Diagram 4.1: Results-orientation/People-orientation Continuum
Nearly all leaders are conflicted by having to choose between results-orientation and people-orientation. Underpinning this is the implicit assumption that the two approaches are mutually exclusive. To put it simply, many people think that if you want to achieve results, you can’t be people-oriented. Conversely, if you are a people-oriented person, then get ready to be at best average when it comes to delivering results.
But do these hold true? And are you results-oriented or people-oriented? Is it possible to be both?
Some years ago, the Australian HR Vice President of a huge European technology company invited me to meet up with his American Chief Executive Officer who was on one of his regular visits to Asia. On the day of the appointment, I was ushered into a corner office. Both the CEO and the HR VP were already seated.
Apparently, they had been in discussion for a while before I arrived. After a brief introduction by the HR VP, whom I had known for quite a few years, the CEO explained that he would like me to consider coaching his Thai Operations VP.
The situation was as such: in the last three weeks, during which the company was in the midst of a merger with a larger competitor, three directors in different parts of Asia contacted the HR VP to inform him that they were planning to quit. These directors all worked for the Operations VP. The reason each offered was similar: they could no longer stomach the command-and-control leadership style of their boss. Not only were they constantly micromanaged, they felt undermined and put down by the Operations VP’s abrasive and “what have you done for me lately?” attitude.
When the CEO heard about this, he was naturally alarmed and decided to make an urgent trip to Asia to carry out a series of skip-level meetings with the three directors and others. The CEO then referred to his notes and shared some verbatim remarks that he had received such as: “All he cared about were results, results and results. Nothing else mattered”, “There was no room to offer differing opinions. It was his way or the high way” and “I’m perfectly able to lead my people to achieve or even exceed our KPIs. But he has to interfere in every which way”.
The CEO paused, put his notes aside and wearily continued, “He is our best performing operations VP across the regions. None of his counterparts in North America, Latin America and Europe can hold a candle to the business results he has achieved. But admittedly, I have always known that he can be rough with his people.”
I very much wanted to raise an obvious question. But he answered it himself, “Each year, at his annual performance review, I would ask him to be more considerate to his people… Now I realize that there isn’t much teeth to what I’ve been telling him. As long as the goods are being delivered in his region, I pretty much leave him alone.
I guessed I have allowed business performance to override everything for far too long. His senior people are up in arms and are threatening to bail out now unless I remove this tyrant from the region!”
This is a classic case that is played out every day in various organizations around the world. Results often take top precedence and if you do well here, bosses are willing to turn a blind eye to your “rough” side, as this CEO had put it. Countless managers have in fact climbed rapidly up the career ladder by delivering on their numbers at all cost, including riding roughshod over all who were standing in their way. Sadly, many bosses and companies are willing to put up with this kind of behaviour as they don’t want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. However, the day of reckoning will come, as is evident in this case when the CEO’s hand was forced.
This episode did not have a happy ending. Two months later, when the merger was consummated, the CEO, as well as his Asian Operations VP, found themselves without a job.
In a recent performance appraisal review, Audrey was delighted to know that her boss had rated her as outstanding for the work that she had done in the last nine months as a newly promoted manager. She was deemed to be very effective in leading her team and accomplishing all the objectives agreed.
One remark from her boss troubled her though. She couldn’t quite figure out what he was driving at when he said, “Being people-oriented is fine. But do remember that what matters here is your ability to achieve your KPIs.” What was he trying to tell me, she kept asking herself. Am I too soft with my people?
How would you interpret what Audrey’s boss said to her? How would you react if you were in her shoes?
Audrey was one of the many first-time managers whom I have worked with. The upshot of what her boss said to her was that she became intentionally less accessible to her team. Where there used to be an atmosphere of camaraderie and friendly banter, a more cut and dried approach emerged—less discussion and more “just do as you are told.”
Audrey, who was by nature an outgoing and bubbly person, was soon feeling, in her own words, “like a jerk”. She could sense that her people were also drifting away from her.
She decided to call me out for a chat one day. After hearing about her predicament, I reminded her about the principle of Yin and Yang. You will find out more about this concept later in this chapter.
She became silent for a long time. Then she chided herself, “Why wasn’t I mindful of that? Yes, we did discuss that at length before. All that it took to knock me off my balance was one pointed remark from my boss.”
In the weeks ahead, Audrey regained her groove. She continued delivering her numbers while remaining respectful and approachable to her people.
The mental block that managers around the world are battling against may be said to be caused by the “either-or” mentality.
I would like to share a vivid example of this kind of thinking. Twenty years ago, the president of the consumer products division of AT&T was visiting Asia. His company was then the market leader in cordless phones in the United States. As he toured Hong Kong, Taiwan, China and South Korea, he noticed that numerous Asian upstarts were introducing low-cost versions of cordless phones. But he wasn’t impressed as he could see that they generally looked and felt tacky. The sound was far from the “crystal clear” quality that his brand promised. Besides, these cheap brands did not have the cachet of AT&T.
Over dinner, he shared his observations with me. My take was that Asian companies were hungry, and like the Japanese before them, they would keep improving their products until one day, they could match the best Western offerings in quality. And at a much lower price to boot. He was incredulous. His riposte: “Cheap things are never good. Good things are never cheap.” Today, AT&T is no longer in the consumer products business. The best consumer electronic products are manufactured in Taiwan, China, Japan and Korea.
Diagram 4.1: Results-orientation/People-orientation Continuum
In Diagram 4.1, results- and people-orientation are arrayed as polar opposites between which there is a huge gulf. It is a binary way of looking at things: 1 or 0. Most people are torn apart by the seemingly irreconcilable differences.
There is another way of looking at the situation. Between results-and people-orientation is not a chasm but a continuum. Why confine ourselves only to the two polar opposites?
This is a self-limiting mindset. Can we not play along the whole spectrum? We may combine results-orientation with people-orientation in different proportions depending on the situations we are facing. In other words, let’s reject the tyranny of the “either-or” notion and instead opt for the infinite possibilities of the “both-and” approach.
For instance, when pursuing a difficult deadline, the manager with the “either-or” mindset will drive his people relentlessly and constantly harp on the consequences of not finishing the task on time. On the other hand, the manager with the “both-and” mindset will adopt a more nuanced approach—motivating his team members to meet the deadline while keeping up the team spirit. Which approach will be more effective? No prize for guessing this correctly.
This concept of complementarity has been understood and embraced for centuries in East Asian societies such as China, Korea and Japan. It is traceable to Lao Tzu, an older contemporary of Confucius (551-479 B.C.), and the author of Tao Te Ching or The Book of the Way. It is also commonly known as Yin Yang.
The Yin Yang symbol consists of a circle divided into two fish-shaped halves—much akin to a black dolphin with a white eye intertwining with a white dolphin with a black eye. These represent the opposing forces or energies found in nature—black/white, positive/negative, male/female, hard/soft, analytical/intuitive and so on.
According to Lao Tzu, harmony in nature comes about through the constant interaction of Yin and Yang forces or energies. Thus what is black will gradually become white and then black again. It is a natural order of things for ebbs and flows to occur like the waves lapping the shore.
Diagram 4.2: Yin Yang symbol
Another important point in this concept is that every polarity contains the seed of its opposite as represented by the white eye in the black dolphin and the black eye in the white dolphin. Thus Yin and Yang cannot be separated but must be considered as whole. As such, there is undeniable wisdom in the saying, “It’s not all black or all white.”
Hence in the Eastern tradition, thinking is not linear and analytic. It’s more circular and holistic, giving rise to a more balanced perspective about work and life challenges.
In contrast, according to Fritjof Capra, the famous Austrian-born American physicist who wrote the best-selling book The Tao of Physics, Western culture favours “self-assertion over integration, analysis over synthesis, rational knowledge over intuitive wisdom, science over cooperation, expansion over conservation, and so on. This one-sided development has now reached a highly alarming stage; a crisis of social, ecological, moral and spiritual dimensions.”
I frequently wonder where AT&T Consumer Products will be today if its president had set this vision for the company, “A cordless phone in every home with crystal-clear sound quality at an affordable price.”
Diagram 4.3: The “what” vs the “how”
The above diagram quite aptly depicts the classic dilemma faced by managers around the world for the longest time—the long-standing struggle between results- and people-orientation. Enlightened companies now define “key talents” as people who are able to do both the “what” and the “how”.
By tuning into Lao Tzu’s theory, we may discover a way of having the best of both worlds, so to speak. With some imagination, we may envision this sage from ancient China saying this to the netizens of the 21st century:
“Whatever you do, approach it in a measured and balanced manner. Neither be purely results-oriented nor completely people-oriented. When a situation goes to its extreme, it is bound to turn around and be the other.
A good leader is one who delivers superior business results by bringing out the best in her people.”
— Lao Tzu
Many enlightened companies around the world these days expect no less from their managers.
♦ Results-orientation and people-orientation need not be mutually exclusive. Think about the principle of complementarity. You can unlock infinite options and possibilities for yourself at work and life by applying this principle.
♦ Today’s managers are expected to deliver superior results by bringing out the best in their people.
Q1: Look around you at the workplace. Do people tend to be more results-oriented or people-oriented? What impact do they have on people around them? What kind of leader is your boss?
Q2: Where do you place yourself now in Diagram 4.3? Where do you wish to be?