenham m ar st art ed t o feel t hat he could ignore t he concerns of his operat ional m anagers. He pursued chancy and expensive business deals, which he publicized on t elevision and in t he press. On one level, you can ascribe Gyllenham m ar’s falling out of t ouch wit h his workforce sim ply t o fault y st rat egy. But it is also possible t o at t ribut e it t o his narcissist ic personalit y. His overest im at ion of him self led him t o believe t hat ot hers would want him t o be t he czar of a m ult inat ional ent erprise. I n t urn, t hese fant asies led him t o pursue a m erger wit h Renault , which was t rem endously unpopular wit h Swedish em ployees. Because Gyllenham m ar was deaf t o com plaint s about Renault , Swedish m anagers were forced t o t ake t heir case public. I n t he end, shareholders aggressively rej ect ed Gyllenham m ar’s plan, leaving him wit h no opt ion but t o resign. Given t he large num ber of narcissist s at t he helm of corporat ions t oday, t he challenge facing organizat ions is t o ensure t hat such leaders do not self- dest ruct or lead t he com pany t o disast er. That can t ake som e doing because it is very hard for narcissist s t o work t hrough t heir issues—and virt ually im possible for t hem t o do it alone. Narcissist s need colleagues and even t herapist s if t hey hope t o break free from t heir lim it at ions. But because of t heir ext rem e independence and self- prot ect iveness, it is very difficult t o get near t hem . Kohut m aint ained t hat a t herapist would have t o dem onst rat e an ext raordinarily profound em pat hic underst anding and sym pat hy for t he narcissist ’s feelings in order t o gain his t rust . On t op of t hat , narcissist s m ust recognize t hat t hey can benefit from such help. For t heir part , em ployees m ust learn how t o recognize—and work around—narcissist ic bosses. To help t hem in t his endeavor, let ’s first t ake a closer look at Freud’s t heory of personalit y t ypes. Th r e e M a in Pe r son a lit y Type s While Freud recognized t hat t here are an alm ost infinit e variet y of personalit ies, he ident ified t hree m ain t ypes: erot ic, obsessive, and narcissist ic. Most of us have elem ent s of all t hree. We are all, for exam ple, som ewhat narcissist ic. I f t hat were not so, we

would not be able t o survive or assert our needs. The point is, one of t he dynam ic t endencies usually dom inat es t he ot hers, m aking each of us react different ly t o success and failure. Freud’s definit ions of personalit y t ypes differed over t im e. When t alking about t he erot ic personalit y t ype, however, Freud generally did not m ean a sexual personalit y but rat her one for whom loving and above all being loved is m ost im port ant . This t ype of individual is dependent on t hose people t hey fear will st op loving t hem . Many erot ics are t eachers, nurses, and social workers. At t heir m ost product ive, t hey are developers of t he young as well as enablers and helpers at work. As m anagers, t hey are caring and support ive, but t hey avoid conflict and m ake people dependent on t hem . They are, according t o Freud, out er- direct ed people. Obsessives, in cont rast , are inner- direct ed. They are self- reliant and conscient ious. They creat e and m aint ain order and m ake t he m ost effect ive operat ional m anagers. They look const ant ly for ways t o help people list en bet t er, resolve conflict , and find win- win opport unit ies. They buy self- im provem ent books such as St ephen Covey’s The 7 Habit s of Highly Effect ive People. Obsessives are also ruled by a st rict conscience—t hey like t o focus on cont inuous im provem ent at work because it fit s in wit h t heir sense of m oral im provem ent . As ent repreneurs, obsessives st art businesses t hat express t heir values, but t hey lack t he vision, daring, and charism a it t akes t o t urn a good idea int o a great one. The best obsessives set high st andards and com m unicat e very effect ively. They m ake sure t hat inst ruct ions are followed and cost s are kept wit hin budget . The m ost product ive are great m ent ors and t eam players. The unproduct ive and t he uncooperat ive becom e narrow expert s and rule- bound bureaucrat s. Narcissist s, t he t hird t ype, are independent and not easily im pressed. They are innovat ors, driven in business t o gain power and glory. Product ive narcissist s are expert s in t heir indust ries, but t hey go beyond it . They also pose t he crit ical quest ions. They want t o learn everyt hing about everyt hing t hat affect s t he com pany and it s product s. Unlike erot ics, t hey want t o be adm ired, not loved. And unlike obsessives, t hey are not t roubled by a punishing superego, so t hey are able t o aggressively pursue t heir goals. Of all t he personalit y t ypes, narcissist s run t he great est risk of isolat ing t hem selves at t he m om ent of success. And because of t heir independence and aggressiveness, t hey are const ant ly looking out for enem ies, som et im es degenerat ing int o paranoia when t hey are under ext rem e st ress. ( For m ore on personalit y t ypes, see t he sidebar “ From m ’s Fourt h Personalit y Type.” ) Fr om m 's Fou r t h Pe r son a lit y Type Sidebar R0 4 0 1 J_ A (Locat ed at t he end of t his art icle)

St r e n gt h s of t h e N a r cissist ic Le a de r When it com es t o leadership, personalit y t ype can be inst ruct ive. Erot ic personalit ies generally m ake poor m anagers—t hey need t oo m uch approval. Obsessives m ake bet t er leaders—t hey are your operat ional m anagers: crit ical and caut ious. But it is narcissist s who com e closest t o our collect ive im age of great leaders. There are t wo reasons for t his: t hey have com pelling, even gripping, visions for com panies, and t hey have an abilit y t o at t ract followers. Gr e a t Vision . I once asked a group of m anagers t o define a leader. “ A person wit h vision” was a t ypical response. Product ive narcissist s underst and t he vision t hing part icularly well, because t hey are by nat ure people who see t he big pict ure. They are not analyzers who can break up big quest ions int o m anageable problem s; t hey aren’t

num ber crunchers eit her ( t hese are usually t he obsessives) . Nor do t hey t ry t o ext rapolat e t o underst and t he fut ure—t hey at t em pt t o creat e it . To paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, som e people see t hings as t hey are and ask why; narcissist s see t hings t hat never were and ask why not . Consider t he difference bet ween Bob Allen, a product ive obsessive, and Mike Arm st rong, a product ive narcissist . I n 1997, Allen t ried t o expand AT&T t o reest ablish t he end- t oend service of t he Bell Syst em by reselling local service from t he regional Bell operat ing com panies ( RBOCs) . Alt hough t his was a wort hwhile endeavor for shareholders and cust om ers, it was hardly eart h- shat t ering. By cont rast , t hrough a st rat egy of com bining voice, t elecom m unicat ions, and I nt ernet access by high- speed broadband t elecom m unicat ion over cable, Mike Arm st rong has “ creat ed a new space wit h his nam e on it ,” as one of his colleagues put s it . Arm st rong is bet t ing t hat his cost ly st rat egy will beat out t he RBOC’s less expensive solut ion of digit al subscriber lines over copper wire. This exam ple illust rat es t he different approaches of obsessives and narcissist s. The risk Arm st rong t ook is one t hat few obsessives would feel com fort able t aking. His vision is galvanizing AT&T. Who but a narcissist ic leader could achieve such a t hing? As Napoléon —a classic narcissist —once rem arked, “ Revolut ions are ideal t im es for soldiers wit h a lot of wit —and t he courage t o act .” As in t he days of t he French Revolut ion, t he world is now changing in ast ounding ways; narcissist s have opport unit ies t hey would never have in ordinary t im es. I n short , t oday’s narcissist ic leaders have t he chance t o change t he very rules of t he gam e. Consider Robert B. Shapiro, CEO of Monsant o. Shapiro described his vision of genet ically m odifying crops as “ t he single m ost successful int roduct ion of t echnology in t he hist ory of agricult ure, including t he plow” ( New York Tim es, August 5, 1999) . This is cert ainly a huge claim —t here are st ill m any quest ions about t he safet y and public accept ance of genet ically engineered fruit s and veget ables. But indust ries like agricult ure are desperat e for radical change. I f Shapiro’s gam ble is successful, t he indust ry will be t ransform ed in t he im age of Monsant o. That ’s why he can get away wit h paint ing a pict ure of Monsant o as a highly profit able “ life sciences” com pany—despit e t he fact t hat Monsant o’s st ock has fallen 12% from 1998 t o t he end of t he t hird quart er of 1999. ( During t he sam e period, t he S&P was up 41% .) Unlike Arm st rong and Shapiro, it was enough for Bob Allen t o win against his com pet it ors in a gam e m easured prim arily by t he st ock m arket . But narcissist ic leaders are aft er som et hing m ore. They want —and need—t o leave behind a legacy. Scor e s of Follow e r s. Narcissist s have vision—but t hat ’s not enough. People in m ent al hospit als also have visions. The sim plest definit ion of a leader is som eone whom ot her people follow. I ndeed, narcissist s are especially gift ed in at t ract ing followers, and m ore oft en t han not , t hey do so t hrough language. Narcissist s believe t hat words can m ove m ount ains and t hat inspiring speeches can change people. Narcissist ic leaders are oft en skillful orat ors, and t his is one of t he t alent s t hat m akes t hem so charism at ic. I ndeed, anyone who has seen narcissist s perform can at t est t o t heir personal m agnet ism and t heir abilit y t o st ir ent husiasm am ong audiences. Yet t his charism at ic gift is m ore of a t wo- way affair t han m ost people t hink. Alt hough it is not always obvious, narcissist ic leaders are quit e dependent on t heir followers—t hey need affirm at ion, and preferably adulat ion. Think of Winst on Churchill’s wart im e broadcast s or J.F.K.’s “ Ask not what your count ry can do for you” inaugural address. The adulat ion t hat follows from such speeches bolst ers t he self- confidence and convict ion of t he speakers. But if no one responds, t he narcissist usually becom es insecure, overly shrill, and insist ent —j ust as Ross Perot did. Even when people respond posit ively t o a narcissist , t here are dangers. That ’s because

charism a is a double- edged sword—it fost ers bot h closeness and isolat ion. As he becom es increasingly self- assured, t he narcissist becom es m ore spont aneous. He feels free of const raint s. I deas flow. He t hinks he’s invincible. This energy and confidence furt her inspire his followers. But t he very adulat ion t hat t he narcissist dem ands can have a corrosive effect . As he expands, he list ens even less t o words of caut ion and advice. Aft er all, he has been right before, when ot hers had t heir doubt s. Rat her t han t ry t o persuade t hose who disagree wit h him , he feels j ust ified in ignoring t hem —creat ing furt her isolat ion. The result is som et im es flagrant risk t aking t hat can lead t o cat ast rophe. I n t he polit ical realm , t here is no clearer exam ple of t his t han Bill Clint on. W e a k n e sse s of t h e N a r cissist ic Le a de r Despit e t he warm feelings t heir charism a can evoke, narcissist s are t ypically not com fort able wit h t heir own em ot ions. They list en only for t he kind of inform at ion t hey seek. They don’t learn easily from ot hers. They don’t like t o t each but prefer t o indoct rinat e and m ake speeches. They dom inat e m eet ings wit h subordinat es. The result for t he organizat ion is great er int ernal com pet it iveness at a t im e when everyone is already under as m uch pressure as t hey can possibly st and. Perhaps t he m ain problem is t hat t he narcissist ’s fault s t end t o becom e even m ore pronounced as he becom es m ore successful. Se n sit ive t o Cr it icism . Because t hey are ext raordinarily sensit ive, narcissist ic leaders shun em ot ions as a whole. I ndeed, perhaps one of t he great est paradoxes in t his age of t eam work and part nering is t hat t he best corporat e leader in t he cont em porary world is t he t ype of person who is em ot ionally isolat ed. Narcissist ic leaders t ypically keep ot hers at arm ’s lengt h. They can put up a wall of defense as t hick as t he Pent agon. And given t heir difficult y wit h knowing or acknowledging t heir own feelings, t hey are uncom fort able wit h ot her people expressing t heirs—especially t heir negat ive feelings. I ndeed, even product ive narcissist s are ext rem ely sensit ive t o crit icism or slight s, which feel t o t hem like knives t hreat ening t heir self- im age and t heir confidence in t heir visions. Narcissist s are alm ost unim aginably t hin- skinned. Like t he fairy- t ale princess who slept on m any m at t resses and yet knew she was sleeping on a pea, narcissist s—even powerful CEOs—bruise easily. This is one explanat ion why narcissist ic leaders do not want t o know what people t hink of t hem unless it is causing t hem a real problem . They cannot t olerat e dissent . I n fact , t hey can be ext rem ely abrasive wit h em ployees who doubt t hem or wit h subordinat es who are t ough enough t o fight back. St eve Jobs, for exam ple, publicly hum iliat es subordinat es. Thus, alt hough narcissist ic leaders oft en say t hat t hey want t eam work, what t hat m eans in pract ice is t hat t hey want a group of yes- m en. As t he m ore independent - m inded players leave or are pushed out , succession becom es a part icular problem . Poor List e n e r s. One serious consequence of t his oversensit ivit y t o crit icism is t hat narcissist ic leaders oft en do not list en when t hey feel t hreat ened or at t acked. Consider t he response of one narcissist ic CEO I had worked wit h for t hree years who asked m e t o int erview his im m ediat e t eam and report back t o him on what t hey were t hinking. He invit ed m e t o his sum m er hom e t o discuss what I had found. “ So what do t hey t hink of m e?” he asked wit h seem ing nonchalance. “ They t hink you are very creat ive and courageous,” I t old him , “ but t hey also feel t hat you don’t list en.” “ Excuse m e, what did you say?” he shot back at once, pret ending not t o hear. His response was hum orous, but it was also t ragic. I n a very real way, t his CEO could not hear m y crit icism because it was t oo painful t o t olerat e. Som e narcissist s are so defensive t hat t hey go so far as t o m ake a virt ue of t he fact t hat t hey don’t list en. As anot her CEO blunt ly put it , “ I didn’t get here by list ening t o

people! ” I ndeed, on one occasion when t his CEO proposed a daring st rat egy, none of his subordinat es believed it would work. His subsequent success st rengt hened his convict ion t hat he had not hing t o learn about st rat egy from his lieut enant s. But success is no excuse for narcissist ic leaders not t o list en. La ck of Em pa t h y. Best - selling business writ ers t oday have t aken up t he slogan of “ em ot ional com pet encies” —t he belief t hat successful leadership requires a st rongly developed sense of em pat hy. But alt hough t hey crave em pat hy from ot hers, product ive narcissist s are not not ed for being part icularly em pat het ic t hem selves. I ndeed, lack of em pat hy is a charact erist ic short com ing of som e of t he m ost charism at ic and successful narcissist s, including Bill Gat es and Andy Grove. Of course, leaders do need t o com m unicat e persuasively. But a lack of em pat hy did not prevent som e of hist ory’s great est narcissist ic leaders from knowing how t o com m unicat e—and inspire. Neit her Churchill, de Gaulle, St alin, nor Mao Tse- t ung were em pat het ic. And yet t hey inspired people because of t heir passion and t heir convict ion at a t im e when people longed for cert aint y. I n fact , in t im es of radical change, lack of em pat hy can act ually be a st rengt h. A narcissist finds it easier t han ot her personalit y t ypes t o buy and sell com panies, t o close and m ove facilit ies, and t o lay off em ployees—decisions t hat inevit ably m ake m any people angry and sad. But narcissist ic leaders t ypically have few regret s. As one CEO says, “ I f I list ened t o m y em ployees’ needs and dem ands, t hey would eat m e alive.” Given t his lack of em pat hy, it ’s hardly surprising t hat narcissist ic leaders don’t score part icularly well on evaluat ions of t heir int erpersonal st yle. What ’s m ore, neit her 360degree evaluat ions of t heir m anagem ent st yle nor workshops in list ening will m ake t hem m ore em pat hic. Narcissist s don’t want t o change—and as long as t hey are successful, t hey don’t t hink t hey have t o. They m ay see t he need for operat ional m anagers t o get t ouchy- feely t raining, but t hat ’s not for t hem . There is a kind of em ot ional int elligence associat ed wit h narcissist s, but it ’s m ore st reet sm art s t han em pat hy. Narcissist ic leaders are acut ely aware of whet her or not people are wit h t hem wholeheart edly. They know whom t hey can use. They can be brut ally exploit at ive. That ’s why, even t hough narcissist s undoubt edly have “ st ar qualit y,” t hey are oft en unlikable. They easily st ir up people against t hem , and it is only in t um ult uous t im es, when t heir gift s are desperat ely needed, t hat people are willing t o t olerat e narcissist s as leaders.

N a r cissist ic le a de r s oft e n sa y t h a t t h e y w a n t t e a m w or k . W h a t t h a t m e a n s in pr a ct ice is t h a t t h e y w a n t a gr ou p of ye s- m e n . D ist a st e for M e n t or in g. Lack of em pat hy and ext rem e independence m ake it difficult for narcissist s t o m ent or and be m ent ored. Generally speaking, narcissist ic leaders set very lit t le st ore by m ent oring. They seldom m ent or ot hers, and when t hey do t hey t ypically want t heir prot égés t o be pale reflect ions of t hem selves. Even t hose narcissist s like Jack Welch who are held up as st rong m ent ors are usually m ore int erest ed in inst ruct ing t han in coaching. Narcissist s cert ainly don’t credit m ent oring or educat ional program s for t heir own developm ent as leaders. A few narcissist ic leaders such as Bill Gat es m ay find a friend or consult ant —for inst ance, Warren Buffet , a superproduct ive obsessive—whom t hey can t rust t o be t heir guide and confidant . But m ost narcissist s prefer “ m ent ors” t hey can cont rol. A 32- year- old m arket ing vice president , a narcissist wit h CEO pot ent ial, t old m e t hat she had rej ect ed her boss as a m ent or. As she put it , “ First of all, I want t o keep t he

relat ionship at a dist ance. I don’t want t o be influenced by em ot ions. Second, t here are t hings I don’t want him t o know. I ’d rat her hire an out side consult ant t o be m y coach.” Alt hough narcissist ic leaders appear t o be at ease wit h ot hers, t hey find int im acy—which is a prerequisit e for m ent oring—t o be difficult . Younger narcissist s will est ablish peer relat ions wit h aut horit y rat her t han seek a parent like m ent oring relat ionship. They want result s and are willing t o t ake chances arguing wit h aut horit y. An I n t e n se D e sir e t o Com pe t e . Narcissist ic leaders are relent less and rut hless in t heir pursuit of vict ory. Gam es are not gam es but t est s of t heir survival skills. Of course, all successful m anagers want t o win, but narcissist s are not rest rained by conscience. Organizat ions led by narcissist s are generally charact erized by int ense int ernal com pet it ion. Their passion t o win is m arked by bot h t he prom ise of glory and t he prim it ive danger of ext inct ion. I t is a pot ent brew t hat energizes com panies, creat ing a sense of urgency, but it can also be dangerous. These leaders see everyt hing as a t hreat . As Andy Grove put s it , brilliant ly art iculat ing t he narcissist ’s fear, dist rust , and aggression, “ Only t he paranoid survive.” The concern, of course, is t hat t he narcissist finds enem ies t hat aren’t t here—even am ong his colleagues. Th e Rise a n d Fa ll of a N a r cissist Sidebar R0 4 0 1 J_ B (Locat ed at t he end of t his art icle)

Avoidin g t h e Tr a ps There is very lit t le business lit erat ure t hat t ells narcissist ic leaders how t o avoid t he pit falls. There are t wo reasons for t his. First , relat ively few narcissist ic leaders are int erest ed in looking inward. And second, psychoanalyst s don’t usually get close enough t o t hem , especially in t he workplace, t o writ e about t hem . ( The not ed psychoanalyst Harry Levinson is an except ion.) As a result , advice on leadership focuses on obsessives, which explains why so m uch of it is about creat ing t eam work and being m ore recept ive t o subordinat es. But as we’ve already seen, t his lit erat ure is of lit t le int erest t o narcissist s, nor is it likely t o help subordinat es underst and t heir narcissist ic leaders. The absence of m anagerial lit erat ure on narcissist ic leaders doesn’t m ean t hat it is im possible t o devise st rat egies for dealing wit h narcissism . I n t he course of a long career counseling CEOs, I have ident ified t hree basic ways in which product ive narcissist s can avoid t he t raps of t heir own personalit y. Fin d a t r u st e d side k ick . Many narcissist s can develop a close relat ionship wit h one person, a sidekick who act s as an anchor, keeping t he narcissist ic part ner grounded. However, given t hat narcissist ic leaders t rust only t heir own insight s and view of realit y, t he sidekick has t o underst and t he narcissist ic leader and what he is t rying t o achieve. The narcissist m ust feel t hat t his person, or in som e cases persons, is pract ically an ext ension of him self. The sidekick m ust also be sensit ive enough t o m anage t he relat ionship. Don Quixot e is a classic exam ple of a narcissist who was out of t ouch wit h realit y but who was const ant ly saved from disast er by his squire Sancho Panza. Not surprisingly, m any narcissist ic leaders rely heavily on t heir spouses, t he people t hey are closest t o. But dependence on spouses can be risky, because t hey m ay furt her isolat e t he narcissist ic leader from his com pany by support ing his grandiosit y and feeding his paranoia. I once knew a CEO in t his kind of relat ionship wit h his spouse. He t ook t o accusing loyal subordinat es of plot t ing against him j ust because t hey vent ured a few crit icism s of his ideas. I t is m uch bet t er for a narcissist ic leader t o choose a colleague as his sidekick. Good sidekicks are able t o point out t he operat ional requirem ent s of t he narcissist ic leader’s vision and keep him root ed in realit y. The best sidekicks are usually product ive

obsessives. Gyllenham m ar, for inst ance, was m ost effect ive at Volvo when he had an obsessive COO, Håkan Frisinger, t o focus on im proving qualit y and cost , as well as an obsessive HR direct or, Bert h Jönsson, t o im plem ent his vision. Sim ilarly, Bill Gat es can t hink about t he fut ure from t he st rat osphere because St eve Ballm er, a t ough obsessive president , keeps t he show on t he road. At Oracle, CEO Larry Ellison can afford t o m iss key m eet ings and spend t im e on his boat cont em plat ing a fut ure wit hout PCs because he has a product ive obsessive COO in Ray Lane t o run t he com pany for him . But t he j ob of sidekick ent ails m ore t han j ust execut ing t he leader’s ideas. The sidekick also has t o get his leader t o accept new ideas. To do t his, he m ust be able t o show t he leader how t he new ideas fit wit h his views and serve his int erest s. ( For m ore on dealing wit h narcissist ic bosses, see t he sidebar “ Working for a Narcissist .” ) W or k in g for a N a r cissist Sidebar R0 4 0 1 J_ C (Locat ed at t he end of t his art icle)

I n doct r in a t e t h e or ga n iza t ion . The narcissist ic CEO want s all his subordinat es t o t hink t he way he does about t he business. Product ive narcissist s—people who oft en have a dash of t he obsessive personalit y—are good at convert ing people t o t heir point of view. One of t he m ost successful at t his is GE’s Jack Welch. Welch uses t oughness t o build a corporat e cult ure and t o im plem ent a daring business st rat egy, including t he buying and selling of scores of com panies. Unlike ot her narcissist ic leaders such as Gat es, Grove, and Ellison, who have t ransform ed indust ries wit h new product s, Welch was able t o t ransform his indust ry by focusing on execut ion and pushing com panies t o t he lim it s of qualit y and efficiency, bum ping up revenues and wringing out cost s. I n order t o do so, Welch ham m ers out a huge corporat e cult ure in his own im age—a cult ure t hat provides im pressive rewards for senior m anagers and shareholders. Welch’s approach t o cult ure building is widely m isunderst ood. Many observers, not ably Noel Tichy in The Leadership Engine, argue t hat Welch form s his com pany’s leadership cult ure t hrough t eaching. But Welch’s “ t eaching” involves a personal ideology t hat he indoct rinat es int o GE m anagers t hrough speeches, m em os, and confront at ions. Rat her t han creat e a dialogue, Welch m akes pronouncem ent s ( eit her be t he num ber one or t wo com pany in your m arket or get out ) , and he inst it ut es program s ( such as Six Sigm a qualit y) t hat becom e t he GE part y line. Welch’s st rat egy has been ext rem ely effect ive. GE m anagers m ust eit her int ernalize his vision, or t hey m ust leave. Clearly, t his is incent ive learning wit h a vengeance. I would even go so far as t o call Welch’s t eaching brainwashing. But Welch does have t he rare insight and know- how t o achieve what all narcissist ic business leaders are t rying t o do—nam ely, get t he organizat ion t o ident ify wit h t hem , t o t hink t he way t hey do, and t o becom e t he living em bodim ent of t heir com panies.

M or e a n d m or e la r ge cor por a t ion s a r e ge t t in g in t o be d w it h n a r cissist s. Th e y a r e fin din g t h a t t h e r e is n o su bst it u t e for n a r cissist ic le a de r s in a n a ge of in n ova t ion . Ge t in t o a n a lysis. Narcissist s are oft en m ore int erest ed in cont rolling ot hers t han in knowing and disciplining t hem selves. That ’s why, wit h very few except ions, even product ive narcissist s do not want t o explore t heir personalit ies wit h t he help of insight t herapies such as psychoanalysis. Yet since Heinz Kohut , t here has been a radical shift in psychoanalyt ic t hinking about what can be done t o help narcissist s work t hrough t heir rage, alienat ion, and grandiosit y. I ndeed, if t hey can be persuaded t o undergo t herapy, narcissist ic leaders can use t ools such as psychoanalysis t o overcom e vit al charact er

flaws. Consider t he case of one except ional narcissist ic CEO who asked m e t o help him underst and why he so oft en lost his t em per wit h subordinat es. He lived far from m y hom e cit y, and so t he t herapy was sporadic and very unort hodox. Yet he kept a j ournal of his dream s, which we int erpret ed t oget her eit her by phone or when we m et . Our analysis uncovered painful feelings of being unappreciat ed t hat went back t o his inabilit y t o im press a cold fat her. He cam e t o realize t hat he dem anded an unreasonable am ount of praise and t hat when he felt unappreciat ed by his subordinat es, he becam e furious. Once he underst ood t hat , he was able t o recognize his narcissism and even laugh about it . I n t he m iddle of our work, he even announced t o his t op t eam t hat I was psychoanalyzing him and asked t hem what t hey t hought of t hat . Aft er a pregnant pause, one execut ive vice president piped up, “ What ever you’re doing, you should keep doing it , because you don’t get so angry anym ore.” I nst ead of being t rapped by narcissist ic rage, t his CEO was learning how t o express his concerns const ruct ively. Leaders who can work on t hem selves in t hat way t end t o be t he m ost product ive narcissist s. I n addit ion t o being self- reflect ive, t hey are also likely t o be open, likable, and good- hum ored. Product ive narcissist s have perspect ive; t hey are able t o det ach t hem selves and laugh at t heir irrat ional needs. Alt hough serious about achieving t heir goals, t hey are also playful. As leaders, t hey are aware of being perform ers. A sense of hum or helps t hem m aint ain enough perspect ive and hum ilit y t o keep on learning. Th e Be st a n d W or st of Tim e s As I have point ed out , narcissist s t hrive in chaot ic t im es. I n m ore t ranquil t im es and places, however, even t he m ost brilliant narcissist will seem out of place. I n his short st ory The Curfew Tolls, St ephen Vincent Benét speculat es on what would have happened t o Napoléon if he had been born som e 30 years earlier. Ret ired in prerevolut ionary France, Napoléon is depict ed as a lonely art illery m aj or boast ing t o a vacat ioning Brit ish general about how he could have beat en t he English in I ndia. The point , of course, is t hat a visionary born in t he wrong t im e can seem like a pom pous buffoon. Hist orically, narcissist s in large corporat ions have been confined t o sales posit ions, where t hey use t heir persuasiveness and im aginat ion t o best effect . I n set t led t im es, t he problem at ic side of t he narcissist ic personalit y usually conspires t o keep narcissist s in t heir place, and t hey can t ypically rise t o t op m anagem ent posit ions only by st art ing t heir own com panies or by leaving t o lead upst art s. Consider Joe Nacchio, form erly in charge of bot h t he business and consum er divisions of AT&T. Nacchio was a supersalesm an and a popular leader in t he m id- 1990s. But his desire t o creat e a new net work for business cust om ers was t hwart ed by colleagues who found him abrasive, self- prom ot ing, and rut hlessly am bit ious. Two years ago, Nacchio left AT&T t o becom e CEO of Qwest , a com pany t hat is creat ing a long- dist ance fiber- opt ic cable net work. Nacchio had t he credibilit y—and charism a—t o sell Qwest ’s init ial public offering t o financial m arket s and gain a high valuat ion. Wit hin a short space of t im e, he t urned Qwest int o an at t ract ive t arget for t he RBOCs, which were looking t o m ove int o long- dist ance t elephony and I nt ernet services. Such a sale would have given Qwest ’s owners a handsom e profit on t heir invest m ent . But Nacchio want ed m ore. He want ed t o expand—t o com pet e wit h AT&T—and for t hat he needed local service. Rat her t han sell Qwest , he chose t o m ake a bid him self for local t elephone operat or U.S. West , using Qwest ’s highly valued st ock t o finance t he deal. The m arket vot ed on t his display of expansiveness wit h it s feet —Qwest ’s st ock price fell 40% bet ween last June, when he m ade t he deal, and t he end of t he t hird quart er of 1999. ( The S&P index dropped 5.7% during t he sam e period.)

Like ot her narcissist s, Nacchio likes risk—and som et im es ignores t he cost s. But wit h t he dram at ic discont inuit ies going on in t he world t oday, m ore and m ore large corporat ions are get t ing int o bed wit h narcissist s. They are finding t hat t here is no subst it ut e for narcissist ic leaders in an age of innovat ion. Com panies need leaders who do not t ry t o ant icipat e t he fut ure so m uch as creat e it . But narcissist ic leaders—even t he m ost product ive of t hem —can self- dest ruct and lead t heir organizat ions t erribly ast ray. For com panies whose narcissist ic leaders recognize t heir lim it at ions, t hese will be t he best of t im es. For ot her com panies, t hese could t urn out t o be t he worst .

Reprint Num ber R0401J | HBR OnPoint edit ion 5904 | HBR OnPoint collect ion 5070

Fr om m 's Fou r t h Pe r son a lit y Type

Sidebar R0 4 0 1 J_ A

Not long aft er Freud described his t hree personalit y t ypes in 1931, psychoanalyst Erich From m proposed a fourt h personalit y t ype, which has becom e part icularly prevalent in t oday’s service econom y. From m called t his t ype t he “ m arket ing personalit y,” and it is exem plified by t he lead charact er in Woody Allen’s m ovie Zelig, a m an so governed by his need t o be valued t hat he becom es exact ly like t he people he happens t o be around. Market ing personalit ies are m ore det ached t han erot ics and so are less likely t o cem ent close t ies. They are also less driven by conscience t han obsessives. I nst ead, t hey are m ot ivat ed by a radarlike anxiet y t hat perm eat es everyt hing t hey do. Because t hey are so eager t o please and t o alleviat e t his anxiet y, m arket ing personalit ies excel at selling t hem selves t o ot hers. Unproduct ive m arket ing t ypes lack direct ion and t he abilit y t o com m it t hem selves t o people or proj ect s. But when product ive, m arket ing t ypes are good at facilit at ing t eam s and keeping t he focus on adding value as defined by cust om ers and colleagues. Like obsessives, m arket ing personalit ies are avid consum ers of self- help books. Like narcissist s, t hey are not wedded t o t he past . But m arket ing t ypes generally m ake poor leaders in t im es of crisis. They lack t he daring needed t o innovat e and are t oo responsive t o current , rat her t han fut ure, cust om er dem ands.

Th e Rise a n d Fa ll of a N a r cissist

Sidebar R0 4 0 1 J_ B

The st ory of Jan Carlzon, t he form er CEO of t he Scandinavian airline SAS, is an alm ost t ext book exam ple of how a narcissist ’s weaknesses can cut short a brilliant career. I n t he 1980s, Carlzon’s vision of SAS as t he businessperson’s airline was widely acclaim ed in t he business press; m anagem ent guru Tom Pet ers described him as a m odel leader. I n 1989, when I first m et Carlzon and his m anagem ent t eam , he com pared t he ideal organizat ion t o t he Brazilian soccer t eam —in principle, t here would be no fixed roles, only innovat ive plays. I asked t he m em bers of t he m anagem ent t eam if t hey agreed wit h t his vision of an em powered front line. One vice president , a form er pilot , answered no. “ I st ill believe t hat t he best organizat ion is t he m ilit ary,” he said. I t hen asked Carlzon for his react ion t o t hat rem ark. “ Well,” he replied, “ t hat m ay be t rue, if your goal is t o shoot your cust om ers.” That rej oinder was bot h wit t y and dism issive; clearly, Carlzon was not engaging in a serious dialogue wit h his subordinat es. Nor was he list ening t o ot her advisers. Carlzon

ignored t he issue of high cost s, even when m any observers point ed out t hat SAS could not com pet e wit hout im proving product ivit y. He t hrew m oney at expensive acquisit ions of hot els and m ade an unnecessary invest m ent in Cont inent al Airlines j ust m ont hs before it declared bankrupt cy. Carlzon’s st ory perfect ly corroborat es t he oft en- recorded t endency of narcissist s t o becom e overly expansive—and hence isolat ed—at t he very pinnacle of t heir success. Seduced by t he flat t ery he received in t he int ernat ional press, Carlzon’s self- im age becam e so enorm ously inflat ed t hat his feet left t he ground. And given his vulnerabilit y t o grandiosit y, he was propelled by a need t o expand his organizat ion rat her t han develop it . I n due course, as Carlzon led t he com pany deeper and deeper int o losses, he was fired. Now he is a vent ure capit alist helping budding com panies. And SAS has lost it s glit t er.

W or k in g for a N a r cissist

Sidebar R0 4 0 1 J_ C

Dealing wit h a narcissist ic boss isn’t easy. You have t o be prepared t o look for anot her j ob if your boss becom es t oo narcissist ic t o let you disagree wit h him . But rem em ber t hat t he com pany is t ypically bet t ing on his vision of t he fut ure—not yours. Here are a few t ips on how t o survive in t he short t erm : Alw a ys e m pa t h ize w it h you r boss’s fe e lin gs, bu t don ’t e x pe ct a n y e m pa t h y ba ck . Look elsewhere for your own self- est eem . Underst and t hat behind his display of infallibilit y, t here hides a deep vulnerabilit y. Praise his achievem ent s and reinforce his best im pulses, but don’t be sham elessly sycophant ic. An int elligent narcissist can see t hrough flat t erers and prefers independent people who t ruly appreciat e him . Show t hat you will prot ect his im age, inside and out side t he com pany. But be careful if he asks for an honest evaluat ion. What he want s is inform at ion t hat will help him solve a problem about his im age. He will resent any honest y t hat t hreat ens his inflat ed self- im age and will likely ret aliat e. Give you r boss ide a s, bu t a lw a ys le t h im t a k e t h e cr e dit for t h e m . Find out what he t hinks before present ing your views. I f you believe he is wrong, show how a different approach would be in his best int erest . Take his paranoid views seriously, don’t brush t hem aside—t hey oft en reveal sharp int uit ions. Disagree only when you can dem onst rat e how he will benefit from a different point of view. H on e you r t im e - m a n a ge m e n t sk ills. Narcissist ic leaders oft en give subordinat es m any m ore orders t han t hey can possibly execut e. I gnore t he request s he m akes t hat don’t m ake sense. Forget about t hem . He will. But be careful: carve out free t im e for yourself only when you know t here’s a lull in t he boss’s schedule. Narcissist ic leaders feel free t o call you at any hour of t he day or night . Make yourself available, or be prepared t o get out .

Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. This cont ent m ay not be reproduced or t ransm it t ed in any form or by any m eans, elect ronic or m echanical, including phot ocopy, recording, or any inform at ion st orage or ret rieval syst em , wit hout writ t en perm ission. Request s for perm ission should be direct ed t o perm [email protected], 1- 888- 500- 1020, or m ailed t o Perm issions, Harvard Business School Publishing, 60 Harvard Way, Bost on, MA 02163.

Click here t o visit :

View Back Issues | January 2004 > Narcissist ic Leaders > From m 's Fourt h Personalit y Type

N a r cissist ic Le a de r s

From m 's Fourt h Personalit y Type Not long aft er Freud described his t hree personalit y t ypes in 1931, psychoanalyst Erich From m proposed a fourt h personalit y t ype, which has becom e part icularly prevalent in t oday’s service econom y. From m called t his t ype t he “ m arket ing personalit y,” and it is exem plified by t he lead charact er in Woody Allen’s m ovie Zelig, a m an so governed by his need t o be valued t hat he becom es exact ly like t he people he happens t o be around. Market ing personalit ies are m ore det ached t han erot ics and so are less likely t o cem ent close t ies. They are also less driven by conscience t han obsessives. I nst ead, t hey are m ot ivat ed by a radarlike anxiet y t hat perm eat es everyt hing t hey do. Because t hey are so eager t o please and t o alleviat e t his anxiet y, m arket ing personalit ies excel at selling t hem selves t o ot hers. Unproduct ive m arket ing t ypes lack direct ion and t he abilit y t o com m it t hem selves t o people or proj ect s. But when product ive, m arket ing t ypes are good at facilit at ing t eam s and keeping t he focus on adding value as defined by cust om ers and colleagues. Like obsessives, m arket ing personalit ies are avid consum ers of self- help books. Like narcissist s, t hey are not wedded t o t he past . But m arket ing t ypes generally m ake poor leaders in t im es of crisis. They lack t he daring needed t o innovat e and are t oo responsive t o current , rat her t han fut ure, cust om er dem ands.

< Back t o Art icle

Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. All right s reserved.

Click here t o visit :

View Back Issues | January 2004 > Narcissist ic Leaders > The Rise and Fall of a Narcissist

N a r cissist ic Le a de r s

The Rise and Fall of a Narcissist The st ory of Jan Carlzon, t he form er CEO of t he Scandinavian airline SAS, is an alm ost t ext book exam ple of how a narcissist ’s weaknesses can cut short a brilliant career. I n t he 1980s, Carlzon’s vision of SAS as t he businessperson’s airline was widely acclaim ed in t he business press; m anagem ent guru Tom Pet ers described him as a m odel leader. I n 1989, when I first m et Carlzon and his m anagem ent t eam , he com pared t he ideal organizat ion t o t he Brazilian soccer t eam —in principle, t here would be no fixed roles, only innovat ive plays. I asked t he m em bers of t he m anagem ent t eam if t hey agreed wit h t his vision of an em powered front line. One vice president , a form er pilot , answered no. “ I st ill believe t hat t he best organizat ion is t he m ilit ary,” he said. I t hen asked Carlzon for his react ion t o t hat rem ark. “ Well,” he replied, “ t hat m ay be t rue, if your goal is t o shoot your cust om ers.” That rej oinder was bot h wit t y and dism issive; clearly, Carlzon was not engaging in a serious dialogue wit h his subordinat es. Nor was he list ening t o ot her advisers. Carlzon ignored t he issue of high cost s, even when m any observers point ed out t hat SAS could not com pet e wit hout im proving product ivit y. He t hrew m oney at expensive acquisit ions of hot els and m ade an unnecessary invest m ent in Cont inent al Airlines j ust m ont hs before it declared bankrupt cy. Carlzon’s st ory perfect ly corroborat es t he oft en- recorded t endency of narcissist s t o becom e overly expansive—and hence isolat ed—at t he very pinnacle of t heir success. Seduced by t he flat t ery he received in t he int ernat ional press, Carlzon’s self- im age becam e so enorm ously inflat ed t hat his feet left t he ground. And given his vulnerabilit y t o grandiosit y, he was propelled by a need t o expand his organizat ion rat her t han develop it . I n due course, as Carlzon led t he com pany deeper and deeper int o losses, he was fired. Now he is a vent ure capit alist helping budding com panies. And SAS has lost it s glit t er.

< Back t o Art icle

Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. All right s reserved.

Click here t o visit :

View Back Issues | January 2004 > Narcissist ic Leaders > Working for a Narcissist

N a r cissist ic Le a de r s

Working for a Narcissist Dealing wit h a narcissist ic boss isn’t easy. You have t o be prepared t o look for anot her j ob if your boss becom es t oo narcissist ic t o let you disagree wit h him . But rem em ber t hat t he com pany is t ypically bet t ing on his vision of t he fut ure—not yours. Here are a few t ips on how t o survive in t he short t erm : Alw a ys e m pa t h ize w it h you r boss’s fe e lin gs, bu t don ’t e x pe ct a n y e m pa t h y ba ck . Look elsewhere for your own self- est eem . Underst and t hat behind his display of infallibilit y, t here hides a deep vulnerabilit y. Praise his achievem ent s and reinforce his best im pulses, but don’t be sham elessly sycophant ic. An int elligent narcissist can see t hrough flat t erers and prefers independent people who t ruly appreciat e him . Show t hat you will prot ect his im age, inside and out side t he com pany. But be careful if he asks for an honest evaluat ion. What he want s is inform at ion t hat will help him solve a problem about his im age. He will resent any honest y t hat t hreat ens his inflat ed self- im age and will likely ret aliat e. Give you r boss ide a s, bu t a lw a ys le t h im t a k e t h e cr e dit for t h e m . Find out what he t hinks before present ing your views. I f you believe he is wrong, show how a different approach would be in his best int erest . Take his paranoid views seriously, don’t brush t hem aside—t hey oft en reveal sharp int uit ions. Disagree only when you can dem onst rat e how he will benefit from a different point of view. H on e you r t im e - m a n a ge m e n t sk ills. Narcissist ic leaders oft en give subordinat es m any m ore orders t han t hey can possibly execut e. I gnore t he request s he m akes t hat don’t m ake sense. Forget about t hem . He will. But be careful: carve out free t im e for yourself only when you know t here’s a lull in t he boss’s schedule. Narcissist ic leaders feel free t o call you at any hour of t he day or night . Make yourself available, or be prepared t o get out .

< Back t o Art icle

Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. All right s reserved.

Click here t o visit :

View Back Issues | January 2004 > Underst anding Leadership

> | Pu r ch a se Re pr in t > | Pr in t a ble Ve r sion

Underst anding Leadership

> | E- m a il a Colle a gu e > | Ex e cu t ive Su m m a r y

Effe ct ive le a de r s t a k e a pe r son a l in t e r e st in t h e lon g- t e r m de ve lopm e n t of t h e ir e m ploye e s, a n d t h e y u se t a ct a n d ot h e r socia l sk ills t o e n cou r a ge e m ploye e s t o a ch ie ve t h e ir be st . I t isn ’t a bou t be in g “n ice ” or “u n de r st a n din g”—it ’s a bou t t a ppin g in t o in dividu a l m ot iva t ion s in t h e in t e r e st of fu r t h e r in g a n or ga n iza t ion w ide goa l.

by W .C.H . Pr e n t ice

Alt hough t he m ore recent work of aut hors such as Abraham Zaleznik and Daniel Golem an has fundam ent ally changed t he way we look at leadership, m any of t heir t hem es were foreshadowed in W.C.H. Prent ice’s 1961 art icle rej ect ing t he not ion of leadership as t he exercise of power and force or t he possession of ext raordinary analyt ical skill. Prent ice defined leadership as “ t he accom plishm ent of a goal t hrough t he direct ion of hum an assist ant s” and a successful leader as one who can underst and people’s m ot ivat ions and enlist em ployee part icipat ion in a way t hat m arries individual needs and int erest s t o t he group’s purpose. He called for dem ocrat ic leadership t hat gives em ployees opport unit ies t o learn and grow—wit hout creat ing anarchy. While his language in som e passages is dat ed, Prent ice’s observat ions on how leaders can m ot ivat e em ployees t o support t he organizat ion’s goals are t im eless, and t hey were rem arkably prescient .

At t em pt s t o analyze leadership t end t o fail because t he would- be analyst m isconceives his t ask. He usually does not st udy leadership at all. I nst ead he st udies popularit y, power, showm anship, or wisdom in long- range planning. Som e leaders have t hese t hings, but t hey are not of t he essence of leadership. Leadership is t he accom plishm ent of a goal t hrough t he direct ion of hum an assist ant s. The m an who successfully m arshals his hum an collaborat ors t o achieve part icular ends is a leader. A great leader is one who can do so day aft er day, and year aft er year, in a wide variet y of circum st ances. He m ay not possess or display power; force or t he t hreat of harm m ay never ent er int o his dealings. He m ay not be popular; his followers m ay never do what he wishes out of love or adm irat ion for him . He m ay not ever be a colorful person; he m ay never use m em orable devices t o dram at ize t he purposes of his group or t o focus at t ent ion on his leadership. As for t he im port ant m at t er of set t ing goals, he m ay act ually be a m an of lit t le influence, or even of lit t le skill; as a leader he m ay m erely carry out t he plans of ot hers. His unique achievem ent is a hum an and social one which st em s from his underst anding of his fellow workers and t he relat ionship of t heir individual goals t o t he group goal t hat he m ust carry out . Pr oble m s a n d I llu sion s I t is not hard t o st at e in a few words what successful leaders do t hat m akes t hem effect ive. But it is m uch harder t o t ease out t he com ponent s t hat det erm ine t heir success. The usual m et hod is t o provide adequat e recognit ion of each worker’s funct ion so t hat he can foresee t he sat isfact ion of som e m aj or int erest or m ot ive of his in t he carrying out of t he group ent erprise. Crude form s of leadership rely solely on single sources of sat isfact ion such as m onet ary rewards or t he alleviat ion of fears about various kinds of insecurit y. The t ask is adhered t o because following orders will lead t o a paycheck, and deviat ion will lead t o unem ploym ent . No one can doubt t hat such form s of m ot ivat ion are effect ive wit hin lim it s. I n a

W .C.H . Pr e n t ice was form erly t he president of Bryant and St rat t on Business I nst it ut es in Buffalo, New York, t he president of Wheat on College in Nort on, Massachuset t s, and t he dean of Swart hm ore College in Swart hm ore, Pennsylvania. He is now ret ired.

m echanical way t hey do at t ach t he worker’s self- int erest t o t he int erest of t he em ployer or t he group. But no one can doubt t he weaknesses of such sim ple t echniques. Hum an beings are not m achines wit h a single set of push but t ons. When t heir com plex responses t o love, prest ige, independence, achievem ent , and group m em bership are unrecognized on t he j ob, t hey perform at best as aut om at a who bring far less t han t heir m axim um efficiency t o t he t ask, and at worst as rebellious slaves who consciously or unconsciously sabot age t he act ivit ies t hey are supposed t o be furt hering. I t is ironic t hat our basic im age of “ t he leader” is so oft en t hat of a m ilit ary com m ander, because—m ost of t he t im e, at least —m ilit ary organizat ions are t he purest exam ple of an unim aginat ive applicat ion of sim ple reward and punishm ent as m ot ivat ing devices. The invent ion in World War I I of t he t erm “ snafu” ( sit uat ion norm al, all fouled up) m erely epit om izes what lit erat ure about m ilit ary life from Greece and Rom e t o t he present day has am ply recorded; nam ely, t hat in no ot her hum an endeavor is m orale t ypically so poor or goldbricking and wast e so m uch in evidence. I n defense of t he m ilit ary, t wo observat ions are relevant : 1. The m ilit ary undeniably has special problem s. Because m en get killed and have t o be replaced, t here are im port ant reasons for t reat ing t hem uniform ly and m echanically. 2. Clarit y about dut ies and responsibilit ies, as m axim ized by t he aut ocrat ic chain of com m and, is not only essent ial t o warfare but has undoubt ed im port ance for m ost group ent erprises. I n fact , any depart ure from an essent ially m ilit ary t ype of leadership is st ill considered in som e circles a form of anarchy. We have all heard t he cry, “ som ebody’s got t o be t he boss,” and I suppose no one would seriously disagree. But it is dangerous t o confuse t he chain of com m and or t able of organizat ion wit h a m et hod of get t ing t hings done. I t is inst ead com parable t o t he diagram of a foot ball play which shows a general plan and how each individual cont ribut es t o it . The diagram is not leadership. By it self it has no bearing one way or anot her on how well execut ed t he play will be. Yet t hat very quest ion of effect ive execut ion is t he problem of leadership. Rewards and t hreat s m ay help each player t o carry out his assignm ent , but in t he long run if success is t o be cont inuing and if m orale is t o survive, each player m ust not only fully underst and his part and it s relat ion t o t he group effort ; he m ust also want t o carry it out . The problem of every leader is t o creat e t hese want s and t o find ways t o channel exist ing want s int o effect ive cooperat ion. Re la t ion s w it h Pe ople When t he leader succeeds, it will be because he has learned t wo basic lessons: Men are com plex, and m en are different . Hum an beings respond not only t o t he t radit ional carrot and st ick used by t he driver of a donkey but also t o am bit ion, pat riot ism , love of t he good and t he beaut iful, boredom , self- doubt , and m any m ore dim ensions and pat t erns of t hought and feeling t hat m ake t hem m en. But t he st rengt h and im port ance of t hese int erest s are not t he sam e for every worker, nor is t he degree t o which t hey can be sat isfied in his j ob. For exam ple: • One m an m ay be charact erized prim arily by a deep religious need but find t hat fact quit e irrelevant t o his daily work. • Anot her m ay find his m ain sat isfact ions in solving int ellect ual problem s and never be led t o discover how his love for chess problem s and m at hem at ical puzzles can be applied t o his business. • Or st ill anot her m ay need a friendly, adm iring relat ionship t hat he lacks at hom e and be const ant ly frust rat ed by t he failure of his superior t o recognize and t ake advant age of t hat need. To t he ext ent t hat t he leader’s circum st ances and skill perm it him t o respond t o such individual pat t erns, he will be bet t er able t o creat e genuinely int rinsic int erest in t he work t hat he is charged wit h get t ing done. And in t he last analysis an ideal organizat ion should have workers at every level report ing t o som eone whose dom inion is sm all enough t o enable him t o know as hum an beings t hose who report t o him . Lim it s of t h e Golde n Ru le Fort unat ely, t he prim e m ot ives of people who live in t he sam e cult ure are oft en very m uch alike, and t here are som e general m ot ivat ional rules t hat work very well indeed.

The effect iveness of Dale Carnegie’s fam ous prescript ions in his How t o Win Friends and I nfluence People is a good exam ple. I t s m aj or principle is a variat ion of t he Golden Rule: “ t reat ot hers as you would like t o be t reat ed.” While lim it ed and oversim plified, such a rule is a great im provem ent over t he prim it ive coercive approaches or t he st raight reward- for- desired- behavior approach. But it would be a great m ist ake not t o recognize t hat som e of t he world’s m ost ineffect ive leadership com es from t he “ t reat ot hers as you would be t reat ed” school. All of us have known unselfish people who earnest ly wished t o sat isfy t he needs of t heir fellows but who were nevert heless com plet ely inept as execut ives ( or perhaps even as friends or as husbands) , because it never occurred t o t hem t hat ot hers had t ast es or em ot ional requirem ent s different from t heir own. We all know t he t ireless worker who recognizes no one else’s fat igue or boredom , t he barroom - st ory addict who t hinks it j olly t o regale even t he ladies wit h his favorit e anecdot es, t he devot ee of public service who t ries t o win friends and influence people by offering t hem t icket s t o lect ures on m issionary work in Africa, t he m iserly m an who t hinks everyone is aft er m oney, and so on.

A gr e a t le a de r ’s u n iqu e a ch ie ve m e n t is a h u m a n a n d socia l on e w h ich st e m s fr om h is u n de r st a n din g of h is fe llow w or k e r s. Leadership really does require m ore subt let y and percept iveness t han is im plied in t he saying, “ Do as you would be done by.” The one who leads us effect ively m ust seem t o underst and our goals and purposes. He m ust seem t o be in a posit ion t o sat isfy t hem ; he m ust seem t o underst and t he im plicat ions of his own act ions; he m ust seem t o be consist ent and clear in his decisions. The word “ seem ” is im port ant here. I f we do not apprehend t he would- be leader as one who has t hese t rait s, it will m ake no difference how able he m ay really be. We will st ill not follow his lead. I f, on t he ot her hand, we have been fooled and he m erely seem s t o have t hese qualit ies, we will st ill follow him unt il we discover our error. I n ot her words, it is t he im pression he m akes at any one t im e t hat will det erm ine t he influence he has on his followers. Pit fa lls of Pe r ce pt ion For followers t o recognize t heir leader as he really is m ay be as difficult as it is for him t o underst and t hem com plet ely. Som e of t he worst difficult ies in relat ionships bet ween superiors and subordinat es com e from m isperceiving realit y. So m uch of what we underst and in t he world around us is colored by t he concept ions and prej udices we st art wit h. My view of m y em ployer or superior m ay be so colored by expect at ions based on t he behavior of ot her bosses t hat fact s m ay not appear in t he sam e way t o him and t o m e. Many failures of leadership can be t raced t o oversim plified m ispercept ions on t he part of t he worker or t o failures of t he superior t o recognize t he cont ext or fram e of reference wit hin which his act ions will be underst ood by t he subordinat e. A couple of exam ples of psychological dem onst rat ions from t he work of S.E. Asch 1 will illust rat e t his point : • I f I describe a m an as warm , int elligent , am bit ious, and t hought ful, you get one kind of pict ure of him . But if I describe anot her person as cold, am bit ious, t hought ful, and int elligent , you probably get a pict ure of a very different sort of m an. Yet I have m erely changed one word and t he order of a couple of ot hers. The kind of preparat ion t hat one adj ect ive gives for t hose t hat follow is t rem endously effect ive in det erm ining what m eaning will be given t o t hem . The t erm “ t hought ful” m ay m ean t hought ful of ot hers or perhaps rat ional when it is applied t o a warm person t oward whom we have already accept ed a posit ive orient at ion. But as applied t o a cold m an t he sam e t erm m ay m ean brooding, calculat ing, plot t ing. We m ust learn t o be aware of t he degree t o which one set of observat ions about a m an m ay lead us t o erroneous conclusions about his ot her behavior.

An ide a l or ga n iza t ion sh ou ld h a ve w or k e r s a t e ve r y le ve l r e por t in g t o som e on e w h ose dom in ion is sm a ll e n ou gh t o e n a ble h im t o k n ow a s h u m a n be in gs t h ose w h o r e por t t o h im . • Suppose t hat I show t wo groups of observers a film of an exchange of views bet ween an em ployer and his subordinat e. The scene port rays disagreem ent followed by anger

and dism issal. The blam e for t he difficult y will be assigned very different ly by t he t wo groups if I have shown one a scene of t he worker earlier in a happy, loving fam ily breakfast set t ing, while t he ot her group has seen inst ead a breakfast - t able scene where t he worker snarls at his fam ily and st orm s out of t he house. The alt ercat ion will be underst ood alt oget her different ly by people who have had favorable or unfavorable glim pses of t he charact er in quest ion. I n business, a worker m ay perceive an offer of increased aut horit y as a dangerous rem oval from t he safet y of assured, t hough gradual, prom ot ion. A change in channels of aut horit y or report ing, no m at t er how valuable in increasing efficiency, m ay be t hought of as a personal challenge or affront . The int roduct ion of a labor- saving process m ay be perceived as a t hreat t o one’s j ob. An invit at ion t o discuss com pany policy m ay be perceived as an elaborat e t rap t o ent ice one int o adm it t ing heret ical or disloyal views. A new fringe benefit m ay be regarded as an excuse not t o pay higher salaries. And so on. Too oft en, t he superior is ent irely unprepared for t hese int erpret at ions, and t hey seem t o him st upid, dishonest , or perverse—or all t hree. But t he successful leader will have been prepared for such responses. He will have known t hat m any of his workers have been brought up t o consider t heir em ployers as t heir nat ural enem ies, and t hat habit has m ade it second nat ure for t hem t o “ act like an em ployee” in t his respect and always t o be suspicious of ot herwise friendly overt ures from above. The ot her side of t he sam e sit uat ion is as bad. The habit of act ing like a boss can be dest ruct ive, t oo. For inst ance, m uch resist ance t o m odern concept s of indust rial relat ions com es from em ployers who t hink such ideas pose t oo great a t hreat t o t he longest ablished pict ure of t hem selves as business aut ocrat s. Their im age m akes progress in labor relat ions difficult . Tr ou ble s of a Su bor din a t e But anot her and st ill m ore subt le fact or m ay int ervene bet ween em ployer and em ployee —a fact or t hat will be recognized and dealt wit h by successful indust rial leaders. That fact or is t he psychological difficult y of being a subordinat e. I t is not easy t o be a subordinat e. I f I t ake orders from anot her, it lim it s t he scope of m y independent decision and j udgm ent ; cert ain areas are est ablished wit hin which I do what he wishes inst ead of what I wish. To accept such a role wit hout frict ion or rebellion, I m ust find in it a reflect ion of som e form of order t hat goes beyond m y own personal sit uat ion ( i.e., m y age, class, rank, and so fort h) , or perhaps find t hat t he balance of dependence and independence act ually suit s m y needs. These t wo possibilit ies lead t o different pract ical consequences. For one t hing, it is harder t o t ake orders from one whom I do not consider in som e sense superior. I t is t rue t hat one of t he saddest failures in pract ical leadership m ay be t he execut ive who t ries so hard t o be one of t he boys t hat he dest roys any vest ige of awe t hat his workers m ight have had for him , wit h t he consequence t hat t hey begin t o see him as a m an like t hem selves and t o wonder why t hey should t ake orders from him . An underst anding leader will not let his workers t hink t hat he considers t hem inferiors, but he m ay be wise t o m aint ain a kind of psychological dist ance t hat perm it s t hem t o accept his aut horit y wit hout resent m ent . When one of t wo people is in a superior posit ion and m ust m ake final decisions, he can hardly avoid frust rat ing t he aim s of t he subordinat e, at least on occasion. And frust rat ion seem s t o lead t o aggression. That is, t hwart ing brings out a nat ural t endency t o fight back. I t does not t ake m uch t hwart ing t o build up a habit of being ready t o at t ack or defend oneself when dealing wit h t he boss. The sit uat ion is m ade worse if t he organizat ion is such t hat open anger t oward t he boss is unt hinkable, for t hen t he response t o frust rat ion is it self frust rat ed, and a vicious cycle is st art ed. Suggest ion boxes, grievance com m it t ees, depart m ent al rivalries, and ot her such devices m ay serve as light ning rods for t he day- t o- day host ilit y engendered by t he frust rat ions inherent in being a subordinat e. But in t he long run an effect ive leader will be aware of t he need t o balance dependence wit h independence, const raint wit h aut onom y, so t hat t he inevit able psychological consequences of t aking orders do not loom t oo large. Bet t er yet , he will recognize t hat m any people are fright ened by com plet e independence and need t o feel t he securit y of a syst em t hat prescribes lim it s t o t heir freedom . He will t ry t o adj ust t he am ount s and kinds of freedom t o fit t he psychological needs of his subordinat es. Generally t his m eans providing a developm ent al program in which t he em ployee can be given som e sense of where he is going wit hin t he com pany, and t he effect ive leader will m ake sure t hat t he view is a realist ic one. Here an analogy m ay be

helpful: Not hing is m ore dest ruct ive of m orale in any group sit uat ion t han a phony dem ocracy of t he kind one finds in som e fam ilies. Parent s who announce t hat t he children are going t o part icipat e share- and- share- alike in all decisions soon find t hat t hey cannot , in fact , let t hem , and when t he program fails, t he children are especially t hwart ed. They com e t o perceive each of t he necessarily frequent decisions t hat are not m ade by vot e or consult at ion as arbit rary. They develop a st rong sense of inj ust ice and rebellion. I n indust ry t he sam e condit ions hold. I t is no good t o pret end t hat cert ain decisions can be m ade by subordinat es if in fact t hey cannot . To m ake dependency t olerable, t he lines m ust be clearly drawn bet ween t hose decisions t hat are t he prerogat ive of t he superior and t hose t hat can be m ade by or in consult at ion wit h t he subordinat e. Once t hose lines have been drawn, it is essent ial not t o t ransgress t hem any m ore oft en t han is absolut ely necessary. I deally, t he subordinat e should have an area wit hin which he is free t o operat e wit hout anyone looking over his shoulder. The superior should clarify t he goals and perhaps suggest alt ernat ive ways of achieving t hem , but t he subordinat e should feel free t o m ake t he necessary choices. That ideal m ay sound art ificial t o aut ocrat s of “ t he old school,” and, if it does, it will m ean not hing even if t hey give lip service t o it . I f t he worker knows t hat t he boss likes plan A, he is not going t o t ry plan B and risk his j ob if it fails. I f he knows t hat his j ob rides on every m aj or decision, he can only play safe by ident ifying him self in every case wit h his superior’s views. But t hat m akes him an aut om at on who can bring no addit ional int elligence t o t he organizat ion nor free his superiors from any decisions. He earns t he respect of no one—not even t he boss who helped m ake him t hat way.

Th e su cce ssfu l le a de r k n ow s t h a t m a n y w or k e r s h a ve be e n br ou gh t u p t o con side r t h e ir e m ploye r s a s t h e ir n a t u r a l e n e m ie s. Goa ls in D e ve lopm e n t No decision is wort h t he nam e unless it involves t he balancing of risks and ret urns. I f it were a sure t hing, we would not need a m an t o use his j udgm ent about it . Mist akes are inevit able. What we m ust expect of em ployees is t hat t hey learn from t heir m ist akes, not t hat t hey never m ake t hem . I t should be t he execut ive’s concern t o wat ch t he long- t erm growt h of his m en t o see t hat , as t hey learn, t heir successes increasingly out weigh t heir failures. This concept of long- run growt h is a vit al part of cont inuing leadership. Each m an m ust be perm it t ed t o know t hat his role in t he group is subj ect t o developm ent and t hat it s developm ent is lim it ed only by his cont ribut ions. Especially, he m ust see t he leader as t he m an m ost int erest ed in and helpful t oward his growt h. I t is not enough t o have int erest ed personnel officers or ot her st aff people who play no role in policy m aking. Despit e all t he assist ance t hey can render in t echnical ways, t hey can never t ake t he place of an int erest on t he part of t he responsible execut ive. D e a lin g w it h Ta ct At j ust t his point , one oft en finds m isconcept ions. No sensible person wishes t o m ake of t he execut ive a subst it ut e for fat her or psychiat rist or even direct or of personnel. His int erest can and should be ent irely im personal and unsent im ent al. He m ight put it t o t he em ployee som ewhat as follows: “ There is not hing personal about t his. Anyone in your post would get t he sam e t reat m ent . But as long as you work for m e, I am going t o see t hat you get every opport unit y t o use your last ounce of pot ent ial. Your growt h and sat isfact ion are a part of m y j ob. The fast er you develop int o a t op cont ribut or t o t his com pany, t he bet t er I will like it . I f you see a bet t er way t o do your j ob, do it t hat way; if som et hing is holding you back, com e and see m e about it . I f you are right , you will get all t he help I can give you plus t he recognit ion you deserve.” No genuine growt h of an em ployee will occur wit hout som e t eaching. The superior m ust from t im e t o t im e t ake cognizance of t he successes and failures and m ake sure t hat t he subordinat e sees t hem and t heir consequences as he does. And at t his point of assessm ent a gravely difficult aspect of leadership arises. How can crit icism be im personal and st ill effect ive? How can a decision or a m et hod be crit icized wit hout t he worker feeling t hat he is personally being dem eaned?

The im port ance of adequat e com m unicat ion at t his point is t wofold. Not only m ay longrange dam age be done t o em ployee m orale, but a quit e specific short - range effect is oft en t he em ployee’s failure t o do what he should t oward carrying out t he boss’s alt ernat ive plan, since it s failure m ight prove t hat he had been right in t he first place. I t is all t oo easy for a leader t o produce ant agonism and defensiveness by dealing im personally wit h a problem and forget t ing t he hum an em ot ions and m ot ives t hat are involved in it . I nt erest ingly enough, such failures seem t o happen m ore oft en in office sit uat ions t han anywhere else, and we m ight well wonder if we have not t ended t o insulat e behavior in m anagem ent from behavior out side—in t he hom e, for inst ance. We do not assum e t hat an order or a m em orandum is t he best way of m aking our wishes accept able at hom e. Most reasonably bright people learn early in life how t o get ot hers t o cooperat e. I t is second nat ure t o creat e a personal and em ot ional set t ing t hat is right for t he part icular person ( e.g., wife, adult son, t eenage daught er, or child) and for t he part icular request t hat is t o be m ade. More t han t hat , we are likely t o know which aspect s of, say, a vacat ion plan t o st ress t o m ake it seem at t ract ive t o t he wife who want s t o be wait ed on, t he son who want s t o fish, or t he daught er who want s adolescent com panions. We are likely t o learn, t oo, t hat one of t hese m ay be m ore readily persuaded if she has a hand in t he decision- m aking process, while anot her wishes only t o have a ready- m ade plan subm it t ed for his approval or disdain. I ndeed, we probably respond t o such differences at hom e wit h very lit t le t hought . But in t he office we lay aside our everyday int uit ive skills in hum an relat ions and put on t he m ask of an em ployer or an execut ive. We t ry t o handle our t asks wit h orders or direct ives im personally aim ed at whoever happens t o be responsible for t heir execut ion, forget t ing t hat effect ive m obilizat ion of hum an resources always requires t he volunt ary part icipat ion of all. Leadership is an int eract ion am ong people. I t requires followers wit h part icular t rait s and part icular skills and a leader who knows how t o use t hem . Se cr e t s of a Sym ph on y Or ch e st r a Con du ct or The direct or of an orchest ra m ay perhaps serve as a useful m odel for som e of t he im port ant relat ionships which run t hrough all leadership sit uat ions: 1. Obvious enough in t his cont ext , but not always rem em bered, is t he fact t hat t he m en m ust have t he requisit e skills and t raining for t heir roles. Not all group failures are t he boss’s fault . Toscanini could not get great m usic from a high- school band.

I n t h e office w e la y a side ou r e ve r yda y in t u it ive sk ills in h u m a n r e la t ion s a n d pu t on t h e m a sk of a n e m ploye r or a n e x e cu t ive . 2. A psychological set t ing m ust be est ablished for t he com m on t ask. A conduct or m ust set up his ground rules, his signals, and his t ast es in such a way t hat t he m echanics of get t ing a rehearsal st art ed do not int erfere wit h t he m usical purpose. Just as t he conduct or m ust est ablish agreem ent about prom pt ness at rehearsals, t alking or sm oking bet ween num bers, new versus old m usic, and a dozen ot her t hings t hat m ight ot herwise com e bet ween him and his colleagues in t heir com m on aim , so every office or fact ory m ust have rules or cust om s which are clearly underst ood and easily followed. 3. Most im port ant of all, t he m usicians m ust share sat isfact ion wit h t heir leader in t he product ion of m usic or of m usic of a cert ain qualit y. Unless t hey individually achieve a sense of accom plishm ent or even fulfillm ent , his leadership has failed and he will not m ake great m usic. Som e dist inguished conduct ors have been pet t y t yrant s; ot hers play poker wit h t heir m usicians and becom e godfat hers t o t heir babies. These m at t ers are essent ially irrelevant . What t he great conduct or achieves is each inst rum ent alist ’s convict ion t hat he is t aking part in t he m aking of a kind of m usic t hat could only be m ade under such a leader. Personal qualit ies and m annerism s m ay have a secondary im port ance; t hey m ay serve as rem inders, reinst at ing and reinforcing t he vit al im age of a m an wit h t he highest m usical st andards. But no one can becom e a Toscanini by im it at ing his m annerism s. “Low - Pr e ssu r e ” Le a de r sh ip These sim ple fact s are oft en overlooked. I n indust ry we can find endless num bers of execut ives who m erely m im ic t he surface charact erist ics of som e successful colleague or

superior wit hout ever t rying t o find ways t o enlist t he act ive part icipat ion of t heir own st affs by showing t hem ways t o personal fulfillm ent in t he com m on t ask. These execut ives t ake t he approach t hat a cert ain t ype of salesm an t akes; and it is significant , I t hink, t hat t he financial, m anufact uring, and research st affs of m any com panies look on salesm en as a necessary evil, and would be horrified at t he t hought of bringing what t hey consider a “ sales approach” int o m anagem ent . Their reason m ay never be clearly form ulat ed, but it surely has som et hing t o do wit h an air of t rickery and m anipulat ion t hat surrounds som e advert ising, m arket ing, and selling. The salesm en and advert isers I refer t o are oft en willing t o seek and exploit a weak point in t heir cust om er’s defenses and m ake a sale even when t hey suspect or perhaps know t hat t he cust om er will live t o regret t he purchase. Slick uses of social and psychological t ricks can indeed result in persuading anot her t o do your bidding, but t hey are unfit for a cont inuing hum an relat ionship. As every t ruly const ruct ive salesm an knows, a business t ransact ion should benefit bot h buyer and seller. And t hat m eans finding out t he needs of t he cust om er, m aking sure t hat he underst ands t hem him self, and providing him wit h a product t hat will sat isfy t hat need. Trained in such an approach, t he salesm an should be t he execut ive par excellence, carrying over int o adm inist rat ive dealings wit h people what he has been using in sales. By cont rast , t he t ricky, fast - t alking m anipulat or who prides him self on out wit t ing his cust om ers, who count s on selling a m an cigaret t es by playing on his vanit y or selling a wom an cosm et ics by playing on her am bit ion, m ight t urn int o an execut ive wit h t he sam e cont em pt for his workers t hat he had previously for his cust om ers. I f he enj oys hoodwinking his workers by playing on t heir m ot ives and t heir int erest s, t hey will soon discover t hat t hey are being t oyed wit h, and t he loyalt y and confidence t hat are an essent ial ingredient of effect ive leadership will be corroded away. Con clu sion I n t he last resort , an execut ive m ust use his skills and his hum an insight as does an orchest ra leader—t o capt ure individual sat isfact ions in t he com m on ent erprise and t o creat e fulfillm ent t hat holds t he subordinat e t o his part . No collect ion of cut e t ricks of ent icem ent or showm anship can do t hat for him . Leadership, despit e what we som et im es t hink, consist s of a lot m ore t han j ust “ underst anding people,” “ being nice t o people,” or not “ pushing ot her people around.” Dem ocracy is som et im es t hought t o im ply no division of aut horit y, or t o im ply t hat everyone can be his own boss. Of course, t hat is nonsense, especially in business. But business leadership can be dem ocrat ic in t he sense of providing t he m axim um opport unit y for growt h t o each worker wit hout creat ing anarchy. I n fact , t he orderly arrangem ent of funct ions and t he accurat e percept ion of a leader’s role in t hat arrangem ent m ust always precede t he developm ent of his abilit ies t o t he m axim um . A leader’s j ob is t o provide t hat recognit ion of roles and funct ions wit hin t he group t hat will perm it each m em ber t o sat isfy and fulfill som e m aj or m ot ive or int erest . 1. “ Form ing I m pressions of Personalit y,” The Journal of Abnorm al and Social Psychology, 1946.

> | Ex e cu t ive Su m m a r y > | Pu r ch a se Re pr in t > | Pr in t a ble Ve r sion > | E- m a il a Colle a gu e

Reprint Num ber R0401K

View Back Issues Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. All right s reserved.

Click here t o visit : > | ht t p: / / www.hbsp.org

Underst anding Leadership Effe ct ive le a de r s t a k e a pe r son a l in t e r e st in t h e lon g- t e r m de ve lopm e n t of t h e ir e m ploye e s, a n d t h e y u se t a ct a n d ot h e r socia l sk ills t o e n cou r a ge e m ploye e s t o a ch ie ve t h e ir be st . I t isn ’t a bou t be in g “n ice ” or “u n de r st a n din g”—it ’s a bou t t a ppin g in t o in dividu a l m ot iva t ion s in t h e in t e r e st of fu r t h e r in g a n or ga n iza t ion w ide goa l.

by W .C.H . Pr e n t ice W .C.H . Pr e n t ice was form erly t he president of Bryant and St rat t on Business I nst it ut es in Buffalo, New York, t he president of Wheat on College in Nort on, Massachuset t s, and t he dean of Swart hm ore College in Swart hm ore, Pennsylvania. He is now ret ired.

Alt hough t he m ore recent work of aut hors such as Abraham Zaleznik and Daniel Golem an has fundam ent ally changed t he way we look at leadership, m any of t heir t hem es were foreshadowed in W.C.H. Prent ice’s 1961 art icle rej ect ing t he not ion of leadership as t he exercise of power and force or t he possession of ext raordinary analyt ical skill. Prent ice defined leadership as “ t he accom plishm ent of a goal t hrough t he direct ion of hum an assist ant s” and a successful leader as one who can underst and people’s m ot ivat ions and enlist em ployee part icipat ion in a way t hat m arries individual needs and int erest s t o t he group’s purpose. He called for dem ocrat ic leadership t hat gives em ployees opport unit ies t o learn and grow—wit hout creat ing anarchy. While his language in som e passages is dat ed, Prent ice’s observat ions on how leaders can m ot ivat e em ployees t o support t he organizat ion’s goals are t im eless, and t hey were rem arkably prescient .

At t em pt s t o analyze leadership t end t o fail because t he would- be analyst m isconceives his t ask. He usually does not st udy leadership at all. I nst ead he st udies popularit y, power, showm anship, or wisdom in long- range planning. Som e leaders have t hese t hings, but t hey are not of t he essence of leadership. Leadership is t he accom plishm ent of a goal t hrough t he direct ion of hum an assist ant s. The m an who successfully m arshals his hum an collaborat ors t o achieve part icular ends is a leader. A great leader is one who can do so day aft er day, and year aft er year, in a wide variet y of circum st ances. He m ay not possess or display power; force or t he t hreat of harm m ay never ent er int o his dealings. He m ay not be popular; his followers m ay never do what he wishes out of love or adm irat ion for him . He m ay not ever be a colorful person; he m ay never use m em orable devices t o dram at ize t he purposes of his group or t o focus at t ent ion on his leadership. As for t he im port ant m at t er of set t ing goals, he m ay act ually be a m an of lit t le influence, or even of lit t le skill; as a leader he m ay m erely carry out t he plans of

ot hers. His unique achievem ent is a hum an and social one which st em s from his underst anding of his fellow workers and t he relat ionship of t heir individual goals t o t he group goal t hat he m ust carry out . Pr oble m s a n d I llu sion s I t is not hard t o st at e in a few words what successful leaders do t hat m akes t hem effect ive. But it is m uch harder t o t ease out t he com ponent s t hat det erm ine t heir success. The usual m et hod is t o provide adequat e recognit ion of each worker’s funct ion so t hat he can foresee t he sat isfact ion of som e m aj or int erest or m ot ive of his in t he carrying out of t he group ent erprise. Crude form s of leadership rely solely on single sources of sat isfact ion such as m onet ary rewards or t he alleviat ion of fears about various kinds of insecurit y. The t ask is adhered t o because following orders will lead t o a paycheck, and deviat ion will lead t o unem ploym ent . No one can doubt t hat such form s of m ot ivat ion are effect ive wit hin lim it s. I n a m echanical way t hey do at t ach t he worker’s self- int erest t o t he int erest of t he em ployer or t he group. But no one can doubt t he weaknesses of such sim ple t echniques. Hum an beings are not m achines wit h a single set of push but t ons. When t heir com plex responses t o love, prest ige, independence, achievem ent , and group m em bership are unrecognized on t he j ob, t hey perform at best as aut om at a who bring far less t han t heir m axim um efficiency t o t he t ask, and at worst as rebellious slaves who consciously or unconsciously sabot age t he act ivit ies t hey are supposed t o be furt hering. I t is ironic t hat our basic im age of “ t he leader” is so oft en t hat of a m ilit ary com m ander, because—m ost of t he t im e, at least —m ilit ary organizat ions are t he purest exam ple of an unim aginat ive applicat ion of sim ple reward and punishm ent as m ot ivat ing devices. The invent ion in World War I I of t he t erm “ snafu” ( sit uat ion norm al, all fouled up) m erely epit om izes what lit erat ure about m ilit ary life from Greece and Rom e t o t he present day has am ply recorded; nam ely, t hat in no ot her hum an endeavor is m orale t ypically so poor or goldbricking and wast e so m uch in evidence. I n defense of t he m ilit ary, t wo observat ions are relevant : 1. The m ilit ary undeniably has special problem s. Because m en get killed and have t o be replaced, t here are im port ant reasons for t reat ing t hem uniform ly and m echanically. 2. Clarit y about dut ies and responsibilit ies, as m axim ized by t he aut ocrat ic chain of com m and, is not only essent ial t o warfare but has undoubt ed im port ance for m ost group ent erprises. I n fact , any depart ure from an essent ially m ilit ary t ype of leadership is st ill considered in som e circles a form of anarchy. We have all heard t he cry, “ som ebody’s got t o be t he boss,” and I suppose no one would seriously disagree. But it is dangerous t o confuse t he chain of com m and or t able of organizat ion wit h a m et hod of get t ing t hings done. I t is inst ead com parable t o t he diagram of a foot ball play which shows a general plan and how each individual cont ribut es t o it . The diagram is not leadership. By it self it has no bearing one way or anot her on how well execut ed t he play will be. Yet t hat very quest ion of effect ive execut ion is t he problem of leadership. Rewards and t hreat s m ay help each player t o carry out his assignm ent , but in t he long run if success is t o be cont inuing and if m orale is t o survive, each player m ust not only fully underst and his part and it s relat ion t o t he group effort ; he m ust also want t o carry it out . The problem of every leader is t o creat e t hese want s and t o find ways t o

channel exist ing want s int o effect ive cooperat ion. Re la t ion s w it h Pe ople When t he leader succeeds, it will be because he has learned t wo basic lessons: Men are com plex, and m en are different . Hum an beings respond not only t o t he t radit ional carrot and st ick used by t he driver of a donkey but also t o am bit ion, pat riot ism , love of t he good and t he beaut iful, boredom , self- doubt , and m any m ore dim ensions and pat t erns of t hought and feeling t hat m ake t hem m en. But t he st rengt h and im port ance of t hese int erest s are not t he sam e for every worker, nor is t he degree t o which t hey can be sat isfied in his j ob. For exam ple: • One m an m ay be charact erized prim arily by a deep religious need but find t hat fact quit e irrelevant t o his daily work. • Anot her m ay find his m ain sat isfact ions in solving int ellect ual problem s and never be led t o discover how his love for chess problem s and m at hem at ical puzzles can be applied t o his business. • Or st ill anot her m ay need a friendly, adm iring relat ionship t hat he lacks at hom e and be const ant ly frust rat ed by t he failure of his superior t o recognize and t ake advant age of t hat need. To t he ext ent t hat t he leader’s circum st ances and skill perm it him t o respond t o such individual pat t erns, he will be bet t er able t o creat e genuinely int rinsic int erest in t he work t hat he is charged wit h get t ing done. And in t he last analysis an ideal organizat ion should have workers at every level report ing t o som eone whose dom inion is sm all enough t o enable him t o know as hum an beings t hose who report t o him . Lim it s of t h e Golde n Ru le Fort unat ely, t he prim e m ot ives of people who live in t he sam e cult ure are oft en very m uch alike, and t here are som e general m ot ivat ional rules t hat work very well indeed. The effect iveness of Dale Carnegie’s fam ous prescript ions in his How t o Win Friends and I nfluence People is a good exam ple. I t s m aj or principle is a variat ion of t he Golden Rule: “ t reat ot hers as you would like t o be t reat ed.” While lim it ed and oversim plified, such a rule is a great im provem ent over t he prim it ive coercive approaches or t he st raight reward- for- desired- behavior approach. But it would be a great m ist ake not t o recognize t hat som e of t he world’s m ost ineffect ive leadership com es from t he “ t reat ot hers as you would be t reat ed” school. All of us have known unselfish people who earnest ly wished t o sat isfy t he needs of t heir fellows but who were nevert heless com plet ely inept as execut ives ( or perhaps even as friends or as husbands) , because it never occurred t o t hem t hat ot hers had t ast es or em ot ional requirem ent s different from t heir own. We all know t he t ireless worker who recognizes no one else’s fat igue or boredom , t he barroom - st ory addict who t hinks it j olly t o regale even t he ladies wit h his favorit e anecdot es, t he devot ee of public service who t ries t o win friends and influence people by offering t hem t icket s t o lect ures on m issionary work in Africa, t he m iserly m an who t hinks everyone is aft er m oney, and so on.

A gr e a t le a de r ’s u n iqu e a ch ie ve m e n t is a h u m a n a n d socia l on e w h ich st e m s fr om h is u n de r st a n din g of h is fe llow w or k e r s.

Leadership really does require m ore subt let y and percept iveness t han is im plied in t he saying, “ Do as you would be done by.” The one who leads us effect ively m ust seem t o underst and our goals and purposes. He m ust seem t o be in a posit ion t o sat isfy t hem ; he m ust seem t o underst and t he im plicat ions of his own act ions; he m ust seem t o be consist ent and clear in his decisions. The word “ seem ” is im port ant here. I f we do not apprehend t he would- be leader as one who has t hese t rait s, it will m ake no difference how able he m ay really be. We will st ill not follow his lead. I f, on t he ot her hand, we have been fooled and he m erely seem s t o have t hese qualit ies, we will st ill follow him unt il we discover our error. I n ot her words, it is t he im pression he m akes at any one t im e t hat will det erm ine t he influence he has on his followers. Pit fa lls of Pe r ce pt ion For followers t o recognize t heir leader as he really is m ay be as difficult as it is for him t o underst and t hem com plet ely. Som e of t he worst difficult ies in relat ionships bet ween superiors and subordinat es com e from m isperceiving realit y. So m uch of what we underst and in t he world around us is colored by t he concept ions and prej udices we st art wit h. My view of m y em ployer or superior m ay be so colored by expect at ions based on t he behavior of ot her bosses t hat fact s m ay not appear in t he sam e way t o him and t o m e. Many failures of leadership can be t raced t o oversim plified m ispercept ions on t he part of t he worker or t o failures of t he superior t o recognize t he cont ext or fram e of reference wit hin which his act ions will be underst ood by t he subordinat e. A couple of exam ples of psychological dem onst rat ions from t he work of S.E. Asch 1 will illust rat e t his point : • I f I describe a m an as warm , int elligent , am bit ious, and t hought ful, you get one kind of pict ure of him . But if I describe anot her person as cold, am bit ious, t hought ful, and int elligent , you probably get a pict ure of a very different sort of m an. Yet I have m erely changed one word and t he order of a couple of ot hers. The kind of preparat ion t hat one adj ect ive gives for t hose t hat follow is t rem endously effect ive in det erm ining what m eaning will be given t o t hem . The t erm “ t hought ful” m ay m ean t hought ful of ot hers or perhaps rat ional when it is applied t o a warm person t oward whom we have already accept ed a posit ive orient at ion. But as applied t o a cold m an t he sam e t erm m ay m ean brooding, calculat ing, plot t ing. We m ust learn t o be aware of t he degree t o which one set of observat ions about a m an m ay lead us t o erroneous conclusions about his ot her behavior.

An ide a l or ga n iza t ion sh ou ld h a ve w or k e r s a t e ve r y le ve l r e por t in g t o som e on e w h ose dom in ion is sm a ll e n ou gh t o e n a ble h im t o k n ow a s h u m a n be in gs t h ose w h o r e por t t o h im . • Suppose t hat I show t wo groups of observers a film of an exchange of views bet ween an em ployer and his subordinat e. The scene port rays disagreem ent followed by anger and dism issal. The blam e for t he difficult y will be assigned very different ly by t he t wo groups if I have shown one a scene of t he worker earlier in a happy, loving fam ily breakfast set t ing, while t he ot her group has seen inst ead a breakfast - t able scene where t he worker snarls at his fam ily and st orm s out of t he house. The alt ercat ion will be underst ood alt oget her different ly by people who have had favorable or unfavorable glim pses of t he charact er in quest ion. I n business, a worker m ay perceive an offer of increased aut horit y as a dangerous

rem oval from t he safet y of assured, t hough gradual, prom ot ion. A change in channels of aut horit y or report ing, no m at t er how valuable in increasing efficiency, m ay be t hought of as a personal challenge or affront . The int roduct ion of a labor- saving process m ay be perceived as a t hreat t o one’s j ob. An invit at ion t o discuss com pany policy m ay be perceived as an elaborat e t rap t o ent ice one int o adm it t ing heret ical or disloyal views. A new fringe benefit m ay be regarded as an excuse not t o pay higher salaries. And so on. Too oft en, t he superior is ent irely unprepared for t hese int erpret at ions, and t hey seem t o him st upid, dishonest , or perverse—or all t hree. But t he successful leader will have been prepared for such responses. He will have known t hat m any of his workers have been brought up t o consider t heir em ployers as t heir nat ural enem ies, and t hat habit has m ade it second nat ure for t hem t o “ act like an em ployee” in t his respect and always t o be suspicious of ot herwise friendly overt ures from above. The ot her side of t he sam e sit uat ion is as bad. The habit of act ing like a boss can be dest ruct ive, t oo. For inst ance, m uch resist ance t o m odern concept s of indust rial relat ions com es from em ployers who t hink such ideas pose t oo great a t hreat t o t he longest ablished pict ure of t hem selves as business aut ocrat s. Their im age m akes progress in labor relat ions difficult . Tr ou ble s of a Su bor din a t e But anot her and st ill m ore subt le fact or m ay int ervene bet ween em ployer and em ployee —a fact or t hat will be recognized and dealt wit h by successful indust rial leaders. That fact or is t he psychological difficult y of being a subordinat e. I t is not easy t o be a subordinat e. I f I t ake orders from anot her, it lim it s t he scope of m y independent decision and j udgm ent ; cert ain areas are est ablished wit hin which I do what he wishes inst ead of what I wish. To accept such a role wit hout frict ion or rebellion, I m ust find in it a reflect ion of som e form of order t hat goes beyond m y own personal sit uat ion ( i.e., m y age, class, rank, and so fort h) , or perhaps find t hat t he balance of dependence and independence act ually suit s m y needs. These t wo possibilit ies lead t o different pract ical consequences. For one t hing, it is harder t o t ake orders from one whom I do not consider in som e sense superior. I t is t rue t hat one of t he saddest failures in pract ical leadership m ay be t he execut ive who t ries so hard t o be one of t he boys t hat he dest roys any vest ige of awe t hat his workers m ight have had for him , wit h t he consequence t hat t hey begin t o see him as a m an like t hem selves and t o wonder why t hey should t ake orders from him . An underst anding leader will not let his workers t hink t hat he considers t hem inferiors, but he m ay be wise t o m aint ain a kind of psychological dist ance t hat perm it s t hem t o accept his aut horit y wit hout resent m ent . When one of t wo people is in a superior posit ion and m ust m ake final decisions, he can hardly avoid frust rat ing t he aim s of t he subordinat e, at least on occasion. And frust rat ion seem s t o lead t o aggression. That is, t hwart ing brings out a nat ural t endency t o fight back. I t does not t ake m uch t hwart ing t o build up a habit of being ready t o at t ack or defend oneself when dealing wit h t he boss. The sit uat ion is m ade worse if t he organizat ion is such t hat open anger t oward t he boss is unt hinkable, for t hen t he response t o frust rat ion is it self frust rat ed, and a vicious cycle is st art ed. Suggest ion boxes, grievance com m it t ees, depart m ent al rivalries, and ot her such devices m ay serve as light ning rods for t he day- t o- day host ilit y engendered by t he frust rat ions inherent in being a subordinat e. But in t he long run an effect ive leader will be aware of t he need t o balance dependence wit h independence, const raint wit h aut onom y, so t hat t he inevit able psychological consequences of t aking orders do not loom t oo large.

Bet t er yet , he will recognize t hat m any people are fright ened by com plet e independence and need t o feel t he securit y of a syst em t hat prescribes lim it s t o t heir freedom . He will t ry t o adj ust t he am ount s and kinds of freedom t o fit t he psychological needs of his subordinat es. Generally t his m eans providing a developm ent al program in which t he em ployee can be given som e sense of where he is going wit hin t he com pany, and t he effect ive leader will m ake sure t hat t he view is a realist ic one. Here an analogy m ay be helpful: Not hing is m ore dest ruct ive of m orale in any group sit uat ion t han a phony dem ocracy of t he kind one finds in som e fam ilies. Parent s who announce t hat t he children are going t o part icipat e share- and- share- alike in all decisions soon find t hat t hey cannot , in fact , let t hem , and when t he program fails, t he children are especially t hwart ed. They com e t o perceive each of t he necessarily frequent decisions t hat are not m ade by vot e or consult at ion as arbit rary. They develop a st rong sense of inj ust ice and rebellion. I n indust ry t he sam e condit ions hold. I t is no good t o pret end t hat cert ain decisions can be m ade by subordinat es if in fact t hey cannot . To m ake dependency t olerable, t he lines m ust be clearly drawn bet ween t hose decisions t hat are t he prerogat ive of t he superior and t hose t hat can be m ade by or in consult at ion wit h t he subordinat e. Once t hose lines have been drawn, it is essent ial not t o t ransgress t hem any m ore oft en t han is absolut ely necessary. I deally, t he subordinat e should have an area wit hin which he is free t o operat e wit hout anyone looking over his shoulder. The superior should clarify t he goals and perhaps suggest alt ernat ive ways of achieving t hem , but t he subordinat e should feel free t o m ake t he necessary choices. That ideal m ay sound art ificial t o aut ocrat s of “ t he old school,” and, if it does, it will m ean not hing even if t hey give lip service t o it . I f t he worker knows t hat t he boss likes plan A, he is not going t o t ry plan B and risk his j ob if it fails. I f he knows t hat his j ob rides on every m aj or decision, he can only play safe by ident ifying him self in every case wit h his superior’s views. But t hat m akes him an aut om at on who can bring no addit ional int elligence t o t he organizat ion nor free his superiors from any decisions. He earns t he respect of no one—not even t he boss who helped m ake him t hat way.

Th e su cce ssfu l le a de r k n ow s t h a t m a n y w or k e r s h a ve be e n br ou gh t u p t o con side r t h e ir e m ploye r s a s t h e ir n a t u r a l e n e m ie s. Goa ls in D e ve lopm e n t No decision is wort h t he nam e unless it involves t he balancing of risks and ret urns. I f it were a sure t hing, we would not need a m an t o use his j udgm ent about it . Mist akes are inevit able. What we m ust expect of em ployees is t hat t hey learn from t heir m ist akes, not t hat t hey never m ake t hem . I t should be t he execut ive’s concern t o wat ch t he long- t erm growt h of his m en t o see t hat , as t hey learn, t heir successes increasingly out weigh t heir failures. This concept of long- run growt h is a vit al part of cont inuing leadership. Each m an m ust be perm it t ed t o know t hat his role in t he group is subj ect t o developm ent and t hat it s developm ent is lim it ed only by his cont ribut ions. Especially, he m ust see t he leader as t he m an m ost int erest ed in and helpful t oward his growt h. I t is not enough t o have int erest ed personnel officers or ot her st aff people who play no role in policy m aking. Despit e all t he assist ance t hey can render in t echnical ways, t hey can never t ake t he place of an int erest on t he part of t he responsible execut ive.

D e a lin g w it h Ta ct At j ust t his point , one oft en finds m isconcept ions. No sensible person wishes t o m ake of t he execut ive a subst it ut e for fat her or psychiat rist or even direct or of personnel. His int erest can and should be ent irely im personal and unsent im ent al. He m ight put it t o t he em ployee som ewhat as follows: “ There is not hing personal about t his. Anyone in your post would get t he sam e t reat m ent . But as long as you work for m e, I am going t o see t hat you get every opport unit y t o use your last ounce of pot ent ial. Your growt h and sat isfact ion are a part of m y j ob. The fast er you develop int o a t op cont ribut or t o t his com pany, t he bet t er I will like it . I f you see a bet t er way t o do your j ob, do it t hat way; if som et hing is holding you back, com e and see m e about it . I f you are right , you will get all t he help I can give you plus t he recognit ion you deserve.” No genuine growt h of an em ployee will occur wit hout som e t eaching. The superior m ust from t im e t o t im e t ake cognizance of t he successes and failures and m ake sure t hat t he subordinat e sees t hem and t heir consequences as he does. And at t his point of assessm ent a gravely difficult aspect of leadership arises. How can crit icism be im personal and st ill effect ive? How can a decision or a m et hod be crit icized wit hout t he worker feeling t hat he is personally being dem eaned? The im port ance of adequat e com m unicat ion at t his point is t wofold. Not only m ay longrange dam age be done t o em ployee m orale, but a quit e specific short - range effect is oft en t he em ployee’s failure t o do what he should t oward carrying out t he boss’s alt ernat ive plan, since it s failure m ight prove t hat he had been right in t he first place. I t is all t oo easy for a leader t o produce ant agonism and defensiveness by dealing im personally wit h a problem and forget t ing t he hum an em ot ions and m ot ives t hat are involved in it . I nt erest ingly enough, such failures seem t o happen m ore oft en in office sit uat ions t han anywhere else, and we m ight well wonder if we have not t ended t o insulat e behavior in m anagem ent from behavior out side—in t he hom e, for inst ance. We do not assum e t hat an order or a m em orandum is t he best way of m aking our wishes accept able at hom e. Most reasonably bright people learn early in life how t o get ot hers t o cooperat e. I t is second nat ure t o creat e a personal and em ot ional set t ing t hat is right for t he part icular person ( e.g., wife, adult son, t eenage daught er, or child) and for t he part icular request t hat is t o be m ade. More t han t hat , we are likely t o know which aspect s of, say, a vacat ion plan t o st ress t o m ake it seem at t ract ive t o t he wife who want s t o be wait ed on, t he son who want s t o fish, or t he daught er who want s adolescent com panions. We are likely t o learn, t oo, t hat one of t hese m ay be m ore readily persuaded if she has a hand in t he decision- m aking process, while anot her wishes only t o have a ready- m ade plan subm it t ed for his approval or disdain. I ndeed, we probably respond t o such differences at hom e wit h very lit t le t hought . But in t he office we lay aside our everyday int uit ive skills in hum an relat ions and put on t he m ask of an em ployer or an execut ive. We t ry t o handle our t asks wit h orders or direct ives im personally aim ed at whoever happens t o be responsible for t heir execut ion, forget t ing t hat effect ive m obilizat ion of hum an resources always requires t he volunt ary part icipat ion of all. Leadership is an int eract ion am ong people. I t requires followers wit h part icular t rait s and part icular skills and a leader who knows how t o use t hem . Se cr e t s of a Sym ph on y Or ch e st r a Con du ct or

The direct or of an orchest ra m ay perhaps serve as a useful m odel for som e of t he im port ant relat ionships which run t hrough all leadership sit uat ions: 1. Obvious enough in t his cont ext , but not always rem em bered, is t he fact t hat t he m en m ust have t he requisit e skills and t raining for t heir roles. Not all group failures are t he boss’s fault . Toscanini could not get great m usic from a high- school band.

I n t h e office w e la y a side ou r e ve r yda y in t u it ive sk ills in h u m a n r e la t ion s a n d pu t on t h e m a sk of a n e m ploye r or a n e x e cu t ive . 2. A psychological set t ing m ust be est ablished for t he com m on t ask. A conduct or m ust set up his ground rules, his signals, and his t ast es in such a way t hat t he m echanics of get t ing a rehearsal st art ed do not int erfere wit h t he m usical purpose. Just as t he conduct or m ust est ablish agreem ent about prom pt ness at rehearsals, t alking or sm oking bet ween num bers, new versus old m usic, and a dozen ot her t hings t hat m ight ot herwise com e bet ween him and his colleagues in t heir com m on aim , so every office or fact ory m ust have rules or cust om s which are clearly underst ood and easily followed. 3. Most im port ant of all, t he m usicians m ust share sat isfact ion wit h t heir leader in t he product ion of m usic or of m usic of a cert ain qualit y. Unless t hey individually achieve a sense of accom plishm ent or even fulfillm ent , his leadership has failed and he will not m ake great m usic. Som e dist inguished conduct ors have been pet t y t yrant s; ot hers play poker wit h t heir m usicians and becom e godfat hers t o t heir babies. These m at t ers are essent ially irrelevant . What t he great conduct or achieves is each inst rum ent alist ’s convict ion t hat he is t aking part in t he m aking of a kind of m usic t hat could only be m ade under such a leader. Personal qualit ies and m annerism s m ay have a secondary im port ance; t hey m ay serve as rem inders, reinst at ing and reinforcing t he vit al im age of a m an wit h t he highest m usical st andards. But no one can becom e a Toscanini by im it at ing his m annerism s. “Low - Pr e ssu r e ” Le a de r sh ip These sim ple fact s are oft en overlooked. I n indust ry we can find endless num bers of execut ives who m erely m im ic t he surface charact erist ics of som e successful colleague or superior wit hout ever t rying t o find ways t o enlist t he act ive part icipat ion of t heir own st affs by showing t hem ways t o personal fulfillm ent in t he com m on t ask. These execut ives t ake t he approach t hat a cert ain t ype of salesm an t akes; and it is significant , I t hink, t hat t he financial, m anufact uring, and research st affs of m any com panies look on salesm en as a necessary evil, and would be horrified at t he t hought of bringing what t hey consider a “ sales approach” int o m anagem ent . Their reason m ay never be clearly form ulat ed, but it surely has som et hing t o do wit h an air of t rickery and m anipulat ion t hat surrounds som e advert ising, m arket ing, and selling. The salesm en and advert isers I refer t o are oft en willing t o seek and exploit a weak point in t heir cust om er’s defenses and m ake a sale even when t hey suspect or perhaps know t hat t he cust om er will live t o regret t he purchase. Slick uses of social and psychological t ricks can indeed result in persuading anot her t o do your bidding, but t hey are unfit for a cont inuing hum an relat ionship. As every t ruly const ruct ive salesm an knows, a business t ransact ion should benefit bot h buyer and seller. And t hat m eans finding out t he needs of t he cust om er, m aking sure t hat he underst ands t hem him self, and providing him wit h a product t hat will sat isfy t hat need. Trained in such an approach, t he salesm an should be t he execut ive par excellence,

carrying over int o adm inist rat ive dealings wit h people what he has been using in sales. By cont rast , t he t ricky, fast - t alking m anipulat or who prides him self on out wit t ing his cust om ers, who count s on selling a m an cigaret t es by playing on his vanit y or selling a wom an cosm et ics by playing on her am bit ion, m ight t urn int o an execut ive wit h t he sam e cont em pt for his workers t hat he had previously for his cust om ers. I f he enj oys hoodwinking his workers by playing on t heir m ot ives and t heir int erest s, t hey will soon discover t hat t hey are being t oyed wit h, and t he loyalt y and confidence t hat are an essent ial ingredient of effect ive leadership will be corroded away. Con clu sion I n t he last resort , an execut ive m ust use his skills and his hum an insight as does an orchest ra leader—t o capt ure individual sat isfact ions in t he com m on ent erprise and t o creat e fulfillm ent t hat holds t he subordinat e t o his part . No collect ion of cut e t ricks of ent icem ent or showm anship can do t hat for him . Leadership, despit e what we som et im es t hink, consist s of a lot m ore t han j ust “ underst anding people,” “ being nice t o people,” or not “ pushing ot her people around.” Dem ocracy is som et im es t hought t o im ply no division of aut horit y, or t o im ply t hat everyone can be his own boss. Of course, t hat is nonsense, especially in business. But business leadership can be dem ocrat ic in t he sense of providing t he m axim um opport unit y for growt h t o each worker wit hout creat ing anarchy. I n fact , t he orderly arrangem ent of funct ions and t he accurat e percept ion of a leader’s role in t hat arrangem ent m ust always precede t he developm ent of his abilit ies t o t he m axim um . A leader’s j ob is t o provide t hat recognit ion of roles and funct ions wit hin t he group t hat will perm it each m em ber t o sat isfy and fulfill som e m aj or m ot ive or int erest .

1. “ Form ing I m pressions of Personalit y,” The Journal of Abnorm al and Social Psychology, 1946. Reprint Num ber R0401K Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. This cont ent m ay not be reproduced or t ransm it t ed in any form or by any m eans, elect ronic or m echanical, including phot ocopy, recording, or any inform at ion st orage or ret rieval syst em , wit hout writ t en perm ission. Request s for perm ission should be direct ed t o perm [email protected], 1- 888- 500- 1020, or m ailed t o Perm issions, Harvard Business School Publishing, 60 Harvard Way, Bost on, MA 02163.

Click here t o visit :

View Back Issues | January 2004 > The Highway of t he Mind

> | Pu r ch a se Re pr in t > | Pr in t a ble Ve r sion

The Highway of t he Mind

> | E- m a il a Colle a gu e > | Ex e cu t ive Su m m a r y

by Th om a s A. St e w a r t

I m agine an Am erican visit or t o Great Brit ain who rent s a car wit h m anual t ransm ission and right - hand drive. He st art s, st alls, and rest art s, over and over. He is unsure where t he cent er of t he lane is or how far he is from ot her vehicles. I f he inadvert ent ly slips int o t he successful habit s of a driving lifet im e, he court s cat ast rophe. For a businessperson, a short spin on t he highway of em ot ion can be sim ilarly disorient ing. Alt hough businesspeople t end t o be ext rovert s, t aking a lively int erest in ot hers, by t em peram ent and t raining t hey prefer act ion t o int rospect ion. I BM’s m ot t o was “ Think,” not “ Feel.”

Th om a s A. St e w a r t is t he edit or of Harvard Business Review and can be reached at e dit or s@h bsp.h a r va r d. e du .

Yet feel t hey m ust —want t o or not , awkwardly or not . The landscape of em ot ion is m ore varied t han any on eart h, and t he roads t hrough it t wist and t urn like no ot her highways. There are very few rules of t his road, but som e t ips can help you navigat e it bet t er. Em ot ion s a r e n ’t good or ba d. Th e y j u st a r e . You can’t st op yourself from having em ot ions. I ndeed, research int o cognit ion and consciousness by Ant onio Dam asio, t he head of neurology at t he Universit y of I owa, proves t hat no decision, not even t he m ost seem ingly cold- blooded, can be m ade wit hout em ot ion. Em ot ions are a fact of life. You win by acknowledging t hem , not by denying t hem , and especially not by condem ning t hem ( or yourself) for t heir exist ence. Your followers win, t oo: They won’t believe or believe in som eone who hides her anger, frust rat ion, j ealousy, or fear. So own up. “ I ’m angry. Now, why am I angry? What do I want t o do about t he cause of m y anger?” You ’r e n ot t h e on ly on e w it h a n a ge n da . You share t he road wit h ot hers. Call it t he “ I syndrom e” : Too oft en, bosses are so capt ivat ed by t heir own vision or so convinced by t heir own logic t hat t hey assum e everybody else sees it t heir way. But t he people around you also have am bit ions, int erest s, and plans. As t heir leader, you’re t he cent er of t heir hopes and t heir fears. I f t hey feel you’re a road hog, you’re in t rouble. Pay at t ent ion t o what m ot ivat es t hem and where t hey want t o go. Signal before you t urn or change lanes. Th e y’r e w a t ch in g you r e ve r y m ove . Som et im es, Freud supposedly said, a cigar is j ust a cigar. Not for leaders. Everyt hing a leader does is sym bolic. Everyt hing is am plified. “ I f t he chairm an asks for a cup of coffee,” runs an old j oke at General Elect ric, “ som eone is liable t o go out and buy Brazil.” First - t im e leaders in part icular oft en fail t o recognize t hat every gest ure and com m ent rocket around t he com pany as people t ry t o figure out t he new guy. Yet , while you’re always on st age, not hing is m ore im port ant t han t o avoid act ing. You can’t fake aut hent icit y.

Th e la n dsca pe of e m ot ion is m or e va r ie d t h a n a n y on e a r t h , a n d t h e r oa ds t h r ou gh it t w ist a n d t u r n lik e n o ot h e r h igh w a ys. I t ’s n ot a lw a ys a bou t you . By all m eans put your heart int o your work, but disent angle your role from your self. Sure, as you st and at t he podium and address t he t hrong, t hat ’s your face proj ect ed as big as Godzilla’s on screens t o eit her side. Sure, t he art icles in Fort une and Forbes im plied t hat you did it all yourself or t hat it was all your fault . And it ’s absolut ely t rue t hat lit t le happens wit hout t he st im ulat ing elixir of leadership. But a challenge t o your ideas isn’t a challenge t o you. A com pet it or want s your m arket share, not your soul. You a lw a ys h a ve a ch oice . Alt ernat ives m ay not be pleasant , but t hey always exist . You m ight face a choice bet ween, say, firing som eone t hough he is a friend or keeping him t hough he is incom pet ent , or bet ween at t acking boldly but at great risk or wait ing passively in slow but cert ain peril—yet it is a choice. Faced wit h unpalat able alt ernat ives,

> | Ex e cu t ive Su m m a r y

people oft en panic. They see fewer possibilit ies t han t hey would if t hey kept calm . They feel t rapped. But you’re never t rapped, really. That m ay be t he single m ost em powering t rut h in all psychology: The final call is always yours. Reprint Num ber R0401L

> | Pu r ch a se Re pr in t > | Pr in t a ble Ve r sion > | E- m a il a Colle a gu e

View Back Issues Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. All right s reserved.

Click here t o visit : > | ht t p: / / www.hbsp.org

The Highway of t he Mind by Th om a s A. St e w a r t Th om a s A. St e w a r t is t he edit or of Harvard Business Review and can be reached at e dit or s@h bsp. h a r va r d.e du .

I m agine an Am erican visit or t o Great Brit ain who rent s a car wit h m anual t ransm ission and right - hand drive. He st art s, st alls, and rest art s, over and over. He is unsure where t he cent er of t he lane is or how far he is from ot her vehicles. I f he inadvert ent ly slips int o t he successful habit s of a driving lifet im e, he court s cat ast rophe. For a businessperson, a short spin on t he highway of em ot ion can be sim ilarly disorient ing. Alt hough businesspeople t end t o be ext rovert s, t aking a lively int erest in ot hers, by t em peram ent and t raining t hey prefer act ion t o int rospect ion. I BM’s m ot t o was “ Think,” not “ Feel.” Yet feel t hey m ust —want t o or not , awkwardly or not . The landscape of em ot ion is m ore varied t han any on eart h, and t he roads t hrough it t wist and t urn like no ot her highways. There are very few rules of t his road, but som e t ips can help you navigat e it bet t er. Em ot ion s a r e n ’t good or ba d. Th e y j u st a r e . You can’t st op yourself from having em ot ions. I ndeed, research int o cognit ion and consciousness by Ant onio Dam asio, t he head of neurology at t he Universit y of I owa, proves t hat no decision, not even t he m ost seem ingly cold- blooded, can be m ade wit hout em ot ion. Em ot ions are a fact of life. You win by acknowledging t hem , not by denying t hem , and especially not by condem ning t hem ( or yourself) for t heir exist ence. Your followers win, t oo: They won’t believe or believe in som eone who hides her anger, frust rat ion, j ealousy, or fear. So own up. “ I ’m angry. Now, why am I angry? What do I want t o do about t he cause of m y anger?” You ’r e n ot t h e on ly on e w it h a n a ge n da . You share t he road wit h ot hers. Call it t he “ I syndrom e” : Too oft en, bosses are so capt ivat ed by t heir own vision or so convinced by t heir own logic t hat t hey assum e everybody else sees it t heir way. But t he people around you also have am bit ions, int erest s, and plans. As t heir leader, you’re t he cent er of t heir hopes and t heir fears. I f t hey feel you’re a road hog, you’re in t rouble. Pay at t ent ion t o what m ot ivat es t hem and where t hey want t o go. Signal before you t urn or change lanes. Th e y’r e w a t ch in g you r e ve r y m ove . Som et im es, Freud supposedly said, a cigar is j ust a cigar. Not for leaders. Everyt hing a leader does is sym bolic. Everyt hing is am plified. “ I f t he chairm an asks for a cup of coffee,” runs an old j oke at General Elect ric, “ som eone is liable t o go out and buy Brazil.” First - t im e leaders in part icular oft en fail t o recognize t hat every gest ure and com m ent rocket around t he com pany as people t ry t o figure out t he new guy. Yet , while you’re always on st age, not hing is m ore im port ant t han t o avoid act ing. You can’t fake aut hent icit y.

Th e la n dsca pe of e m ot ion is m or e va r ie d t h a n a n y on e a r t h , a n d t h e r oa ds t h r ou gh it t w ist a n d t u r n lik e n o ot h e r h igh w a ys. I t ’s n ot a lw a ys a bou t you . By all m eans put your heart int o your work, but disent angle your role from your self. Sure, as you st and at t he podium and address t he t hrong, t hat ’s your face proj ect ed as big as Godzilla’s on screens t o eit her side. Sure, t he art icles in Fort une and Forbes im plied t hat you did it all yourself or t hat it was all your fault . And it ’s absolut ely t rue t hat lit t le happens wit hout t he st im ulat ing elixir of leadership. But a challenge t o your ideas isn’t a challenge t o you. A com pet it or want s your m arket share, not your soul. You a lw a ys h a ve a ch oice . Alt ernat ives m ay not be pleasant , but t hey always exist . You m ight face a choice bet ween, say, firing som eone t hough he is a friend or keeping him t hough he is incom pet ent , or bet ween at t acking boldly but at great risk or wait ing passively in slow but cert ain peril—yet it is a choice. Faced wit h unpalat able alt ernat ives, people oft en panic. They see fewer possibilit ies t han t hey would if t hey kept calm . They feel t rapped. But you’re never t rapped, really. That m ay be t he single m ost em powering t rut h in all psychology: The final call is always yours.

Reprint Num ber R0401L Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. This cont ent m ay not be reproduced or t ransm it t ed in any form or by any m eans, elect ronic or m echanical, including phot ocopy, recording, or any inform at ion st orage or ret rieval syst em , wit hout writ t en perm ission. Request s for perm ission should be direct ed t o perm [email protected], 1- 888- 500- 1020, or m ailed t o Perm issions, Harvard Business School Publishing, 60 Harvard Way, Bost on, MA 02163.

Click here t o visit :

View Back Issues | January 2004 > The Leader’s Secret Self

> | Pr in t a ble Ve r sion > | E- m a il a Colle a gu e

The Leader’s Secret Self Th om a s A. St e w a r t

by Th om a s A. St e w a r t

Special issues of HBR give us t he chance t o explore a big subj ect in t wo dim ensions: first , across space, wit h a gat hering of new art icles ranged around t he subj ect in an illum inat ing way; and second, across t im e, wit h a republicat ion of t he very best art icles from HBR’s past —frequent ly t he art icles t hat helped define t he t opic in t he first place. The subj ect at hand is leadership—in part icular, t he psychology of leadership. Academ ic leadership st udies grew out of hist orians’ “ great m an” t heories, which explain event s by exam ining t he role of highly influent ial individuals. George Washingt on is perhaps t he archet ype of t he great m an in Am erican hist ory. I n port rait s, great m en ( and a few wom en) are heroic, larger t han life; oft en t hey’re on horseback. Their st rengt h and vision inspire us. We don’t know m uch about what t hey feel, however. We don’t know t heir doubt s or t heir secret s. We view t hese leaders from t he out side. This issue of HBR is about t he leader’s inner life. I nt ellect ually, t he issue grows from a different t radit ion, but one t hat is roughly cont em poraneous wit h “ great m an” t heories: t he st udy of psychology, which begins in t he second half of t he ninet eent h cent ury wit h figures like William Jam es and Wilhelm Wundt . Psychology found it s own great m en in Sigm und Freud and Carl Jung and worked it s way int o business t hrough such people as Abraham Maslow, Harry Levinson, and, m ore recent ly, Manfred F.R. Ket s de Vries. I f Washingt on sym bolizes t he leader’s out ward face, let Abraham Lincoln st and for his inner being—am biguous, doubt ful, and brooding. Even in phot ographs, we see Lincoln from wit hin: The lineam ent s of his soul are et ched on his skin. A leader get s int o t rouble when t here’s dissonance bet ween t he inside and out side—what t oday we’d call a “ disconnect .” I f a single t hem e runs t hrough t his issue, it ’s t he im port ance of keeping t he t wo aligned. Take, for exam ple, t he issue of em ot ional int elligence—a t erm first brought t o t he business m ainst ream in Daniel Golem an’s classic 1998 HBR art icle “ What Makes a Leader?” reprint ed here. We’ve all known leaders wit h highly developed int ellect s but st unt ed em ot ions—and, wonderfully, leaders who bond wit h ot hers in profound ways. But can em ot ional int elligence be learned? Can you have t oo m uch? How can a person com pensat e for weakness in em ot ional int elligence? We explore t hese quest ions and m ore wit h Golem an and over a dozen ot her well- known expert s—am ong t hem , a neurologist , several CEOs, and an expert on cult s. Their answers are fascinat ing and im port ant . Every leader ought t o want a m ore supple em ot ional int elligence, and “ Leading by Feel” is a great place t o begin. Every leader ought t o be t hinking about his or her own leadership developm ent , t oo, and who bet t er t o t alk about t he process of becom ing a leader t han t he m an who wrot e t he book on t he subj ect , Warren Bennis. The t it le of Bennis’s art icle, “ The Seven Ages of t he Leader,” m ay sound fam iliar: He has fram ed his discussion of how leaders grow by appealing t o t he “ seven ages of m an” speech from Shakespeare’s As You Like I t , t he one t hat begins “ All t he world’s a st age.” ( Freud him self oft en looked t o Shakespeare for an underst anding of hum an nat ure.) That fram ing was a sm art choice, because t he Bard underst ood t heat er as well as psychology, and one of t he biggest challenges leaders face is underst anding how t heir feelings “ play” on t he public st age t hey occupy. There’s m uch m ore in t his issue. Barbara Kellerm an exam ines t he t aboo subj ect of m align leaders. Lynn Offerm ann present s a provocat ive piece on t he som et im es t oxic effect s followers can have on leaders. And by all m eans, dig int o Diane Cout u’s int erview wit h Ket s de Vries, a psychoanalyst and I nsead professor who has devot ed his career t o analyzing CEOs. He says surprising t hings about how m any CEOs suffer from depression and anxiet y and st ruggle wit h cont rol issues. He also offers a wise and hopeful descript ion of t he t ruly healt hy leader—int ense, passionat e, responsible—t he kind of leader we want t o have, t he kind of leader we want t o be.

> | Pr in t a ble Ve r sion > | E- m a il a Colle a gu e

View Back Issues Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. All right s reserved.

Click here t o visit : > | ht t p: / / www.hbsp.org

The Leader’s Secret Self by Th om a s A. St e w a r t Th om a s A. St e w a r t

Special issues of HBR give us t he chance t o explore a big subj ect in t wo dim ensions: first , across space, wit h a gat hering of new art icles ranged around t he subj ect in an illum inat ing way; and second, across t im e, wit h a republicat ion of t he very best art icles from HBR’s past —frequent ly t he art icles t hat helped define t he t opic in t he first place. The subj ect at hand is leadership—in part icular, t he psychology of leadership. Academ ic leadership st udies grew out of hist orians’ “ great m an” t heories, which explain event s by exam ining t he role of highly influent ial individuals. George Washingt on is perhaps t he archet ype of t he great m an in Am erican hist ory. I n port rait s, great m en ( and a few wom en) are heroic, larger t han life; oft en t hey’re on horseback. Their st rengt h and vision inspire us. We don’t know m uch about what t hey feel, however. We don’t know t heir doubt s or t heir secret s. We view t hese leaders from t he out side. This issue of HBR is about t he leader’s inner life. I nt ellect ually, t he issue grows from a different t radit ion, but one t hat is roughly cont em poraneous wit h “ great m an” t heories: t he st udy of psychology, which begins in t he second half of t he ninet eent h cent ury wit h figures like William Jam es and Wilhelm Wundt . Psychology found it s own great m en in Sigm und Freud and Carl Jung and worked it s way int o business t hrough such people as Abraham Maslow, Harry Levinson, and, m ore recent ly, Manfred F.R. Ket s de Vries. I f Washingt on sym bolizes t he leader’s out ward face, let Abraham Lincoln st and for his inner being—am biguous, doubt ful, and brooding. Even in phot ographs, we see Lincoln from wit hin: The lineam ent s of his soul are et ched on his skin. A leader get s int o t rouble when t here’s dissonance bet ween t he inside and out side—what t oday we’d call a “ disconnect .” I f a single t hem e runs t hrough t his issue, it ’s t he im port ance of keeping t he t wo aligned. Take, for exam ple, t he issue of em ot ional int elligence—a t erm first brought t o t he business m ainst ream in Daniel Golem an’s classic 1998 HBR art icle “ What Makes a Leader?” reprint ed here. We’ve all known leaders wit h highly developed int ellect s but st unt ed em ot ions—and, wonderfully, leaders who bond wit h ot hers in profound ways. But can em ot ional int elligence be learned? Can you have t oo m uch? How can a person com pensat e for weakness in em ot ional int elligence? We explore t hese quest ions and m ore wit h Golem an and over a dozen ot her well- known expert s—am ong t hem , a neurologist , several CEOs, and an expert on cult s. Their answers are fascinat ing and im port ant . Every leader ought t o want a m ore supple em ot ional int elligence, and “ Leading by Feel” is a great place t o begin. Every leader ought t o be t hinking about his or her own leadership developm ent , t oo, and who bet t er t o t alk about t he process of becom ing a leader t han t he m an who wrot e t he book on t he subj ect , Warren Bennis. The t it le of Bennis’s art icle, “ The Seven Ages of t he Leader,” m ay sound fam iliar: He has fram ed his discussion of how leaders grow by

appealing t o t he “ seven ages of m an” speech from Shakespeare’s As You Like I t , t he one t hat begins “ All t he world’s a st age.” ( Freud him self oft en looked t o Shakespeare for an underst anding of hum an nat ure.) That fram ing was a sm art choice, because t he Bard underst ood t heat er as well as psychology, and one of t he biggest challenges leaders face is underst anding how t heir feelings “ play” on t he public st age t hey occupy. There’s m uch m ore in t his issue. Barbara Kellerm an exam ines t he t aboo subj ect of m align leaders. Lynn Offerm ann present s a provocat ive piece on t he som et im es t oxic effect s followers can have on leaders. And by all m eans, dig int o Diane Cout u’s int erview wit h Ket s de Vries, a psychoanalyst and I nsead professor who has devot ed his career t o analyzing CEOs. He says surprising t hings about how m any CEOs suffer from depression and anxiet y and st ruggle wit h cont rol issues. He also offers a wise and hopeful descript ion of t he t ruly healt hy leader—int ense, passionat e, responsible—t he kind of leader we want t o have, t he kind of leader we want t o be.

Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. This cont ent m ay not be reproduced or t ransm it t ed in any form or by any m eans, elect ronic or m echanical, including phot ocopy, recording, or any inform at ion st orage or ret rieval syst em , wit hout writ t en perm ission. Request s for perm ission should be direct ed t o perm [email protected], 1- 888- 500- 1020, or m ailed t o Perm issions, Harvard Business School Publishing, 60 Harvard Way, Bost on, MA 02163.

Click here t o visit :

View Back Issues | January 2004 > Reprint s and Subscript ions

Reprint s and Subscript ions Su bscr ipt ion Se r vice s Su bscr ibe on lin e : www.hbr.org

Or de r s, in qu ir ie s, a n d a ddr e ss ch a n ge s U.S. a n d Ca n a da Ph on e : 800- 274- 3214 Fa x : 303- 604- 7644 E- m a il: hbursubs@neodat a.com Addr e ss: Harvard Business Review P.O. Box 52623 Boulder, CO 80322- 2623 Ove r se a s a n d M e x ico Ph on e : 44- 1858- 438868 Fa x : 44- 1858- 468969 E- m a il: harvard@subscript ion.co.uk W e b sit e : www.subscript ion.co.uk/ help/ harvard Addr e ss: Harvard Business Review Tower House, Sovereign Park Lat hkill St reet Market Harborough, Leicest ershire LE16 9EF, England

Ra t e s pe r ye a r U.S., $118; Canada, $128USD I nt ernat ional, $165USD; Mexico, $128USD Pa ym e n t s a cce pt e d Visa, Mast erCard, Am erican Express; checks in U.S. dollars payable t o Harvard Business Review. Bills and ot her receipt s m ay be issued.

Ar t icle Re pr in t s a n d Pe r m ission s Reprint num bers appear at t he end of art icles and execut ive sum m aries. Cont act our cust om er service t eam t o order reprint s or t o obt ain perm ission t o copy, quot e, or t ranslat e Harvard Business Review art icles. Reprint s are available in hard copy, as elect ronic downloads wit h perm ission t o print , and in cust om ized versions.

For in for m a t ion or t o or de r Cust om er Service Depart m ent Harvard Business School Publishing Corporat ion 60 Harvard Way Bost on, MA 02163 Ph on e : 617- 783- 7500 U.S. a n d Ca n a da : 800- 988- 0886 ( 8AM – 6PM ET weekdays) Fa x : 617- 783- 7555 E- m a il: cust [email protected]

Re pr in t pr ice s 1–9 copies $6.00 each 10–49 $5.50 50–79 $5.00 80–99 $4.50 100–499 $4.00 ( Minim um order, $10. Discount s apply t o m ult iple copies of t he sam e art icle.)

H a r va r d Bu sin e ss Re vie w On Poin t Ar t icle s a n d Colle ct ion s Many art icles are available in enhanced Harvard Business Review OnPoint edit ions, which include a onepage synopsis highlight ing key ideas and com pany exam ples, t he full- t ext art icle, and an annot at ed bibliography. Harvard Business Review OnPoint num bers are list ed at t he end of art icles and execut ive sum m aries. Harvard Business Review OnPoint collect ions include t hree OnPoint art icles wit h a one- page overview com paring t he various art icles’ perspect ives on a t opic. Collect ion num bers appear at t he end of execut ive sum m aries.

H a r va r d Bu sin e ss Re vie w On Poin t pr ice s Ar t icle s 1–9 copies $7.00 each 10–49 $6.50 50–79 $6.00 80–99 $5.50 100–499 $5.00 ( Minim um order, $10. Discount s apply t o m ult iple copies of t he sam e art icle.) Colle ct ion s 1–9 copies 10–49 50–99 100–499

Libr a r y Acce ss Libraries offer online access t o current and back issues of Harvard Business Review t hrough EBSCO host dat abases.

$16.95 each $13.56 $11.86 $10.17

Cu st om a n d Qu a n t it y Or de r s For quant it y est im at es or quot es on cust om ized reprint s and Harvard Business Review OnPoint product s, call Frank Tam oshunas at 617- 783- 7626, fax him at 617- 783- 7658, or e- m ail him at ft am [email protected].

For su bscr ipt ion s, r e pr in t s, a n d H a r va r d Bu sin e ss Re vie w On Poin t or de r s, go t o w w w .h br .or g. Post m a st e r Send dom est ic address changes, orders, and inquiries t o: Harvard Business Review, Subscript ion Service, P.O. Box 52623, Boulder, CO 80322- 2623 GST Regist rat ion No. 124738345 Periodical post age paid at Bost on, Massachuset t s, and addit ional m ailing offices. Print ed in t he U.S.A. Harvard Business Review ( I SSN 0017- 8012; USPS 0236- 520) , published 12 t im es a year for professional m anagers, is a program in execut ive educat ion of t he Graduat e School of Business Adm inist rat ion, Harvard Universit y; Kim B. Clark, dean. Published by Harvard Business School Publishing Corporat ion, 60 Harvard Way, Bost on, MA 02163. Volu m e 8 2 , N u m be r 1

Copyr igh t © 2 0 0 3 H a r va r d Bu sin e ss Sch ool Pu blish in g. All r igh t s r e se r ve d.

Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. All right s reserved.

Click here t o visit :

View Back Issues | January 2004 > About HBR

About HBR Edit or Thom as A. St ewart

Pu blish e r Cat hryn Cronin Cranst on

D e pu t y Edit or Karen Dillon

Cir cu la t ion Fu lfillm e n t M a n a ge r Heat her McCorm ick

Ex e cu t ive Edit or Sarah Cliffe

M a n a ge r , M a r k e t in g a n d Ope r a t ion s Marisa Maurer

Ar t D ir e ct or Judi Tom linson Se n ior Edit or s Leigh Buchanan David Cham pion Diane L. Cout u Bronwyn Fryer Ben Gerson Paul Hem p Julia Kirby Gardiner Morse Ellen Peebles Anand P. Ram an Associa t e Edit or Eileen Roche Con su lt in g Edit or Louise O'Brien M a n u scr ipt Edit or s Christ ina Bort z Robert a A. Fusaro Margaret K. Hanshaw Andrew O’Connell Andrea Ovans Suki Sporer

Se n ior Pr odu ct ion M a n a ge r Dana Lissy Associa t e Ar t D ir e ct or Karen Player Associa t e Pr odu ct ion M a n a ge r Christ ine Wilder Se n ior D e sign e r s Aim ee Bida Jill Manca Pr odu ct ion Coor din a t or Sarabet h Fields D e sign / Pr odu ct ion Coor din a t or Heat her Barret t Ex e cu t ive Edit or a n d D ir e ct or of D e r iva t ive Pr odu ct s Jane Heifet z

Com m u n ica t ion s M a n a ge r Cat hy Olofson

Con t r ibu t in g St a ff Am y L. Halliday Am y N. Monaghan

Edit or for Bu sin e ss D e ve lopm e n t John T. Landry

Te ch n ology Pr oj e ct M a n a ge r Zach At well

Edit or ia l Coor din a t or s Kassandra Duane Andrew Gray

Te ch n ica l Pr odu ct ion Coor din a t or Terry Cole

Ele ct r on ic Pr odu ct ion Edit or Susan Cat t erall Francis

Adve r t isin g Pr odu ct ion M a n a ge r Cat harine- Mary Donovan Assist a n t Su bscr ibe r Se r vice s M a n a ge r Elizabet h Sot t ile W or ldw ide Adve r t isin g Office s Advert ising Direct or—Worldwide Trish Henry 212- 872- 9283 New York: Maria A. Beacom Michael J. Carroll Jam es H. Pat t en 509 Madison Ave. 15t h Floor New York, NY 10022 212- 872- 9280; fax: 212- 838- 9659 At lant a: 404- 256- 3800 Bost on: 978- 287- 5400 Chicago: 312- 575- 1100 Dallas: 214- 521- 6116 Det roit : 248- 524- 9000 Los Angeles: 310- 207- 4399

Ele ct r on ic Pr odu ct ion Spe cia list Dan West

San Francisco: 415- 986- 7762

Edit or - a t - La r ge , H a r va r d Bu sin e ss Sch ool Pu blish in g Walt er Kiechel

Aust ralia: 612- 9954- 3288

A N ot e t o Re a de r s The views expressed in art icles are t he aut hors’ and not necessarily t hose of Harvard Business Review, Harvard Business School, or Harvard Universit y. Aut hors m ay have consult ing or ot her business relat ionships wit h t he com panies t hey discuss.

Beij ing: 86- 10- 6401- 9190

Su bm ission s We encourage prospect ive aut hors t o follow HBR’s “ Guidelines for Aut hors” before subm it t ing m anuscript s. To obt ain a copy, please go t o our Web sit e at www.hbr.org; writ e t o The Edit or, Harvard Business Review, 60 Harvard Way, Bost on, MA 02163; or send em ail t o hbr_edit [email protected]. Unsolicit ed m anuscript s will be ret urned only if accom panied by a self- addressed st am ped envelope.

Hong Kong: 852- 2516- 1101

France: 33- 01- 4643- 1630

I ndia: 912- 2204- 8890 Japan: 81- 3- 3479- 6131 Korea: 82- 2- 3702- 1790

Bu sin e ss D ir e ct or Edward D. Crowley D ir e ct M a r k e t in g M a n a ge r Bruce W. Rhodes Se n ior Bu sin e ss An a lyst Adrienne M. Spelker List M a n a ge r Jam ie Pet erson Assist a n t Adve r t isin g M a n a ge r Ashley C. Hart m ann

Edit or ia l Office s 60 Harvard Way, Bost on, MA 02163 Telephone: 617- 783- 7410; fax: 617- 783- 7493 Volu m e 8 2 , N u m be r 1 Ja n u a r y 2 0 0 4 Print ed in t he U.S.A.

Malaysia: 603- 7729- 6923 Singapore: 65- 6- 836- 2272 Sweden: 46- 8- 541- 318- 37 Taiwan: 886- 2- 2364- 9108 Unit ed Kingdom : 44- 20- 7586- 2224 For advert ising cont act inform at ion, please visit our Web sit e at www. hbradsales.com . Su bscr ipt ion Se r vice I n for m a t ion U.S. a n d Ca n a da 800- 274- 3214; fax: 641- 842- 6101 Rat es per year: U.S., $118; Canada, $128USD I n t e r n a t ion a l 44- 1858- 438868; fax: 44- 1858- 468969 Rat es per year: I nt ernat ional, $165USD; Mexico, $128USD Su bscr ibe On lin e www.hbr.org Re pr odu ct ion Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing Corporat ion. All right s reserved. No part of t his publicat ion m ay be reproduced or t ransm it t ed in any form or by any m eans, elect ronic or m echanical, including phot ocopy, recording, or any inform at ion st orage and ret rieval syst em , wit hout writ t en perm ission.

Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. All right s reserved.

Click here t o visit : > | ht t p: / / www.hbsp.org

The Seven Ages of t he Leader Ea ch st a ge of le a de r sh ip br in gs n e w cr ise s a n d ch a lle n ge s. Th e y’r e w r e n ch in g—bu t k n ow in g w h a t t o e x pe ct ca n h e lp you ge t t h r ou gh t h e m .

by W a r r e n G. Be n n is W a r r e n G. Be n n is is a Dist inguished Professor of Business Adm inist rat ion at t he Universit y of Sout hern California in Los Angeles. He also serves as t he Thom as S. Murphy Dist inguished Research Scholar at Harvard Business School in Bost on and as chair of t he Advisory Board of t he Kennedy School’s Cent er for Public Leadership at Harvard Universit y in Cam bridge, Massachuset t s. He is t he aut hor of m ore t han 25 books on leadership and change.

My init ial plunge int o leadership cam e during World War I I . I was a lieut enant in t he infant ry, 19 years old, and scared out of m y wit s. My orders were t o assum e com m and of a plat oon on t he front lines in Belgium . I arrived in t he m iddle of t he night , when m ost of t he m en were asleep. The plat oon had t aken up residence in a bom bed- out shell of a house. I was led int o t he kit chen by t he plat oon’s runner, and he offered m e a bench t o sleep on. I nst ead, I put m y sleeping bag on t he floor, next t o t he rest of t he m en. Not t hat I slept . I lay awake all night , list ening t o t he bom bs explode. I was as green as can be and knew lit t le about com m and—or t he world, for t hat m at t er. When t he ot hers in t he house began t o st ir, I heard one sergeant ask anot her, “ Who’s t hat ?” “ That ’s our new plat oon leader,” t he m an answered. And t he sergeant said, “ Good. We can use him .” Wit hout realizing it , wit hout having any idea what was t he right t hing t o do, I had m ade a good first m ove. My ent ry had been low- key. I hadn’t com e in wit h m y new com m ission blazing. I n fact , I pret ended t o go t o sleep on t he floor. As a result , wit hout drawing at t ent ion t o m yself, I learned som et hing im port ant about t he m en I would be leading. I learned t hat t hey needed m e—or, at least , t hey needed t he person t hey would subsequent ly t each m e t o be. And t each m e t hey did. Over t he next few weeks in Belgium , m y m en, who had already seen com bat , kept m e alive. They also t aught m e how t o lead, oft en by exam ple. The sergeant who had greet ed m y arrival wit h approval becam e m y lifeline, quit e lit erally, t eaching m e such essent ial skills as how t o ride t hrough a war zone wit hout get t ing blown up. While few business leaders need worry about being blown up, m y experience in Belgium was in m any ways t ypical of first leadership experiences anywhere. I was com ing int o an exist ing organizat ion where em ot ions ran high, relat ionships had been est ablished, and t he m em bers of t he organizat ion harbored expect at ions of m e t hat I was not yet fully aware of. My new followers were wat ching m e, t o see if and how I would m easure up. Every new leader faces t he m isgivings, m ispercept ions, and t he personal needs and agendas of t hose who are t o be led. To underest im at e t he im port ance of your first m oves is t o invit e disast er. The crit ical ent ry is one of a num ber of passages—each of which has an elem ent of personal crisis—t hat every leader m ust go t hrough at som e point in t he course of a career. Business school doesn’t prepare you for t hese crises, and t hey can be ut t erly wrenching. But t hey offer powerful lessons as well.

Shakespeare, who seem s t o have learned m ore every t im e I read him , spoke of t he seven ages of m an. A leader’s life has seven ages as well, and, in m any ways, t hey parallel t hose Shakespeare describes in As You Like I t . To paraphrase, t hese st ages can be described as infant , schoolboy, lover, soldier, general, st at esm an, and sage. One way t o learn about leadership is t o look at each of t hese developm ent al st ages and consider t he issues and crises t hat are t ypical of each.

M a j or ch a n ge s in t h e fir st six m on t h s w ill in e vit a bly be pe r ce ive d a s a r bit r a r y, a u t ocr a t ic, a n d u n fa ir , a s m u ch for t h e ir t im in g a s for t h e ir con t e n t . I can’t offer advice on how t o avoid t hese crises because m any are inevit able. Nor would I necessarily recom m end t hat you avoid t hem , since dealing wit h t he challenges of each st age prepares you for t he next . But knowing what t o expect can help t he leader survive and, wit h luck, com e t hrough st ronger and m ore confident . And so first t o t he leader on t he verge—Shakespeare’s infant , “ m ewling…in t he nurse’s arm s.” Th e I n fa n t Ex e cu t ive For t he young m an or wom an on t he brink of becom ing a leader, t he world t hat lies ahead is a m yst erious, even fright ening place. Few resort t o m ewling, but m any wish t hey had t he corporat e equivalent of a nurse, som eone t o help t hem solve problem s and ease t he painful t ransit ion. I nst ead, t he fort unat e neophyt e leader has a m ent or, a concept t hat has it s origins in Greek m yt hology. When Odysseus was about t o go off t o war, t he goddess At hena creat ed Ment or t o wat ch over t he hero’s beloved son, Telem achus. The fact t hat Ment or had t he at t ribut es of bot h m an and wom an hint s at t he richness and com plexit y of t he relat ionship, suggest ing a deeper bond t han t hat of t eacher and st udent . I n t he real world, unfort unat ely, goddesses don’t int ervene and m ent ors seldom m at erialize on t heir own. While t he popular view of m ent ors is t hat t hey seek out younger people t o encourage and cham pion, in fact t he reverse is m ore oft en t rue. The best m ent ors are usually recruit ed, and one m ark of a fut ure leader is t he abilit y t o ident ify, woo, and win t he m ent ors who will change his or her life. When Robert Thom as and I int erviewed t wo generat ions of leaders for our book, Geeks and Geezers, we m et a rem arkable young real- est at e and I nt ernet ent repreneur, Michael Klein, who had recruit ed his first m ent or when he was only four or five years old, as Robert and I wrot e in our Harvard Business Review art icle, “ Crucibles of Leadership.” His guide was his grandfat her, Max Klein, who was responsible for t he paint - by- num bers craze t hat swept Am erica in t he 1950s and 1960s. The fad m ade Klein rich, but none of his children had t he least int erest in t hat business or any ot her. But lit t le Michael did, and Max j um ped at t he chance t o coach and counsel him , oft en in t he course of long t elephone conversat ions t hat cont inued unt il a few weeks before Max died. I n effect , t he older m an served as a first - rat e business school of one for his grandson, who becam e a m ult im illionaire while st ill in his t eens. I t m ay feel st range t o seek a m ent or even before you have t he j ob, but it ’s a good habit t o develop early on. I was recruit ed as a m ent or years ago while in t he hospit al for several weeks following a “ coronary event .” There, I had a rem arkable nurse who seem ed t o ant icipat e m y every need. We spent hours t oget her, oft en t alking lat e int o t he night . He t old m e of his am bit ion t o becom e a doct or, alt hough no one in his fam ily in Sout h Cent ral Los Angeles had ever been t o college. I was won over by his charact er and drive, as well as by t he superb care he gave m e. When he was ready t o go t o m edical school, I did all I could t o help, from put t ing him in t ouch wit h appropriat e adm inist rat ors t o giving him a glowing recom m endat ion. He had recruit ed m e as skillfully

as any execut ive headhunt er and m ade m e one of t he first m em bers of t he t eam he needed t o change his life. The m essage for t he “ infant execut ive” ? Recruit a t eam t o back you up; you m ay feel lonely in your first t op j ob, but you won’t be t ot ally unsupport ed. Th e Sch oolboy, w it h Sh in in g Fa ce The first leadership experience is an agonizing educat ion. I t ’s like parent ing, in t hat not hing else in life fully prepares you t o be responsible, t o a great er or lesser degree, for ot her people’s well- being. Worse, you have t o learn how t o do t he j ob in public, subj ect ed t o unset t ling scrut iny of your every word and act , a sit uat ion t hat ’s profoundly unnerving for all but t hat m inorit y of people who t ruly crave t he spot light . Like it or not , as a new leader you are always onst age, and everyt hing about you is fair gam e for com m ent , crit icism , and int erpret at ion ( or m isint erpret at ion) . Your dress, your spouse, your t able m anners, your dict ion, your wit , your friends, your children, your children’s t able m anners—all will be inspect ed, dissect ed, and j udged. And not hing is m ore int ense t han t he at t ent ion paid t o your init ial words and deeds, as any first - t im e president ial candidat e can t ell you. I t ’s said of psychot herapy t hat t he first t en m inut es bet ween doct or and pat ient are t he m ost crit ical, and st udies show t hat friendships form ed by college st udent s during orient at ion are t he m ost enduring. Social psychologist s have found t hat we base our j udgm ent s of people on ext rem ely t hin slices of behavior. We decide whet her we are in sync or out of t une wit h anot her person in as lit t le as t wo seconds. So it is wit h leaders and organizat ions. Your first act s will win people over or t hey will t urn people against you, som et im es perm anent ly. And t hose init ial act s m ay have a longlast ing effect on how t he group perform s. I t is, t herefore, alm ost always best for t he novice t o m ake a low- key ent ry. This buys you t im e t o gat her inform at ion and t o develop relat ionships wisely. I t gives you an opport unit y t o learn t he cult ure of t he organizat ion and t o benefit from t he wisdom of t hose who are already t here. A quiet ent ry allows t he ot hers in t he group t o dem onst rat e what t hey know. And it allows you t o est ablish t hat you are open t o t he cont ribut ions of ot hers. I t shows t hem t hat you are a leader, not a dict at or. I n ret rospect , I realize t hat officer- candidat e school had prepared m e for m y sm all t rium ph in t hat roofless house in Belgium . Even as t he officers t ried t o cram all t he survival skills we would need int o four m ont hs of t raining, t hey t old us again and again t hat t he com bat - seasoned m en under our com m and would be our real t eachers, at least at first . The sam e holds t rue in any organizat ion. I n t he beginning, especially, your m ost t alent ed, m ost seasoned, m ost decent followers will be t he ones t hat keep you alive. When St eve Sam ple becam e president of t he Universit y of Sout hern California in t he early 1990s, he did a m ast erful j ob of easing in. He went t o t he cam pus incognit o at least t wice, and during one of t hose visit s he at t ended a foot ball gam e and spoke t o facult y m em bers and st udent s who didn’t know who he was. Those visit s gave him a feel for t he cam pus as it really was, not how t he m ost assert ive of his const it uent s want ed him t o see it . And during his first six m ont hs, he did not m ake a single high- profile decision. He knew t hat t he im port ant t hings t o be done could be deferred unt il t he facult y, st aff, and st udent s were m ore com fort able wit h him and t heir relat ionships were m ore st able. Maj or changes in t he first six m ont hs will inevit ably be perceived as arbit rary, aut ocrat ic, and unfair, as m uch for t heir t im ing as for t heir cont ent . However, it is wort h not ing t hat , no m at t er what your first act ions are, you can influence ot her people’s im age of you only t o a lim it ed ext ent . The people who will be working under your leadership will have form ed an opinion about you by t he t im e you walk int o

t he office, even if t hey have never m et you. They m ay love you, t hey m ay hat e you, t hey m ay t rust you or dist rust you, but t hey’ve probably t aken a st and, and t heir posit ion m ay have very lit t le t o do wit h who you act ually are. The leader oft en becom es a screen ont o which followers proj ect t heir own fant asies about power and relat ionships. To som e degree, all leaders are creat ed out of t he needs, want s, fears, and longings of t hose who follow t hem . Event s t hat predat e your arrival will also shape followers’ view of you. I n an organizat ion t hat ’s been t hrough a crisis—several rounds of layoffs, say— people are liable t o assum e t hat you’re t here t o clean house again and m ay respond wit h eit her open host ilit y or flat t ery in t he hopes of keeping t heir j obs. Ot hers m ay see you as t heir savior because of t he bad leadership of your predecessor. Your first challenge is t o t ry not t o t ake your new followers’ assessm ent s t oo personally. The second—and far t rickier—challenge is t o em brace t he fact t hat cert ain elem ent s of t heir assessm ent s m ay be accurat e, even if t hey put you in an unflat t ering light . Th e Love r , w it h a W oe fu l Ba lla d Shakespeare described m an in his t hird age “ sighing like furnace,” som et hing m any leaders find t hem selves doing as t hey st ruggle wit h t he t sunam i of problem s every organizat ion present s. For t he leader who has com e up t hrough t he ranks, one of t he t oughest is how t o relat e t o form er peers who now report t o you. Shakespeare paint ed a com pelling port rait of t he problem in Henry I V, Part I I . Before Prince Hal becom es Henry V, his relat ionship wit h t he aging rogue Falst aff is t hat of st udent and fellow hell- raiser. For all Falst aff’s excesses, he is oft en Hal’s wise t eacher, helping t he fut ure king see beyond t he cloist ered, narrow educat ion t radit ionally afforded a prince t o glim pse what his fut ure subj ect s feel, t hink, and need. But when it com es t im e for Hal t o assum e his royal responsibilit ies, he rej ect s Falst aff, despit e t heir having shared a sea of ale and t he sound of “ t he chim es at m idnight .” Henry doesn’t invit e Falst aff t o his coronat ion, and he point edly t ells t he ribald knight , “ I know t hee not , old m an.” Today’s leaders would inst ant ly recognize t he young king’s predicam ent . I t ’s difficult t o set boundaries and fine- t une your working relat ionships wit h form er cronies. Most organizat ions, wit h t he except ion of t he m ilit ary, m aint ain t he fict ion t hat t hey are at least sem idem ocracies, however aut ocrat ic t hey are in fact . As a m odern leader, you don’t have t he opt ion of t elling t he person wit h whom you once shared a pod and luncht im e confidences t hat you know her not . But relat ionships inevit ably change when a person is prom ot ed from wit hin t he ranks. You m ay no longer be able t o speak openly as you once did, and your friends m ay feel awkward around you or resent you. They m ay perceive you as lording your posit ion over t hem when you’re j ust behaving as a leader should.

On e m a r k of a fu t u r e le a de r is t h e a bilit y t o ide n t ify, w oo, a n d w in t h e m e n t or s w h o w ill ch a n ge h is or h e r life . I know of a young execut ive, let ’s call her Marj orie, who was recent ly prom ot ed from m iddle m anagem ent t o head of t he m arket ing depart m ent at a pharm aceut ical com pany. One of t hree int ernal candidat es for t he j ob, she was close friends wit h t he ot her t wo. Marj orie had already dist inguished herself wit hin t he com pany, so it was no surprise t hat she got t he prom ot ion, even t hough she was t he youngest and least experienced of t he t hree. But t he t ransit ion was m uch m ore difficult t han she had ant icipat ed. Her friends were envious. She would som et im es find herself in t he awkward sit uat ion of at t ending an execut ive m eet ing at which one of her friends was crit icized and t hen going st raight t o

lunch wit h her. The new execut ive m issed being able t o share what she knew wit h her friends, and she m issed t heir support . Her fellow execut ives had a m ore aut horit arian st yle t han she did, and som e even advised her t o drop her old friends, which she had no int ent ion of doing. Her com prom ise was t o t ry t o divide her t im e bet ween her new peers and her old. The t ransit ion was st ill hard, but she m ade a good early m ove: She had frank conversat ions wit h her friends, during which she asked t hem how t hey were feeling and assured t hem t heir friendships were im port ant t o her and would cont inue. However t ough it was for Marj orie, she had t he advant age of knowing t he organizat ion and it s players. The challenge for t he newcom er is knowing who t o list en t o and who t o t rust . Leaders new t o an organizat ion are swam ped wit h claim s on t heir t im e and at t ent ion. Oft en, t he person who m akes t he m ost noise is t he neediest person in t he group and t he one you have t o be m ost wary of, a lesson I learned m ore t han 50 years ago from t he renowned psychiat rist Wilfred Bion. At t he t im e, Bion was doing pioneering work in t he new pract ice of group psychot herapy. He warned his st udent s: Focusing your at t ent ion on t he m ost clam orous of your followers will not only anger and alienat e t he healt hier am ong t hem . I t will dist ract you from working wit h t he ent ire group on what act ually m at t ers, accom plishing a com m on m ission. Knowing what t o pay at t ent ion t o is j ust as im port ant —and j ust as difficult . I n t heir effort s t o effect change, leaders com ing int o new organizat ions are oft en t hwart ed by an unconscious conspiracy t o preserve t he st at us quo. Problem aft er problem will be dum ped in your lap—plent y of new ones and a bulging archive of issues left unresolved by previous adm inist rat ions—and responding t o t hem all ensures t hat you will never have t im e t o pursue your own agenda. When I arrived at t he Universit y of Cincinnat i as president I was t ot ally unprepared for t he volum e of issues t hat found t heir way t o m y desk, st art ing wit h t he 150 pieces of m ail I t ypically had t o respond t o each day. The cum ulat ive effect of handling each of t hese sm all m at t ers was t o keep m e from addressing what was t ruly im port ant : art iculat ing a vision for t he universit y and persuading t he rest of t he com m unit y t o em brace it as t heir own. I t is at t his st age t hat an inabilit y t o delegat e effect ively can be disast rous. Newcom er or not , alm ost all leaders find t hem selves at som e point in t he posit ion of having t o ask ot hers t o leave t he organizat ion—firing t hem , t o put it blunt ly. This is always a painful t ask, if only because it usually devast at es t he person being let go and because t he t im ing is never opport une. Facing you across t he desk always seem s t o be t he em ployee who’s j ust delivered t riplet s or bought an expensive house. There’s lit t le available t o guide leaders on how t o do t his awful business in a hum ane way; only rem em ber t hat you have people’s em ot ional lives in your hands in such circum st ances as surely as any surgeon or lover does. Th e Be a r de d Soldie r Over t im e, leaders grow com fort able wit h t he role. This com fort brings confidence and convict ion, but it also can snap t he connect ion bet ween leader and followers. Two t hings can happen as a result : Leaders m ay forget t he t rue im pact of t heir words and act ions, and t hey m ay assum e t hat what t hey are hearing from followers is what needs t o be heard. While t he first words and act ions of leaders are t he m ost closely at t ended t o, t he scrut iny never really ends. Followers cont inue t o pay close at t ent ion t o even t he m ost offhand rem ark, and t he m ore effect ive t he leader is t he m ore careful he or she m ust be, because followers m ay im plem ent an idea t hat was lit t le m ore t han a passing t hought . Forget t his and you m ay find yourself in som e less dram at ic version of t he sit uat ion King Henry I I did when he m ut t ered, of Thom as à Becket , “ Will no one rid m e of t his

m eddlesom e priest ?” and four of his nobles prom pt ly went out and m urdered t he cleric. Many m odern- day Henrys have m used along t he lines of, “ We should be looking at our t echnology st rat egy,” only t o be confront ed a few m ont hs lat er wit h t hick PowerPoint present at ions and a heft y consult ing bill. Followers don’t t ell leaders everyt hing. I know of an execut ive I ’ll call Christ ine who had a close working relat ionship wit h t he rest of her group. The depart m ent hum m ed along product ively unt il t he day one of her t op perform ers, Joseph, showed up at her door, looking uncom fort able. He t old her he’d been offered a j ob at anot her com pany and was planning t o t ake it . The t im ing was t errible; t he group was headed t oward a m aj or product launch. And Christ ine was st unned, because she and Joseph were friends and he had never expressed dissat isfact ion wit h his posit ion or t he com pany. Why hadn’t he t old her he want ed a new opport unit y? She would have creat ed a j ob especially for him , and she t old him as m uch. Unfort unat ely, it was t oo lat e. The fact is, however close Christ ine and Joseph were, she was st ill in charge, and few em ployees t ell t heir bosses when t hey’ve t alked t o a headhunt er. And because Christ ine and Joseph liked each ot her and had fun working t oget her, she’d assum ed he was sat isfied. A second challenge for leaders in t heir ascendancy is t o nurt ure t hose people whose st ars m ay shine as bright ly as—or even bright er t han—t he leaders’ own. I n m any ways, t his is t he real t est of charact er for a leader. Many people cannot resist using a leadership posit ion t o t hwart com pet it ion. I heard recent ly about an execut ive who had been well liked by his bosses and peers unt il he was prom ot ed t o head a division. Then t hose under him began t o grum ble about his m anagem ent st yle, and it wasn’t j ust sour grapes. His lat est prom ot ion had been a st ret ch, and he m ay have felt , for t he first t im e in his career, vulnerable. Short ly t hereaft er, his em ployees began t o not ice t hat he was t aking credit for t heir ideas and was bad- m out hing som e of t hem behind t heir backs. When confront ed about his behavior, he seem ed genuinely surprised and prot est ed t hat he was doing no such t hing. Perhaps he was unconsciously t rying t o sabot age t hose under him t o prop him self up. But t hose who report ed t o him began t o leave, one by one. Aft er a year, his reput at ion was such t hat nobody want ed t o work wit h him , and he was asked t o leave. I n cont rast , aut hent ic leaders are generous. They’re hum an and m ay experience t he occasional pang at wat ching som eone accom plish som et hing t hey cannot . But t hey are always willing—even anxious—t o hire people who are bet t er t han t hey are, in part because t hey know t hat highly t alent ed underlings can help t hem shine. Many of t he great est leaders of our t im es, including t he Manhat t an Proj ect ’s J. Robert Oppenheim er, Xerox PARC’s Bob Taylor, and even Walt Disney, had healt hy enough egos t o surround t hem selves wit h people who had t he pot ent ial t o st eal t heir j obs. Th e Ge n e r a l, Fu ll of W ise Sa w s One of t he great est challenges a leader faces at t he height of his or her career is not sim ply allowing people t o speak t he t rut h but act ually being able t o hear it . Once again, Shakespeare proves inst ruct ive. I n Julius Caesar, t hat brilliant st udy of failed m anagem ent , Caesar goes t o t he forum on t he ides of March apparent ly unaware t hat he will die t here. How could he not have known t hat som et hing dreadful was going t o happen on t hat inauspicious day? The soot hsayer warns him t o “ beware t he ides of March.” There are signs of im pending evil t hat any superst it ious Rom an would have been able t o read, including an owl hoot ing during t he day and a lion running t hrough t he st reet s. And t hen t here is t he awful dream t hat m akes Calpurnia, Caesar’s loving wife, beg him t o st ay hom e. She dream s t hat his st at ue gushed blood like a fount ain wit h a hundred spout s. Shouldn’t t hat have been clear enough for a m ilit ary genius used t o am assing and evaluat ing int elligence? I f not , consider t hat Art em idorus, a t eacher in

Rom e, act ually writ es down t he nam es of t he conspirat ors and t ries t hree t im es t o t hrust t he not e of alarm int o Caesar’s hand, t he last t im e seconds before Brut us and t he gang fall upon him . Caesar’s deafness is caused as m uch by arrogance as anyt hing else, and he is hardly t he only leader t o be so afflict ed. Like m any CEOs and ot her leaders, m ovie m ogul Darryl F. Zanuck was not orious for his unwillingness t o hear unpleasant t rut hs. He was said t o bark, “ Don’t say yes unt il I finish t alking! ” which no doubt st ifled m any a difference of opinion. A m ore current exam ple can be seen in Howell Raines, t he deposed execut ive edit or of t he New York Tim es. Am ong t he m any ways he blocked t he flow of inform at ion upward was t o lim it t he pool of people he cham pioned and, t hus, t he num ber of people he list ened t o. Raines was not orious for having a sm all A- list of st ars and a large B- list m ade up of everyone else. Even if Raines’s division of t he st aff had been fair, which it cert ainly was not in t he case of now- disgraced report er Jayson Blair, t he t wo- t ier syst em was unwise and ult im at ely a career ender for Raines. He had so alienat ed t he vast m aj orit y of people in t he newsroom who knew what Blair was up t o t hat t hey didn’t even bot her t o warn him of t he t rain wreck ahead, and he refused t o believe t he few who did speak up. The at t it ude of Raines and his m anaging edit or, Gerald Boyd, was t hat t heir way was t he only way. When a dist inguished report er dared t o point out an error Boyd had m ade, Boyd lit erally handed him a coin and t old him t o call t he Los Angeles Tim es about a j ob. The report er prom pt ly did, quit t ing t he New York Tim es for t he West Coast paper. But t he episode m ost clearly recalls Caesar’s sit uat ion in t hat Raines seem ed genuinely surprised when he was forced out in t he sum m er of 2003. He had no doubt read Ken Aulet t a’s lengt hy profile of him t hat ran in t he New Yorker in 2002, showing t hat Raines was widely perceived as arrogant . And he should have been a good enough newsm an t o be able t o t ell t he difference bet ween accept ance and angry silence on t he part of t hose who worked for him . Arrogance kept Raines from building t he alliances and coalit ions t hat every leader needs. When Blair’s j ournalist ic crim es and m isdem eanors cam e t o light , t here weren’t enough people on t he A- list t o save Raines’s professional life. Aut hent ic leaders, by cont rast , don’t have what people in t he Middle East called “ t ired ears.” Their egos are not so fragile t hat t hey are unable t o bear t he t rut h, however harsh —not because t hey are saint s but because it is t he surest way t o succeed and survive.

Th e r e a l t e st of ch a r a ct e r for a le a de r is t o n u r t u r e t h ose pe ople w h ose st a r s m a y sh in e a s br igh t ly a s—or e ve n br igh t e r t h a n —t h e le a de r ’s ow n . I ’ve m ent ioned t he wisdom of avoiding m aj or change in t he early m ont hs in a new posit ion. At t his st age, t he challenge is different , because leaders furt her along in t heir careers are frequent ly brought in wit h a specific m andat e t o bring about change, and t heir act ions have a direct and im m ediat e im pact on an organizat ion’s long- t erm fort unes. Hesit at ion can be disast rous. However, you st ill need t o underst and t he m ood and m ot ivat ions of t he people already in t he com pany before t aking act ion. I wish I ’d underst ood t hat when I arrived at t he Universit y of Cincinnat i in 1971 wit h a m andat e t o t ransform t he universit y from a local inst it ut ion int o a st at e one—a goal t hat was by no m eans widely shared am ong t he facult y or, for t hat m at t er, t he cit izens of Cincinnat i. One longt im e universit y board m em ber had warned m e t o keep a low profile unt il I had a bet t er grasp of t he conservat ive com m unit y and t he people in it were m ore com fort able wit h m e. I chose t o ignore his wise counsel, believing t hat broad exposure of t he universit y and, by ext ension, m yself would benefit m y cause. As a result , I accept ed an invit at ion t o host a weekly t elevision show. Worse, t he t it le of t he show was Bennis!

The exclam at ion point st ill m akes m e cringe. I m ight have been perceived as an arrogant out sider com e t o save t he provinces under any circum st ances, but Bennis! guarant eed t hat I would be viewed t hat way. That percept ion ( all but indelible, as early percept ions t end t o be) m ade it m uch harder t o realize m y vision for t he universit y. The corporat e world is filled wit h st ories of leaders who failed t o achieve great ness because t hey failed t o underst and t he cont ext t hey were working in or get t he support of t heir underlings. Look at Durk Jager, who last ed less t han a year and a half at Proct er & Gam ble. Crit ics accused him of t rying t o change t he com pany t oo m uch, t oo fast . But what Jager couldn’t do was sell his vision of a t ransform ed P&G t o it s st aff and ot her st akeholders. His very able successor, A.G. Lafley, seem ed at first t o back off from Jager’s com m it m ent t o “ st ret ch and speed,” but in fact Lafley has been able t o bring about change every bit as radical as any Jager spoke of, including going out side t he com pany for new ideas, a reversal of P&G’s t radit ional “ invent ed here” philosophy. How did Lafley m anage? “ I didn’t at t ack,“ he t old BusinessWeek. “ I avoided saying P&G people are bad…I preserved t he core of t he cult ure and pulled people where I want ed t o go. I enrolled t hem in change. I didn’t t ell t hem .” Anot her m odel for doing it right is Carly Fiorina. She t ook over Hewlet t - Packard wit h at least t hree st rikes against her—she was a wom an, she was an out sider, and she wasn’t an engineer. And t he person who chose t o bat t le her was none ot her t han t he son of a com pany founder and t hus t radit ion incarnat e—Walt er Hewlet t . But Fiorina cleverly honored t he com pany’s illust rious past , even as she prepared for change, including t he m erger wit h Com paq. Her first annual report included a vision st at em ent t hat st art s wit h t he word “ I nvent ,” paying hom age t o t he pioneering spirit t hat creat ed HP while sim ult aneously rewrit ing t he “ rules of t he garage.” She also appreciat ed t he gravit y of t he t hreat present ed by Walt er Hewlet t and syst em at ically but t ressed her support am ong t he ot her m em bers of her board. When t he m om ent cam e, t he m aj orit y of t he m em bers t ook act ion and rem oved Hewlet t from t he HP board. Tim e will t ell how successful t he Com paq deal will be, but Dr. Bion would have given Fiorina an A. She didn’t overreact t o Walt er Hewlet t —she didn’t at t ack him , nor did she spend t oo m uch t im e t rying t o address his concerns. I nst ead, she st ayed her course and kept t he focus of all her st akeholders on what was t ruly im port ant . Th e St a t e sm a n , w it h Spe ct a cle s on N ose Shakespeare’s sixt h age covers t he years in which a leader’s power begins t o wane. But far from being t he buffoon suggest ed by Shakespeare’s descript ion of a “ lean and slippered pant aloon,” t he leader in t his st age is oft en hard at work preparing t o pass on his or her wisdom in t he int erest of t he organizat ion. The leader m ay also be called upon t o play im port ant int erim roles, bolst ered by t he knowledge and percept ion t hat com e wit h age and experience and wit hout t he som et im es dist ract ing am bit ion t hat charact erizes early career. One of t he grat ifying roles t hat people in lat e career can play is t he leadership equivalent of a pinch hit t er. When New York Tim es publisher Art hur Sulzberger, Jr., needed som eone t o st op t he bleeding at t he newspaper aft er t he Blair debacle, he invit ed Howell Raines’s predecessor, Joseph Lelyveld, t o serve as int erim edit or. The widely respect ed j ournalist was an ideal choice, one who was im m ediat ely able t o apply a career’s wort h of experience t o t he newspaper’s crisis and whose t enure was unsullied by any desire t o keep t he j ob for t he long t erm . Consider, t oo, t he head of a governm ent agency who had chosen t o ret ire from his leadership posit ion because he had accom plished all his goals and was t ired of t he polit ics associat ed wit h his j ob. When an overseas office needed an int erim leader, he

was willing t o st ep int o t he j ob and post pone ret irem ent . He was able t o perform an even bet t er j ob t han a younger person m ight have, not only because he brought a lifet im e’s wort h of knowledge and experience but also because he didn’t have t o wast e t im e engaging in t he polit ical m achinat ions oft en needed t o advance a career. Th e Sa ge , Se con d Ch ildish n e ss As I ’ve point ed out , m ent oring has t rem endous value t o a young execut ive. The value accrues t o t he m ent or as well. Ment oring is one of t he great j oys of a m at ure career, t he professional equivalent of having grandchildren. I t is at t his t im e t hat t he drive t o prepare t he next generat ion for leadership becom es a palpable ache. I wrot e earlier of m y relat ionship wit h a young nurse who had am bit ions t o becom e a doct or. Clearly, t he young m an benefit ed from our relat ionship, but so did I . I learned about t he t rue nat ure of m ent oring, about it s inevit able reciprocit y and t he fact t hat finding and cem ent ing a relat ionship wit h a m ent or is not a form of fawning but t he init iat ion of a valuable relat ionship for bot h individuals. My respect for m y form er nurse only grew over t he years. When he graduat ed near t he t op of his class from t he Universit y of Sout hern California Medical School, I was t here t o wat ch. When you m ent or, you know t hat what you have achieved will not be lost , t hat you are leaving a professional legacy for fut ure generat ions. Just as m y nurse clearly st ood t o benefit from our relat ionship, ent repreneur Michael Klein was indebt ed t o his grandfat her, Max. But im agine t he j oy Max m ust have felt at being able t o share t he wisdom he acquired over a lifet im e as a creat ive businessm an. The reciprocal benefit s of such bonds are profound, am ount ing t o m uch m ore t han warm feelings on bot h sides. Ment oring isn’t a sim ple exchange of inform at ion. Neuroscient ist Robert Sapolsky lived am ong wild baboons and found t hat alliances bet ween old and young apes were an effect ive st rat egy for survival. Older m ales t hat affiliat ed wit h younger m ales lived longer, healt hier lives t han t heir unallied peers. Whet her ape or hum an, individuals in a m ent oring relat ionship exchange invaluable, oft en subt le inform at ion. The elder part ner st ays plugged int o an ever- changing world, while t he younger part ner can observe what does and doesn’t work as t he elder part ner negot iat es t he t ricky t errain of aging. When we com pared older and younger leaders for Geeks and Geezers, we found t hat t he ruling qualit y of leaders, adapt ive capacit y, is what allows t rue leaders t o m ake t he nim ble decisions t hat bring success. Adapt ive capacit y is also what allows som e people t o t ranscend t he set backs and losses t hat com e wit h age and t o reinvent t hem selves again and again. Shakespeare called t he final age of m an “ second childishness.” But for t hose fort unat e enough t o keep t heir healt h, and even for t hose not as fort unat e, age t oday is neit her end nor oblivion. Rat her, it is t he j oyous rediscovery of childhood at it s best . I t is waking up each m orning ready t o devour t he world, full of hope and prom ise. I t lacks not hing but t he t awdrier form s of am bit ion t hat m ake less sense as each day passes.

Reprint Num ber R0401D Copyright © 2003 Harvard Business School Publishing. This cont ent m ay not be reproduced or t ransm it t ed in any form or by any m eans, elect ronic or m echanical, including phot ocopy, recording, or any inform at ion st orage or ret rieval syst em , wit hout writ t en perm ission. Request s for perm ission should be direct ed t o perm [email protected], 1- 888- 500- 1020, or m ailed t o Perm issions, Harvard Business School Publishing, 60 Harvard Way, Bost on, MA 02163.