Groupthink

Probably the most common way I've seen groupthink manifest itself in organizations is in a series of rules of thumb organizations live by.  They can often be detected by listening for statements which start with the phrase"

"...we tried that once..."

The phrase is, by itself, an admission of corporate thinking that establishes conventions which are hard to overcome.

The weird thing about groupthink is -- sometimes it's right, and makes sense.  Other times, it can be deadly.

A case in point:  during my career I continually looked for opportunities to add products to my existing distribution channels as a way of growing sales.  This worked pretty well until I hit a business which had a very narrowly focused channel.

"We've tried introducing complimentary products to the these guys before, but it didn't work."  It was a sure sign of groupthink, I decided.  It wasn't until I'd tried half a dozen products myself, that I realized the naysayers were absolutely right -- the channel was not serious about complimentary products or new sales.  They saw new opportunities as risky.  Those new products could put their relationships with their customers at risk on their core products, and they were only interested in sure things.  And how many of those are there in business?

So, is groupthink a disease, or rational rule-making?

In my book, it is still a disease -- the reason being that causality becomes separated from the rule itself.

Why do we invoice at the end of the week rather than every day?  Because that's the way we do it!  There might be good reasons for the decision to behave in this fashion, but unless the employees in the trenches can explain why, it's an example of groupthink.

The disease is probably at it's worst when used as a shortcut for strategic decision-making.  For example:  "We always overestimate inour strategic plan." or "We shouldn't make acquisitions outside of our industry, because we can't make them work."  Those are the groupthink notions that get companies in trouble.

Is groupthink more prevalent in large corporations?  You bet!  It is in larger and more complex organizations that people are looking for those simple and pat rules to help them make easier and safer decisions.  It is also in large organizations where political pressure keeps dissent to a minimum.

Yes, groupthink is one of the big organizational anergies that level the playing field between large and smaller companies.  But there are others even more damaging, as I will explore in future posts.

The Sunk Cost Fallacy

Many of us learned about sunk costs in a basic business or economics course -- sunk costs are the ones already in the past.  They are those expenditures which, when the results of a particular choice are tallied up, will weigh in on the negative side, but don't have anything thing to do with continuing on with a particular investment.

For example, imagine you approve a thirty million dollar expenditure in a new production process, one which shows a nice return based on some huge productivity improvements.  After spending the first five million, however, it becomes clear the original productivity rates will never be achieved.  In fact, when you "run the numbers" on the remaining twenty-five million yet to be spent, the return is virtually zero.  What do you do?

On a strictly economic basis, you punt.  The original five million is a total loss, but you should stop the project because the twenty-five million yet to be spent is just good money being thrown after bad.

In reality, I've almost never seen this behavior.

Most people can't get the five million dollars already spent out of their mind.  The want that investment to be productive, and so against all logic, continue to spend in the vain hope somehow the project will make its original projections.  By that stage the five million is a sunk cost, and doesn't have any relevance to the decision to press on.  Or does it?

In large corporations, the problem is larger than just "forgetting about" the initial five million outlay.  It's all about admitting to mistakes or errors.

Stopping the project is tantamount to confessing to imperfect management ability.  In most large corporations that comes with a political pricetag -- at the least a loss in confidence, at the worst a loss of job.  If the decision maker admits to the error, they are likely to be punished, and the more the organization focuses on finding the guilty, the bigger those stakes become.

On the other hand, if the decision maker allows the project to continue, they will likely have time to devise a plan to lay-off blame elsewhere.  Bad execution, deceptive suppliers, poor analysis -- the list goes on and on.  I've even observed managers repositioning others to be the scapegoats for impending disasters, when what they should have done is called time out and stopped the spending.

The larger, more political, more punative and more complex the organization, the more likely they are to suffer the inefficiencies of the sunk cost fallacy.

Corporate Inefficiency

I read an interesting article passed along by a friend on why large corporations, despite their advantages, often fall victim to smaller upstarts with limited resources. The author, Luke Johnson, a UK private equity firm president and entrepeneur, makes a number of excellent observations. The article, which was in the Financial Times and can be reached by clicking the link, is summarized below. I think some of these observations need to be expanded upon in my blog on Corporate Politics and I will do so in subsequent posts.

Corporate diseases make large organizations less effective -- their types and varieties are listed below:

1. Sunk Costs Fallacy -- essentially being unable to abandon a project because it can't be admitted it was a bad idea.
2. Groupthink -- The inability to question the conventions of thinking that have evolved at the company.
3. Governance over management -- too much focus on checking the boxes rather than creating value.
4. Institutional Capture -- people acting in their own interests, rather than the owner's interests.
5. Office Politics -- Subversion of good projects to serve the needs of internal constituencies.
6. Failure to act as Owners -- excessive spending because it isn't the employee's money being spent.
7. Risk Aversion -- punishment for error taking on greater importance than rewards for success.
8. History -- being hindered by existing assets, relationships and technologies.
9. Anonymity -- surviving by keeping one's head down and doing the minimum.
10. Commodity Products -- big companies need large markets, which typically have more competition and are lower margin.

The Gentleman

Everyone, or at least nearly everyone, likes the Gentleman (or to be more gender neutral, gentleperson).  This extreme leader is very image conscious, and frequently puts him or herself in a position of agreeing with the point of view of the person they are speaking with.  There is little that strokes an ego more than when a person in a position of power agrees, and consequently, the behavior is ingratiating, and helps this leader develop a highly positive image.

The Gentleman tends to straddle controversial issues, not wanting to take sides, as doing so will lead to a tarnishing of that all important image, at least in the eyes of some subordinates, suppliers or other stakeholders.  Unfortunately, it also means this extreme leader type tends to ignore conflict, politicking and even sometimes simple disagreements to the extreme as well.

At the core of the Gentleperson leader may have a desperate desire to be liked by everyone, and a self-serving belief that by being liked, they will necessarily be more effective.  I've most often witnessed a "Gentleman" leader in the making among the sales ranks, where making tough decisions and potentially angering customers has little to no upside.  Also at work may be an abhorrence of conflict, and a strong desire to avoid such situations.

The Gentleman generally can't give effective critique, often times letting small irritations with subordinates grow to the point where they become major burrs before anything is said.  Conflicts between others in the organization -- often peers -- are permitted to simmer and grow, as the Gentleman avoids stepping in and ending them.  In extreme cases, the Gentleman may actually use a proxy or other circuitous route to make his or her true wishes known to the combatants.

Most people in the organization will actually find this extreme leader to be a likable sort -- particularly when they don't have to deal with some of the behavioral problems spawned by this style of leadership.  Most of the burden falls on those near the top of the company, where there may be substantial conflict, politicking and plenty of ambiguity.

The biggest negative impact of the type is typically due to wasted efforts devoted to extended battles and politics, or the substantial turnover of top management.  The Gentleman, however, will have little trouble replacing departing executives as he or she will be a stellar recruiter.  Underlying challenges of working in this type of organization are not apparent in the short time an interviewee speaks with employees.

Of all the extreme types, this one may have the greatest chance of long term financial success for the organization, but at a steep price for those working directly for him or her.

The Screamer

The screamer is the alpha-wolf of their corporate pack, and if you don't figure that out in the first fifteen minutes, you're probably deaf.  Screamers come in a variety of flavors -- yellers, cursers, table pounders, I've even seen one that would throw things at people.

The screamer usually gives the impression they are a hot-head, and sometimes the explanation is as simple as that.  For other screamers, they use their white-hot anger to probe, test and challenge anyone and everyone in the organization.  Of the screamers I've met, it is the second variety that seem to ascend the corporate hierarchy -- boards seem to see them as strong, or demanding.

The screamer often appears to be looking for subordinates who will "stand up to the boss" and fight back.  But from the perspective of the average subordinate, their raging boss looks like a lion roaring and licking his chops -- it's a rare person indeed who will go toe-to-toe with a lion.  The assumption in the behavior appears to be only the best people will actually take-on the screamer, and it is a way to strongly discourage the weaker ones from staying.  The fallacy of the assumption is that an employee with plenty of courage is not necessarily any better or worse at their job than someone more reserved.

Those employees foolish enough to try to appease the screamer will find their efforts very unsatisfying.  By attempting appeasment, the subordinate classifies themself into the "lamb" category, the type of employee the screamer is either consciously or unconsciously trying to drive out of the business.

As I've already mentioned, some screamers just have explosive tempers.  Most, I believe, are more delibrate in their behavior.  Those seem to subscribe to a form of social darwinism, or simply feel it is better to be feared than respected.  This last viewpoint seems to have some merit, as I've seen employees put in some pretty amazing work effort when the screamer has them in his sights.

For the larger organization, the primary alpha wolf seems to let a few younger potential alphas stick around -- perhaps for succession planning purposes.  The rest of the organization is either sheltered from the screamer, or lives in nearly constant terror of encountering him or her.  Exposure to this leader is definitely seen as a blessing (an opportunity to stand out) and a curse (the risk of being crushed under heel), and not typically sought out by most of the management team.

In cases where the screamer is in place for an extended period of time, a collection of guessers and sooth-sayers often seem to develop.  These are the employees who attempt to tell others what the boss really wants.  These individuals create a lot of useless busy work, and waste enormous amounts of the company's efforts.  

Since the ability to survive a firefight is NOT a key to success for most corporate jobs, there is an adverse selection and promotion criteria subtly in place.  This tends to lead to a shortage of good qualified candidates, with many of those remaining wondering why they stick around.  The screamer can also generate risk aversion like no other extreme leader -- but only if he or she punishes those taking the risks when they fail.

Screamers seem to do fairly well overall compared to the other extreme leadership styles.  There are many of them in positions of high authority, and their companies seem to suffer less than many of the other types.  Still, a screamer would be the last extreme leader I personally would want to work for, and I'm sure many others feel the same.

The Regurgitator

The regurgitator is very similar to the procrastinator with the exception of one characteristic -- the regurgitator is NOT afraid to make a decision.  Making the call is never the issue with this extreme leadership style, sticking with it, however, is.

The regurgitator loves to dredge up old decisions and rehash them endlessly.  Their leadership is characterized by numerous flip-flops in their decisions -- often reflecting the latest piece of data they acquired, or the last person in a position of authority they spoke with.

Unlike the procrastinator, who seems to have a deeply rooted fear of deciding at all, the regurgitator seems to lack self-confidence to stick by their calls.  When any bit of data or opinion seems to contridict a decision already long put to rest, the regurgitator, rather than brush off the contridictory data, wants to revise the basic premise, thus putting at risk every subsequent decision.  The regurgitator seems to lack confidence in their convictions or perhaps fear they consistently make the incorrect call and are trying to limit the damage.

The behavior has a similar impact as the procrastinator's -- there is no solid base of principles and decisions upon which to build.  The organization seems to be forever locked in a battle to develop basic management and organizational principles, never being able to progress beyond the fundamentals.

The impact on people is also similar -- they will try avoidance where possible, attempting to keep decisions out of the regurgitator's hands by either taking on greater risks themselves, or going around the regurgitator whenever possible.

As in the procrastinator's organization, a regurgitator's mismanagement will typically take a long time to become evident.  During the lengthy wait, forward progress will seem to slowly come to a halt, and the organization will stagnate.  As is true under most of the extreme leadership styles, talented people will tend to leave, eventually creating talent drain which is hard to overcome.

The Procrastinator

With the Procrastinator, nothing is ever final until after the project, decision or event is well in the past.  Procrastinators have trouble making decisions, and once they do decide, their people quickly learn no decision is forever -- there being a constant risk of the item being dredged up, reconsidered and reversed.

A typical time arc for a project in the Procrastinator's organization might included the following: an initial review with a tentative decision, but certainly a demand for more data, a series of further reviews, where there is still no decision, but during which the direction becomes a bit more clear (although often different from the original direction), and ultimate closure of the project prior to actual implementation.

Procrastinators tend to flip-flop on their decisions, talking themselves into alternately approving and disapproving various company actions.  They seem to suffer from a difficulty to commit to any course of action without perfect information.  As perfect information is rarely available in the real world, they tend to take the pulse of those above them in the organizational hierarchy (perhaps a board member, or a more senior officer of the company) who has a poorer perspective on the situation, just to make sure they know which way the wind blows.  If and when the procrastinator finally does decide, it is often to err on the side of conservatism, killing off new ideas or concepts.  From the perspective of an individual advancement, it will appear it must run a gaunlet of potential reviews, where any one of them being decided against will spell the end of the initiative.

At the core of this indecisiveness, appears to be a fear of making a wrong call -- and since mistakes are generally punished more than successes are rewarded, the procrastinator is forever holding out the option of pulling the plug on any remotely controversial or questionable initiative.

Employees find this leadership style provides an unstable footing for their work.  It is difficult to build upon new ideas, as the old decisions which might provide their foundation never appear to be behind them.  Sponsors of new initiatives tend to find themselves constantly defending past work, trying to hold onto meager gains, rather than advancing the organization.  The braver sponsors tend to "ask for forgiveness, rather than permission", putting themselves in personal situations which are highly risky, especially given the bent of their leader.

Ultimately the organization stagnates.  Fairly obvious decisions are left dangling, and too many projects are rejected.  The organization becomes focused on what it takes to get the approval of the leader, rather than what is right for the business.  The best and most innovative employees become frustrated and leave, or are discouraged and simply stop trying to offer ideas.

An organization can persist in this state for quite a long time, if the industry is mature, slow to change, and there are no nimble competitors nipping at their heels.  The employee's best bet in dealing with a procrastinator is to out-last and out-endure.

The Blame-gamer

We'd like to think corporate success -- and success in life in general -- is more dependent on the wins in our win columns than anything else.  There is, however, an ugly element to human nature, one where we tend to zero in on the losses, no matter how few and far between they are.  And most of us seem to get a charge watching the foibles and pitfalls of others (otherwise, why do television shows like American Idol, or Survivor last?).

The Blame-gamer knows this element of human nature extremely well, and is prepared to push it to its logical limits.  The primary Blame-gamer behavior is what is sometimes called "the search for the guilty, and the punishment of the innocent."  To the Blame-gamer, every problem or shortcoming has a name associated with it -- someone who's "guilty".  One of the things Blame-gamers rarely seem to do however, is look at the circumstances surrounding a failure -- was the original strategy sound?  Were there environmental factors that made success impossible to achieve?  Were the expectations of what would be called success unreasonable?  To the Blame-gamer, these questions are irrelevant, and examining them would only interfere with the search for the person or persons guilty of screwing things up.

Unlike some of the other extreme leadership styles, where the leader can be fully or partially blind to their own behaviors, Blame-gamers tend to be much more deliberate in their actions.  Since the leader is usually ultimately responsible for defining strategy, evaluating environmental factors, and setting the thresholds for success, it is much safer and emotionally more satisfying to define every failure as a "failure to execute".  Failure to execute automatically implies the strategy was sound and the expectations were reasonable.

Beyond just searching for the guilty (and punishing the innocent), sometimes the blame-gamer, sensing an impending failure, will push others into a key execution role simply as a buffer between a potential future problem and themselves.  The Blame-gamer uses the unwitting or unwilling person as a kind of human shield -- a scapegoat who can take ownership of the failure, should it occur.

The impact on the organization is fairly predictable -- conservatism.  In the Blame-gamer environment, where "failure" is punished much more than "success" is ever rewarded, it pays to avoid taking risks of any kind.  Employees in the Blame-gamer leadership environment will be reluctant to bring forward projects unless they're almost a sure thing.  The clever employees will strive to gain recognition for presenting ideas, but will shy away from involving themselves in their implementation.  Goals and targets, which wise employees already try to set as low as possible, will be pushed even lower in the Blame-gamer environment, where there is little upside in agreeing to hard targets.

Over time, the company will become exposed to smaller, less risk-averse competitors trying new systems, products or processes.  The Blame-gamer firm will be slow to move on new ideas, wanting to see they are nearly fool-proof before moving on them, lest the employees, as individuals, take the blame for anything less than stellar success.

The Oddball

I've known a few senior leaders in passing I would consider oddballs, but more due to strange appearance traits and the assumption this points toward other oddball behavior, rather than an intimate exposure to one of this strange variety of leaders.  Describing the oddball, therefore, is a bit more difficult for me, and I may get a few bits slightly off.  So with that disclaimer in mind, here goes....

The oddball is an offbeat leader -- one who seems to be at least somewhat out of touch with the rest of his or her management team.  He might range anywhere from amusingly eccentric to downright bizarre.  Oddballs are often superstitious or ritual driven, as if following an old and beloved formula will lead to continuing success, even though circumstance may have changed -- a little akin to the star athlete who rubs their lucky baseball before each inning, or who always wears green underwear, or some other seemingly disconnected behavior.

Oddballs seem to love old, outdated management fads -- remember "management by walking around", "In search of excellence", Theory X, and other management theories that have faded into the past -- they live again in the Oddball's organization.

What makes an Oddball?  Some simply seem to be different at their core.  Most seem to have a tough time separating luck (and luck plays a role in the career of every top manager) from actual actions resulting in success.

The biggest negative impact on the organization is the tremendous waste of energy on practices, systems, analysis and other elements of the Oddball's management mantra that have little to nothing to do with the organization's success.  This can range from annoying or confusing, to downright deadly, depending on the nature of the rituals, and what elements of current reality they tend to ignore.

Having an oddball for your leader can also be...well, embarrassing.  Image conscious executives will stay away just to avoid the guilt by association.

The Diva

Diva CEO's expect the company to revolve around them, rather than them serving the interests of the firm's stakeholders.  Divas come in a rather wide variety of forms -- from the high profile community pillar, to the news hog, to the budding politician.  They do, however have a few things in common:

• Divas focus on what's in it for them.
• Divas neglect internal relationships in favor of external ones.
• Divas think employees should feel honored to be able to work with them.
• Divas often (but not always) surround themselves with sycophants.
• Divas generally don't actually run the organization.  They are the outward face, and need to be paired with an inside manager to make things function properly.  In my observation, this is often a COO or CFO.

Why do they do this?  It's difficult to know for sure what is going on inside a Diva's head, but I theorize somewhere deep inside is a belief they don't deserve to be where they are.  Diva behaviors produce a constant stream of validation from internal and exernal sources which pacify these doubts.  Of course, some may simply love the attention and fame/fortune attainable as a business leader, and engage in all the self-promotion as a way to further grow that attention.

Employees will quickly learn that praise for their boss'es brilliance, rather than anything remotely resembling criticism, is a company requirement.  Some employees will be confused by the figurehead who seems to be detached from the day-to-day operation of the business, but most will figure out quickly it's the inside manager actually makes the business run and perform.  The occassional eye roll will accompany some of the more outlandish stunts or statements made by a Diva, but criticism will be sparse, as it isn't well tolerated.  Divas do not motivate employees, as their actions and statements almost always seem to have a self-serving undercurrent, and their gaze is directed out rather than inside.

Still, given all the damage that can be caused by some of the extreme types of leadership, Divas are relatively harmless.  They stay out of the way of the achievers and performers in the organization, and tend to leave the daily management task to others.  As long as the key inside manager is not also an extreme leader, the company can generally tolerate the Diva quite well.

The Burnout

Most Burnouts were something before they slipped into this extreme leadership type.  They were typically hard-charging managers, and perhaps even exhibited some other extreme leadership type, but then something happened.  Something that changed everything for them.

It might be an event -- a personal tragedy, a career disappointment, an epiphany gained by watching someone else.  It could be just an accumulation of little things that piled on one another, much as that proverbial final straw on the camel's back.  Whatever the reason, the Burnout enters a time and a place where they no longer care about the business, their co-workers, or their customers.

The Burnout lacks the motivation to come to work each day.  They try to spend as much time as possible doing whatever gives them energy.  It certainly isn't their work, however.  They exhibit fatigue, and seem to have a tough time even putting up a show that they care about what is happening in the business.  In an odd moment, they might be caught surfing the web, or working a crossword puzzle, rather than reviewing last month's financials, or meeting with their subordinates.

Burnouts are noticeable mainly by their lack of presence and participation.  Most learn how to cover up their lack of motivation, at least in a superficial way.  They tend to be indecisive, or uncaring, and provide little inspiration to their teams or organizations.  They go through the motions, rather than provoking performance -- or even a reaction in some cases -- in others.

For subordinates, a burnout is one of the easiest extreme leadership types -- mainly because the Burnout will leave them primarily to their own devices.  While Burnouts are unmotivated, they aren't necessarily willing to accept blame, and they probably won't offer subordinates much guidance on the politics of the organization.  Benign neglect can rapidly become scapegoating in the Burnout's world.

The Micro-Manager

I must confess to finding it completely impossible to get all the way into the head of this Extreme Leadership type.  The term is thrown around somewhat loosely, and sometime misapplied by people.  So let's take a look at what the Micro-manager DOES, and then think a little about what might be making him or her tick...

Micro-Managers are in the middle of everything going on in their domains -- from the trivial to the most significant.  A Micro-Manager might be making a decision on an acquisition this morning, and overruling the selection of dinner napkins this afternoon.  The Micro-Manager's basic action is one of OVER-RIDING.  They over-ride the judgment and decisions of others -- on almost anyone and everything they command.  Usually their style is aggressive to the point of domineering (a tyrant), but I've seen some Micro-Managers who operate with a softer touch as well.  Just because their smiling and speaking calmly doesn't mean they're not a Micro-Manager.  This style seems to be most common in smaller organizations or smaller parts of large organizations -- a Micro-Manager tends to run out of bandwidth when their span of control gets too large. 

Micro-Managers tend to drive off strong-minded subordinates.  What person with a good brain and a little backbone would tolerate constant second guessing of their decisions by someone who doesn't have expertise in their area?  The people that remain tend to fall into a few different categories -- they're sycophantic toadies, or natural followers who are happy to have the responsibility of decision making lifted from their shoulders, or perhaps stuck in the organization for some personal reason and have to grind it out despite their leader.  The folks in the last category tend to be driven crazy by the Micro-Manager, but those in the first two will appear to be completely at home in this environment.

Micro-Managers negatively impact their organizations in several ways -- one I've already mentioned, the driving off of talent.  They also slow decisions down, acting as the choke point in a funnel.  If they were willing to provide general direction and let people make their own calls, a lot more would happen in a company a lot faster.  Perhaps the most insidious impact, however, is subordinates learn to ask "what does the boss want?", rather than "what's right for the business?".  I've also noted a tendency for people to become preoccupied with trivia at times -- arranging deck chairs on the Titanic -- usually in an attempt to give the Micro-Manager what he wants.

So why are they like this?  What need is this behavior satisfying?  I'm no psychologist, but it seems there is some deep seated need to be right, and as a corollary, to see others as less capable than the Micro-Manager.  There's probably some kind of insecurity swimming at the bottom of this pool.

Most Micro-Managers tend to effectively disguise the more flagrant aspects of their behavior -- at least they hide it from observation from above.  They will tend to appear very details oriented, on top of their responsibilities, and confident.  It usually takes a mass exodus, or the "right" critical person quitting, to bring their extreme behaviors to the attention of upper management. And heaven help you if the Micro-Manager is the top officer of the company.   Barring an attention grabbing event, this extreme leadership type can swim in the Corporate pool for a long time undisturbed.

The Super-Critic

Unfortunately, a large part of the daily work for senior managers is to deal with problems, and a part of that task includes figuring out what went wrong.  The exercise sensitizes managers to the many decisions that cause issues to arise.  And in this crucible, with the benefit of perfect hindsight, they learn to criticize.

I remember sitting in my Business School Classes (taught using the case method), and listening to student after student harshly criticizing the actions of the managers in the cases we studied.  Heck, we had Jack Welch show up at the school, and the same thing happened face to face!  For all the advantages of the case method, it does seem to set young budding managers along the path to becoming a Super-Critic.

The Super-Critic expects perfection, but more importantly, doesn't hesitate to find flaws with everything going on around him/her.  They criticize how things were done, even if the outcome was generally good -- because, if they'd just been able to apply their piercing insight, it would have been better.  Even if the Super-Critic learns to toss off compliments, they are given only on the most trivial of matters (nice tie, now on to the critique!).  Or they learn to compliment in public and criticize in private -- but the compliments still sound hollow and contrived.  This is the world of the Super-Critic, one of imperfection to be pointed out by his or her superior intellect.  It is a world of sneerning at a job that should have undoubtedly been better done.

The impact on people in the organization is predictable.  Avoidance is the principle reaction -- avoidance of contact with the Super-Critic.  No contact means less exposure to the Super-Critic's caustic personality.  There are still criticisms to offer -- which will make their way down through the chain of command.  In the Super-Critic's company, the employee who hears the criticism must always wonder just how high up its origin was.  In this environment, one often hears employees complain nothing is ever good enough, or the absence of criticism is the only compliment.

The Super-Critic fails by driving talent out of the organization, and breaking the drive to achieve in many of those who remain.  When negative critique is all that is ever offered, regardless of effort, many employees will reduce their efforts to the minimum necessary to get by.  The Super-Critic also inspires Mini-me's.  A Super-Critic CEO will, as is true with many of the extreme leadership styles, inspire other managers in the organization to become critics as well.  The leader will sometimes secretly admire the piercing insight of his subordinate who beats him or her to the critical observation.

The Super-Critic ultimately fails when the organization fails to perform.  Boards are not equipped to discover and remove the Super-Critic solely because of his caustic impact.  He or she fail because of a loss of talent and effort from the organization.  In some companies, this can become evident quickly, but in others with strong established brand names and positions, it can take a very long time -- if it ever is separable from the daily impacts of a hundred other factors.  The Super-Critic, in many cases, is there to stay for a long haul.

Extreme Leadership Types that Fail.

I've recently been working on a new novel, one that features several hard-to-work-for leadership styles.  That manuscript has gotten me thinking about the many different types of extreme leadership styles exist, and how many flavors they come in.

My initial investigation on the web shows little material on this subject (of course, I might just be typing in the wrong keywords -- more thorough research will follow).  So I've decided to take a different tact, by taking a leadership guide published by Darrell Zahorsky, and imagining what could happen to the"successful" leadership styles there when they are pushed to the extreme.

What I've developed is a list of ten extreme leadership styles -- of the type that cause partial or total failure of the executive in their job.  I think as you read the descriptions, you should think of these as extreme CEO leadership types, as that is where the failings will be most evident in any corporation.  I've seen several of these types, and a couple of them I'm intimately familiar with.

So without further ado, here are the ten extreme leadership types that fail:

1.  The Super-critic -- In this leadership style, the CEO become so critical of everyone's efforts that no one can do anything to his satisfaction.

2.  The Micro-manager -- Micro managers take the super-critic one step further, substituting the CEO's judgment for...everyone's.  The Micro-manager sees himself as a genius among morons, and won't allow anyone else's decision to stand.

3.  The Burnout -- This leader has had enough of everything.  Enough struggle, enough competition, enough conflict.  He should retire, but keeps hanging on, much to everyone's chagrin.

4.  The Diva -- Really isn't interested in what he can do for his company, only what the company can do for him.  He is focused on money, power, prestige or a combination of the three.

5.  The Oddball -- Locked onto outdated or ineffective leadership paradigms that seem to have little or nothing to do with success or failure for the company.  Stays with them in the mistaken belief they actually matter.

6.  The Blame-gamer -- Every problem or shortcoming has a name attached to it, and it isn't his.  He'll make sure to position any risk so that someone else can take the fall.

7.  The Procrastinator -- Unable to make a decision without perfect information, this leader is perpetually stuck in neutral hoping someone else will step forward and take a stand.

8.  The Regurgitator -- A variant on the Procrastinator, this leader decides, reconsiders and then decides again in a seemingly endless loop.

9.  The Screamer -- Gets his way through intimidation and brow-beating.  Usually dramatic, and often reacts just for show.

10.  The Gentleman -- Can't imagine doing, saying or deciding anything in a way that might offend someone.  Has a tough time making decisions that might impact other's opinion of him.

Now these types are not necessarily exhaustive, nor are they even necessarily definitive -- any given leader may demonstrate characteristics of several of the extreme types, while also doing some or even a lot of things right.  This blog has room for comments, and I would love to hear from other students of Corporate America about the extreme types they have seen.

Power & Politics -- A Postscript

The concepts presented in my article, Power & Politics in the Corporation, and their amplification here in this blog are primarily my own work, and principally based on my own observations.  Some of the terminology, such as street fighters or manueverers I've adapted from the work of others, trying to stay a true as possible to their original ideas, but also wanting to conform those descriptions tothe entire landscape of my own concept.

In broad strokes, politics in the corporation involves two primary dimensions -- will and skill.  Will comes down to the question of where the practitioner draws the line between acceptable and offensive.  Some eschew politics completely, while others seem to feel (either through deliberate thought, or by default), that anything goes.  In some of my writing, I explore the extension of that boundary to include illegal acts, as opposed to just immoral ones -- things like, blackmail, murder and theft.  Other than fear of punishment, what causes the amoral from stopping at scapegoating?  Why not move on to other potentially productive actions like larceny?

The other dimension, skill, is determined by natural talent, education, and practice.  I contend that those who are the most emotionally intelligent (in other words, the most aware of how others perceive and feel about what is going on around them) have the greatest natural talent.  Education can be academic, such as I've attempted to provide with my article and blog series, but in a practical sense the aid of a mentor is probably the best source of political teaching.  And just like any human endeavor, practicing the tactics makes one better at implementing them, although negative experiences probably teach more than positive ones do.

Combine both high will and skill, and you've got the makings of a successful politician.  But not all good politicians succeed, and not all poor politicians fail.  This is because real performance also counts in the corporate world -- a fact I've largely ignored in the text of the article.  Ultimately it takes all three -- political skill, political will, and performance -- to keep ascending the ladder.

Is there a luck factor as well?  I've always been opposed to ascribing much of success and failure to luck.  The belief that winners create their own luck certainly has appeal.  But I can't deny there is a certain randomness to those who ultimately ascend to the top, compared with those who don't.  Some people become CEO's with obvious flaws, while others, with seemingly impenetrable armor, are terminated (some with extreme prejudice).  So yes, I admit there is a little luck involved in the end.  Over the mass numbers, it probably evens out, but in individual cases, strange things can happen.

I would love to hear feedback from other thinkers on the subject of politics, political tactics, and the way these things function in large organizations.  If you're too shy to post comments here, please feel free to email me at tspears62@gmail.com

Use Sparingly, Use Strategically -- Tactic #20

The final power player tactic involves the effective selection and usage of the other tactics already discussed.  If you're a power player, the way you do this will differ, depending on whether you're a street fighter or a maneuverer.

You see, most of your coworkers -- perhaps even the world at large -- see the power player tactics as...well...obnoxious.  If you're a maneuverer, you want to avoid the label of obnoxious.  Obnoxious will taint your image.  Obnoxious will drive allies away.  Obnoxious will add to your list of enemies and provide them with a rallying point.  If you're a maneuverer, you want to prevent those things from happening, and there is no other way to do so than to use the tactics sparingly.  On the other hand, if you're of the relatively rare street fighter persuasion, you probably don't care about being labeled obnoxious, and will have a freer hand in using the power player tactics.  In fact, people will probably expect you to be politically maeuvering more or less all the time (which has its own challenges).

So how do you decide when it is best to do nothing, when it is best to limit yourself to the relatively benign tactics of the neutrals, and when its appropriate to go all out?  I'll suggest there are four factors you must consider.

1. Is situation one where high rewards are possible?  We're talking promotion, job-preservation, or enemy elimination here, rather than image enhancing, alliance building, or revenge delivering.
2. Are the consequences of failing small?  Every one of these tactics has the potential to backfire.  Every application could bend back on you if you make a mistake or encounter opposition also skilled in the use of power play tactics.  Are you betting a friendship with a subordinate two levels below you, or are you betting your career?
3. Is the likelihood of success high or very high?  Taking multiple high risk gambles is a mistake -- eventually one will fall apart.  I recommend you look for what seems like sure things in the beginning -- as the situation unfolds and you discover adverse circumstances, at least you still have a good chance of winning.  That's risky enough.
4. Is the political capital cost low?  Every political project you undertake stresses your alliances and friendships.  Metaphorically, you are making a withdrawl from your political capital account, and you don't want to later find yourself in need with a low balance.  Save political capital for only the best opportunities.

If you can say yes to three of the four questions above, then a manueverer is well positioned to engage in the power player tactics.  If you can only say yes to one or two, my advice is to stick with neutral tactics.  If you don't have any yeses, the what the heck are you wasting your time for??

Invest in Scapegoats -- Tactic #19

Now we come to what is considered by some to be the most repulsive of all political tactics -- the scapegoating of subordinates.  This is a maneuverer's tactic, much more so than a street fighter's.  Street fighters use the force of their personalities in their political battles, where maneuverers are more subtle.  All the master maneuverers I personally know, are masters of scapegoating.

"When a problem develops, you dive down.  I go up."

This advice was perhaps the closest I ever came to understanding what happens in the head of the maneuverer when he or she plays this card.  Looking at if from my somewhat more moralistic viewpoint, it appears to be a shameless shucking of blame, allowingthe crap fall on the heads and shoulders of innocent and semi-innocent others instead.  I could never do it -- not because I didn't understand the tactic, but simply because it seemed so wrong.

You may have a different sense of right and wrong.  Or maybe circumstances make the act of scapegoating less repugnant.  For whatever reason, if you're going to do it, you should employ the tactic wisely and correctly.

There are two keys to successful scapegoating -- timing and selection of the "goat".  From a timing standpoint, the earlier in a project, the better.  I'd advise you to start planning a scapegoat as a back-up plan for any high risk project or action.  And I'd put the scapegoat in place as soon as you see the first small indications of trouble.

What do I mean by "put in place"?  Specifically maneuver the scapegoat into a position where they are responsible for the thing at risk.  Make them the project manager, if it is a project.  Make them the sponsoring manager, if it is an acquisition.

Yes, you're certainly giving up the opportunity to take the lion's share of the credit for success (should such an unlikely event occur).  If the project succeeds, however, you will still share in the glory, perhaps just not taking center stage.  If the project fails, you will have distanced yourself sufficiently as to not get too much mud on you.  It's an insurance policy -- take it out when you develop a sniffle, not when you are on life support -- by then it costs too much, and the patient is likely to die anyway.

Selecting the right scapegoat can be an art in itself.  A requirement for success is for the "goat" to be your subordinate, and for them to be acknowledged in the organization as "good" and "a good fit".

Why a subordinate?  Because anyone else is likely to cast all blame for any failing back toward you as the project goes down the tubes.  It could still happen with a subordinate, but it's less likely, particularly if you put them in place blindly.  By that I mean, they don't realize why they are actually there -- as a buffer between you and failure.  You achieve this by stroking their egos, and painting a rosy picture of the future that goes along with success of the project.  For the "goat" the project becomes an opportunity, not a risk.  I've seen scapegoats forced into the role fully aware of what is happening, and they tend to be much less tractable, although it can work if you have just the right touch with the "goat".

Why a good employee?  Because chucking a poor performer at the issue is a very obvious attempt to escape blame.  Besides, conventional wisdom says you should put your best people on your biggest challenges.  Anything less looks suspicious.  The problem with this strategy is you may very likely have to sacrifice the employee.  When it comes down to a failure -- it is likely to either be him or you (although sometimes it can be both of you, if you stayed too close).  You have to be ready to let that employee go fairly early, and be prepared to toss another body or two under the wheels, too, if necessary.

Long term ramifications are huge -- you deplete your talent pool, and develop a bad reputation among your subordinates by using the tactic.  Oddly, I've seen it repeatedly used as standard operating procedure, or even applauded, at the highest levels of corporations -- a place rife with maneuverers.

As the pinnacle of the political maneuverer's tactical options, Scapegoating is a must for any corporate politician with an eye on the top job.

Can Leaders be Normal People?

This post was originally made on my blog at www.outofcorporatelife.blogspot.com on February 12, 2011.  I moved it here, feeling like this was a more natural location.

In the novel I'm currently working on -- Heir Apparent -- I spend a considerable amount of time contemplating a variety of extreme leadership styles. The plot of the story, the killing of four local company CEOs by one of their own (the heir apparent -- hence the name), gives me the opportunity to compare and contrast those extremes. Bear in mind, these are all large organizations being portrayed in the novel -- a technology company, an bank, a manufacturing outfit, and a construction company.

The three of the four extremes are pretty well defined:

Killed first is what I call the screamer. This CEO aggressively challenges anything and everything, and goes into all kinds of near-crazy histrionics. She (yes, in this case I portrayed this leader as a woman) inspires an organization of other screamers, who try to out-challenge each other. The environment is aggressive, unpleasant, but also high energy.

Killed second is the politician. This CEO is nice on the outside, but cold as ice at the core. He creates an environment where he positions other people to take the fall for his own errors and shortcomings. He creates a lot of turnover in the organization, but because he's seen as kinder and gentler, he's able to continuously bring new, top talent into his firm. The new guys take the risks, and the fall if they fail. The politician is there to take the credit when the risks pay off.

Killed third is Mr. Indecisive, who can't seem to make a decision on his own, always delaying or deferring to committees of others. The employees of this company love their leader, even though he drives some of them crazy with his indecisiveness. He also has a bad habit of reconsidering all kinds of decisions, often well after the point where they should have been closed. This profile is giving me the most trouble because it appears to be the lack of some essential ingredient in the leader that makes it what it is.

The last murder victim is the micro-manager, who insists on being a part of every significant decision, and tends to drive off other independent thinking employees. He has surrounded himself by people who blindly support his decisions, and are satisfied to let their own decision-making abilities atrophy. While his firm is successful, his inability to really delegate makes him personally the limiting factor in the company's success.

Notice I said these were extreme personality types, but not unsuccessful. Each of these companies are being successful in their own way -- each growing, gaining influence and position in their markets, showing healthy profitability. In some cases they succeed because of the way the CEO drives the company, and in others (Mr. Indecisive) because the remaining managers have constructed systems to accommodate their leader's weaknesses.

I've personally observed all of these leadership types during my career, and some (but not all) of them to the extremes described in the novel. What I haven't experienced is a leader who is, well...a normal guy (or gal). I have a theory -- that a "normal" person lacks something which is necessary for a person to ascend to the top position. For lack of a better way to describe it, I'd call it drive, but its certainly more than the conventional definition of that word. It's more of an uncontrollable burning need to reach the top. This drive needs to be present in abnormal amounts to allow someone to make it to the top of the ladder, and it drags along other abnormal behaviors as well (like political maneuvering, acting out aggressive roles, or feeling the need to decide everything themselves).

So my question is: does anyone out there know of a CEO who really is just a normal guy. I'm talking the CEO of a publically traded company with at least a thousand employees. And byknow, I mean being close enough that you actually can see what's going on behind the curtain, not just the outward veneer. If you know of one, I'd like to hear about it either with a comment or a private email (tspears62@gmail.com).

I know of one of these, but that person came into the role in a very unusual way. I'm not sure one can actually climb the ladder to the top, and still remain normal in the conventional sense.

Expect Betrayal -- Tactic #18

Most business relationships are superficial.  It may not feel that way at the time, but if you've ever changed companies, you can test my assertion.  How many of your old associates do you still spend time with?  For most people, the answer is -- not very many.  And why is that?  Simply because in your next job, you develop a collection of new superficial business relationships, and those force out the old.  After all there's only so much time in the day, right?

Real relationships are deeper than just the convenience of the moment.  They are built on shared interests and experiences, true respect and interdependence.  Superficial business relationships tend to be based on proximity, and the needs of constantly shifting alliances and power bases.

And yet, some business relationships do develop into real relationships.  But it takes hard work to make it happen, and the relationship has to transcend the politics of the office.  Employees will willingly sacrifice a competitor, often will sacrifice a peer, but rarely will sacrifice a friend.  So finding the critical few relationships is very important to your power base -- these are the relationships you can USUALLY depend on no matter what.  Mentor relationships certainly fall into this category.

I say usually, because I've seen a handful of shocking betrayals in my days in executive leadership. I can't mention their specifics, but their circumstances still amaze me.  They were such complete and utter betrayals that I can only advise any power player to treasure the bonds of friendship, but make sure to continue to watch your back.

And by watching your back, I mean critically examine your friend's actions and behaviors for inconsistencies.  In the really big betrayals I've known, hind sight showed there were signs, but the vicitims ignored them in favor of their faith in their betrayers.

For your other relationships, just remember these are like the alliances on the TV show Survivor.  Merrily made today to be broken tomorrow when the need arises.  One aspect of Survivor that has continually fascinated me is the anger felt by so many of the contestants once they discover they've been thrown over for a better deal.

The same thing happens in the business world.  Don't be surprised or angry when your friend of convenience today becomes your opposition tomorrow.  It happens all the time -- and it's not personal, just business.

Lastly, and I've cautioned this often, be very careful about the ammunition you put into the hands of others -- that is specifically what they will use, and what will get you in trouble.

Outofcorporatelife.blogspot.com and Tomspears.com

Based on monitoring of my Blog and Website since their recent redesigns, I believe some my readers may be a little confused.  To wit, let me  make the new structure clear in this post, which I will place in all locations where I’m regularly blogging.

I am currently writing three blogs.

1.      Career Transition – this is my personal blog, and is hosted on Blogspot.  The intention of the blog is to chronicle my personal journey from being a high level company executive to my final career destination (whatever that may be).  A mid-career transition can be a hard one, and I’ve done quite a lot of research and soul-searching on the subject.  My hope is some of the insights I offer will make the process less painful and disorienting for others.

2.      About my Writing – on Tomspears.com.  This is a journal on some of my thoughts about the writing process and how I am learning, growing and maturing as a writer of fiction.  There are also occasional comments on current projects I am working on.

3.     Corporate Politics- blog – also on Tomspears.com.  This blog provides expert insights into the world of corporate politics.  Several months ago, I wrote a lengthy article on the subject, and the blog is supportive of the concepts presented in the article.  The blog was started specifically to support my first novel, LEVERAGE, which revolves around the dynamics of corporate politics and cover-ups.

I offer the following suggestions to readers.

• If you like what you read, click on the Follow button.  You can then set up the blog to forward posts to whatever reader you’re using (my personal preference is Google Reader – if you’re not using a blog reader now, check it out).
• Post comments.  Comments make the blog posts more interesting.  Comments can be posted anonymously, and even if I can guess your identity, I won’t “out” you.  I get a lot of private emails after a post that would often times work better as a comment.
• If you are blogging yourself, or have your own website, I offer to exchange links.  I feature several links on my website – under the heading Great Links.  I pass and receive considerable traffic through these links.  Send me an email at tspears62@gmail.com to let me know you’re interested.

Happy reading and thank you for your interest in my work.