Temptation 1

Choosing status over results

• Do you personally consider it a professional failure when your organization fails to meet its objectives?

• Do you often wonder, What’s next? What will I do to top this in my career?

• Would it bother you greatly if your company exceeded its objectives but you remained somewhat anonymous relative to your peers in the industry?

Rationale

On a professional level, organizational success and personal-professional success are one and the same. Although it is healthy for any human being to separate his or her sense of self-esteem from success on the job, in the context of professional success these should not be divided. Too often, CEOs justify their own performance even when the organizations they lead are failing around them.

CEOs must ultimately judge their personal-professional success by the results on the bottom line. This is not to suggest that other “human” factors are not important, or even most important on a spiritual and emotional level. However, only the CEO is ultimately responsible for the results of the company, and this must be his or her final measure.

Additionally, a pronounced concern for the “next step” in a person’s career is a good sign of susceptibility to Temptation Number One because it is a possible indication that success is being gauged in terms of career advancement rather than current performance. The most successful CEOs focus almost exclusively on their current jobs.

Finally, worrying about how much public recognition one receives is a possible sign of susceptibility to the first Temptation. Although human nature dictates that we hope for a just share of acknowledgment, it is a dangerous part of human nature to entertain. Certainly, at one time or another all CEOs have experienced short shrift when it comes to public recognition. Those who eventually get that recognition are the CEOs who aren’t distracted by the occasional slighting that an unscientific press is sure to give. Interestingly enough, they experience a low degree of satisfaction from such press. After all, they take larger personal satisfaction from achieving results.

Temptation 2

Choosing popularity over accountability

• Do you consider yourself to be a close friend of your direct reports?

• Does it bother you to the point of distraction if they are unhappy with you?

• Do you often find yourself reluctant to give negative feedback to your direct reports? Do you water down negative feedback to make it more palatable?

• Do you often vent to them about issues in the organization? For example, do you refer to your staff as “we” and other employees as “they”?

Rationale

It is wonderful for CEOs to care about direct reports as people, so long as they can separate the success of those relationships from their sense of self-esteem and personal happiness. This is difficult because most of us try to avoid major disagreements with close friends, and it is impossible not to be concerned about a deep rift with one of them. If those close friends are your direct reports, the accountability within the organization can be threatened. The slightest reluctance to hold someone accountable for their behaviors and results can cause an avalanche of negative reaction from others who perceive even the slightest hint of unfairness or favoritism.

Those CEOs who are able to make close friendships with direct reports and still avoid a sense of favoritism often find it easy to use those reports as their personal “venting boards.” All executives need people they can vent to about challenges they face in the organization (for example, people they are frustrated with), but CEOs must resist the desire to use direct reports for this service. It can lead to politics among the executive team, and more importantly, it can undermine the team’s objective understanding of their own actions by creating an atmosphere of self-victimizing groupthink. Often this manifests itself during executive staff meetings in comments such as “When will these people stop questioning us and start understanding what we are trying to do?”

Temptation 3

Choosing certainty over clarity

• Do you pride yourself on being intellectually precise?

• Do you prefer to wait for more information rather than make a decision without all of the facts?

• Do you enjoy debating details with your direct reports during meetings?

Rationale

Certainly, intellectual precision alone is not a sign of Temptation Number Three. However, when it manifests itself during staff meetings in terms of unnecessary debates over minutiae, it is a sign of real trouble.

It is no surprise that many CEOs take a great deal of pride in their analytical and intellectual acumen. Unable to realize that their success as an executive usually has less to do with intellectual skills than it does with personal and behavioral discipline, they spend too much time debating the finer points of decision making. Those debates are problematic for two reasons. First, they eat up valuable time that can be spent discussing larger issues, which often receive just a few minutes at the end of the staff meeting agenda. Second, and more important, they create a climate of excessive analysis and overintellectualization of tactical issues. If there is one person in an organization who cannot afford to be overly precise, it is the CEO.

Temptation 4

Choosing harmony over productive conflict

• Do you prefer your meetings to be pleasant and enjoyable?

• Are your meetings often boring?

• Do you get uncomfortable at meetings if your direct reports argue?

• Do you often make peace or try to reconcile direct reports who are at odds with one another?

Rationale

Executives often bemoan the number of meetings they attend, and they include staff meetings with their peers at the top of that list. They often complain about meetings taking up time that is needed for “real work.” This is a good sign that those meetings are not as difficult (that is, are not as productive) as they should be.

Productive executive staff meetings should be exhausting inasmuch as they are passionate, critical discussions. Pleasant meetings—or even worse, boring ones—are indications that there is not a proper level of overt, constructive, ideological conflict taking place. But don’t be deceived. Every meeting has conflict. Some executives just sweep that conflict under the table and let employees deeper in the organization sort it out. This doesn’t happen by accident.

When executives do get into an issue, CEOs often squelch any potential for passion by making peace. This sends a message that pleasant, agreeable meetings are preferred by the CEO. After a few pleasant meetings, boredom sets in and executives start lamenting the real work that they could be doing.

Temptation 5

Choosing invulnerability over trust

• Do you have a hard time admitting when you’re wrong?

• Do you fear that your direct reports want your job?

• Do you try to keep your greatest weaknesses secret from your direct reports?

Rationale

No one loves to admit being wrong, but some people hate it. Great CEOs don’t lose face in the slightest when they are wrong, because they know who they are, they know why they are the CEO, and they realize that the organization’s results, not the appearance of being smart, are their ultimate measure of success. They know that the best way to get results is to put their weaknesses on the table and invite people to help them minimize those weaknesses. CEOs who understand this concept intellectually but cannot behavioralize it sometimes make the mistake of finding symbolic moments to admit mistakes and weaknesses. This only serves to reinforce the notion that the CEO is unwilling to put real weaknesses on the table. Overcoming this temptation requires a degree of fear and pain that many CEOs are unwilling to tolerate.

If you have a difficult time identifying your temptations, you may want to ask your direct reports to answer the questions above and compare your responses to theirs.