There is only one way under high heaven to get the best of an argument—and that is to avoid it.
—Dale Carnegie
The last question in chapter 13 dealt with whether you are a consensus builder or prefer to make decisions alone. One leadership style may be just as effective as another, depending on the organization and specifics of the situation. While Bill Gates cringes at the thought of consensus in a business, the following account shows how employee involvement and decision making on a large scale can also benefit an organization.
A large corporation in the home products industry discovered exactly how employee involvement could benefit all those involved. As part of an attempt to revitalize the downtown area of the company’s home city, a new plant was being built in a previously run-down area. People were hired from the same area and training and orientation were expected to take time. Nonetheless, the company committed itself to involving the employees and residents on important issues concerning the new plant.
This involvement led to the rerouting of public transportation closer to the plant, an expanded day care facility, and greater flexibility in hiring and job classification. For many community residents, discussing these issues with representatives of a major corporation was a totally new experience. It had proved to be a valuable one for both them and the company. For the company it was a chance to build loyalty and commitment in a demographic base from which the majority of new hires would be drawn. For the workers there was the realization that the new employer wanted their ideas and that those ideas would be acted upon at the top levels. It ended up being a winning solution for all involved.
Making that happen requires vision and flexibility. The chief operating officer of the home products company describes empowering his employees as one of his most important jobs. It’s also a very complex one. It involves instilling confidence in team members and bringing out their creativity. It also requires helping them clarify their own thoughts so that they can be communicated to people who may have very different cultural expectations.
One executive says, “I’ve learned something that I would never have understood a few years ago. There really is no such thing as a wrong or an irrelevant thought. Literally everyone’s ideas deserve to be thrown into the stew. That’s the only way you’ll come up with solutions that are really workable, solutions that are not only technically sound but inclusive of all the people who will carry them out.”
We will now continue to provide you with additional questions to assist you in your self-assessment. Again, take the time to answer these questions with as much detail as possible.
This question is really an extension of the previous one, but it deals more with one-on-one, individual relationships. As a leader, do you see yourself as a straight shooter or a diplomat? Do people describe you as “easygoing and a team player” or do they use words like “frank, direct, and blunt”?
Looking back on conflict situations, some leaders believe that they have failed by just letting things go that far. Others have fond memories of their confrontations, of not backing down, of speaking out, and of asserting control.
So, ask yourself: Do you see confrontation as a breakdown of leadership or as a fundamental expression of it?
This question is really about the importance you assign to consistency. How much weight do you give to tried-and-true formulas? Are you most comfortable sticking with what has worked in the past or do you like to see things happen in unexpected ways?
The test of a scientific approach is its ability to predict the future. Based on past experience, we can expect that dropping a stone will result in its falling toward the ground. This is the law of gravity in action and it’s proven very accurate in predicting the results of certain actions. As a scientific theory, it is always subject to testing and verification. As strange as it may seem, apparently immutable natural laws are only as good as their last example. If we drop that stone and it doesn’t fall to the ground, even once, everything is up for grabs. At least in that situation, the law of gravity hasn’t worked, which should lead to a reevaluation and possibly a revision of some fundamental concepts.
Magic, on the other hand, doesn’t have to work all the time to still be magical. The magician believes that all the variables in a situation can never be known and that even the force of his or her own belief and that of the onlookers can influence an outcome. Each new effort has its own dynamic, its own set of unpredictable factors that make it a universe unto itself. A wonderful scene in the film Little Big Man illustrates this. Playing a tribal chief, the actor Dan George turns to costar Dustin Hoffman, and says that it is time for him to die. He wants to say good-bye. It is a sad and touching moment. He lies down, closes his eyes, and prepares for death. There’s a minute of silence. Finally the old man asks, “Am I still in this world?” Hoffman’s character replies, “Yes, Grandfather.” The chief sits up and shrugs his shoulders, saying, “Sometimes the magic works. Sometimes it doesn’t.”
If this is your style, sticking closely to track records feels like an unnecessary constraint. Things don’t have to work every time to be true or worth believing in. You like to have an element of mystery in your life, even in major business decisions. When Michael Ovitz was the most powerful agent in Hollywood, he hired world-renowned architect I. M. Pei to design new headquarters for Creative Artists Agency. The cost was many millions of dollars and Ovitz was known as a careful manager of funds. He also made sure, however, that the construction of the new building conformed to the principles of the ancient Chinese spiritual tradition known as feng shui. Even in the very unmystical environment of Hollywood deal making, decisions were made outside the limits of pure reason.
If your leadership style is to look closely at what’s tried and true, you’re probably closer to the scientist in your orientation. You pay attention to the accumulated data. You study past outcomes as a way of predicting future success.
If you, instead, find yourself wanting to try things that can’t really be quantified or verified, you need to have some magic in your approach to leadership.
For the purposes of this question, the word competitors refers to people who are both inside and outside your organization. It may refer to someone at your same level in a company, or it may refer to another company that produces the same product or service as yours. In any case, how you see your competitors is a key indicator of your leadership style.
Specifically, do you see your competitors as opponents in battle, or do you see them as basically people like yourself who are doing the best job they can? Do you see them as influential peers who can even help to bring out the best in you through their efforts?
Martin, for example, was a very successful manufacturer of children’s clothing. His clients were large department stores. His line was always top quality and designed to be shipped on time. He had few problems with returns and buyers came back to him season after season.
Meanwhile, Stan, a competitor in the children’s clothing business, hated the very mention of Martin’s company. He didn’t want to hear about Martin’s latest line, or about which store was carrying what. For him, such talk was treason. It made his blood pressure go up just to think about the success Martin was having, even though Martin certainly worked to earn it.
David, a third party in the same industry, saw things quite differently. A newcomer to that business, he quickly saw that Martin was someone to watch if he ever hoped to be a success himself. David made a habit of visiting department stores and specialty shops to study the type of product Martin sent out each season. During meetings with buyers, who also worked with Martin, he asked them what they liked about his competitor and what they didn’t like. He saw Martin not as an enemy, but as a catalyst for challenging himself.
A few years later, at a garment industry awards dinner, a buyers’ association honored David. He stood up to acknowledge the award and express his gratitude to the people he worked with. Then he paused and took a moment to thank Martin himself for showing him the way it should really be done. Stanley, of course, was floored. To him, David’s behavior was deeply irrational. To the award-winner, David, however, it made perfect sense.
How does it seem to you?
For some people in leadership positions, and even for some who could unquestionably be called leadership masters, the idea that they will let go of the reins at some point seems very threatening. They prefer not to engage in that kind of thinking. Some teachers don’t like hearing about how great the substitute did in their absence. Some people don’t like the idea of making out a will, even though on another level they know it’s an advisable and prudent thing to do. After all, grooming a successor is not only about the effort of finding and preparing the appropriate candidate; it touches on the idea that we are not indispensable. This realization clashes with the way certain leaders run their organizations.
For example, when Disney’s Michael Eisner underwent heart bypass surgery, stockholders suddenly noticed that little had been done to groom a successor for Eisner, should one become necessary. Eisner quickly returned to work and continued to give little attention to who might come after him. Obviously, it was something that made him uncomfortable. Part of his leadership style was the idea that there would be no looking beyond it.
Other leaders don’t find this issue at all unsettling. In fact, they regard it as an important part of their responsibility. It is considered part of ensuring the future of the organization. In their eyes, along with the larger group stability, they feel that their own efforts and victories will be protected when such transitions are prepared and implemented without difficulty. As you respond to this question, ask yourself how you feel about the eventual relinquishing of leadership. Do you see it as another opportunity, or an unpleasant necessity? Is it perhaps something that you don’t even want to think about?
This final question is perhaps the most revealing of all. If you could eavesdrop on a conversation that complimented or described you in some way, what is the one thing you’d most appreciate? Would it be that you’re a team player? Would you like to be considered tough but fair? Would it please you to be described as passionate about your work, good with your staff, and approachable and easy to talk to? The choices are endless. You will need to give this some real thought. Take the time to do so. You might even like to write your answer to this question in the form of an imaginary dialogue. The insights can be very rewarding and it’s fun to imagine a conversation in which you hear nothing but good things about yourself.
This concludes our self-assessment process. Now, please complete the corresponding section in your action steps. When you’re done, read over your responses. This will take you a long way toward discovering whether you’re basically an inspirational leader, an organizational one, or perhaps in transition toward a clear personal style.
Remember, this is a snapshot, not a stone sculpture intended to endure for all time. Like the world around you, you’re a work in progress. The purpose of this exercise is to give you an accurate take on where you are right now.
Continue your self-assessment by answering the following questions. Again, keep in mind that, for the best results, first, be honest with yourself, and second, try to avoid brief, generalized answers. Write as much as you can for each response, including circumstances, thoughts, emotions, and people—internal and external details that will flesh your answer into something useful for you to work with later. The more you write, the more you’ll get out of the process.
1. How do you feel about confrontation? Explain in detail.
2. Are you a scientist or a magician? What makes you say that?
3. How do you regard your competitors? Provide specific examples.
4. How do you feel about grooming a successor?
5. If you could eavesdrop on a conversation about your leadership, what would you most want to hear?