LEADERSHIP
Monitoring and Managing Success : Avoiding the CEO `self-destruct' option
Failure to manage personal success can breed arrogance, disdain for others and plant the seeds for a CEO's ultimate failure. CEOs and senior executives are vulnerable to destroying themselves through excessive self-belief, misbehavior, `organizational delusion' and hubris. Senior executives dependent on colleagues for accurate and honest data may inadvertently promote working patterns which block the very feedback they need to survive and succeed. Illustrated by consulting experiences, this article brings out the susceptibility of senior executives for self-destruction. Four `lifelines' are proposed to help executives survive.
This article suggests that leadership failures are endemic in organizational life and that more attention should be given to monitoring how an executive uses the power and influence derived from his position as a leader. Drawing on case material from my work as an executive coach and advisor, this article illustrates how the self-serving behavior of leaders resulted in the failure of the job.
Whilst most executives may operate ethically, collegially and collaboratively, my business experience suggests that organizations are also peppered with individuals—at all levels within the hierarchy—who are determined to achieve their own selfish agendas, irrespective of the damage caused to others or to the organization at large.
Some failures of leadership arise because successful executives, who are perhaps driven by the need to maintain and enhance their reputation, decide to exploit their positions of trust if they believe they can get away with doing so (see Babiak & Hare, 2006; Hornstein, 1996; Wright and Smye, 1996). This possibility is increased because executives are able to use their position of leadership, and the privileged situations in which they find themselves, to justify what could otherwise be seen as immoral and ethical transgressions (Price, 2006). In other words, senior leaders exert a significant influence in defining what is, and what is not, acceptable business practice and so can be prone to do so to suit their personal aims and objectives. To summarize: Leaders are able to define the criteria by which they will be assessed as successful.
Given such a situation, it would seem inadvisable to believe everything the leader espouses because, as Kramer (2002) notes, "Contrary to expectations, colleagues and bosses may not have our well-being at heart. Indeed, many are often indifferent to us or see us as competitors." It should not be surprising to note that self-interest will most of the time influence the thinking and subsequent behavior of executives because, as Jackall (1988) suggests, "As a matter of survival, not to mention advancement, corporate managers have to keep their eye fixed not on the abstract principles but on the social framework of their world and its requirements." (1988:111). So the internal political world of the organization significantly influences who prospers, who fails, who gets the goodies and who gets the dross. And it is a world managed by the power elite of each organization.
It should be remembered that the holding of organizational power has the potential to corrupt - and a business culture that is founded on continually delivering short-term targets merely intensifies a leader's need to deliver success irrespective of how that is achieved. If the demands and rewards of success are too great it should surprise nobody that some executives will misuse their position to meet whatever success criteria has been demanded of them. As Lord Acton (1887) observed, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Given that business organizations are essentially political entities, the monitoring and management of an organization's power dynamics should be a matter of highest priority to limit the destructive force of such dynamics. My experience suggests that this rarely happens.
It follows that to succeed—or at least stay safe—those in lesser positions of power and influence will probably conform to the status quo even though they may consider some practices as a violation of ethical working. Indeed, the behavior of `followers' in all this should not be overlooked as they may be compliant in the deception by their leaders by feeding them false information and in the sanitization of presented data in order to advance their own aims and ambitions. (Gellman, 2008; Kellerman, 2008; McAlpine, 1998)
Just how much havoc can be caused by exploitative and dishonest leaders and followers has become painfully apparent in recent times following the Enron, Arthur Anderson et. al., debacles, and the crises of confidence during 2008 and 2009 in the world's financial services systems (Mason, 2009). So, far from being unfailingly well-intentioned, ethical, prudent, unemotional and honest, leaders will not necessarily be `a good thing' nor will followers be as true and loyal as they may present themselves to be!
Caution about the misuse of power though is nothing new and has been researched and commented upon for decades (Conger, 1990; Kets de Vries, 1979; Whicker, 1996; Zaleznik, 1963, 1970 amongst others). Yet, in spite of the attention such matters are now receiving (such as from Kellerman, 2004, 2008; Lipman-Blumen, 2005; Kets de Vries, 2001; Offerman, 2004; Walton, 2005) it is intriguing to wonder why so little attention was given to monitoring and policing more carefully senior executive behavior until meltdowns, such as Enron hit the news.
Indeed it is a sobering thought that such high-profile cases are likely to be but the tip of an iceberg of endemic pervasive corporate misbehavior (Walton, 2005, 2007) and to illustrate this at local level, three examples of leadership failure are outlined below. Whilst they have no global significance, they were profoundly disabling to those affected and adversely affected the effective functioning of the organizations involved. Similar cases are probably being repeated many times over in a wide range of organizational settings even as this article is being read.
The three cases are drawn from my portfolio of work as an external advisor and describe different types of dysfunctional executive behavior. My hypothesis is that similar cases of executive mismanagement and excess are likely to be the norm within the business world and thus more attention is needed to:
Following these case descriptions some suggestions are proposed to guard against such self-destructive tendencies taking hold.
Examples of Executive Derailment
The details of each case have been disguised for reasons of confidentiality. Each has been selected to illustrate a different type of dysfunctional senior executive behavior. In each case my role was as an external advisor working with the CEO/Director in facilitating organizational change. In each case, the derailment features of the executive's behavior slowly emerged but came to adversely dominate each organization's ways of functioning. Considerable harm was inflicted, some of which was unintentional and some of it grossly uncaring and exploitative.
The top executive in each of these examples has been given a descriptive title to reflect what seemed to be the primary feature underpinning their unhelpful behavior. (Refer Table 1)
In each case the CEO crashed and exited. Each had a track record of success and was bright, able and experienced. The senior executives in cases 1 and 2 could be described as somewhat self-promoting, narcissistic and particularly `image and status conscious'; whereas the CEO in case 3 was more self-denying and reclusive. All three held high views of their own abilities and competence - and each was used to having their way either through force of character or through force of analysis. They found it difficult—unfamiliar even—to cope and adapt when their initiatives were challenged or thwarted - or when they couldn't find the answer (Walton, 2007, 2008).
The drive for power, supremacy, conquests and status can be expected to be prominent in many successful executives. In `The Gamesman' Michael Maccoby (1976) illustrates how the challenge of competitive activity can take over and lead to executives resorting to stealth and politicising to secure advancement. Pfeiffer & Sutton observe how the mere act of stepping into a powerful position can transform them, (i.e., executives) from wise, successful leaders into stubborn, dumb, and evidence-resistant jerks (2006:227). This was certainly the case with the `Mean Machine' and `Macho Man' but not at all with the `Analytical Thinker' - who was the most unselfish and diligent of the three. A scientist by profession, facts, figures and logic were both his strength and the source of his derailment which became increasingly apparent when confronted by levels of complexity that he could not resolve through linear thinking.
One of the concomitant dangers of status and power is that it can lead to hubris, overconfidence, complacency and an exaggeration of personal strengths - features of leadership dysfunction which Maccoby (2000) and Hayward (2007) highlight and which can blind a leader to the reality of what is actually happening around them. Such `delusions' were the prime bases for the leadership failures in the first two cases outlined above. Furthermore, these two top executives came to be feared, resented—even hated by some—and seriously damaged the organizations they led, by their self-serving arrogant actions.
Case three however—the `Analytical Thinker—was an altogether different case as failure here came through analysis paralysis and too fixated a belief that there was `an' answer to the complex issues being faced and that it could be found if only enough analysis could be computed! This was an example of too unswerving and unselfish a desire, to do the `right' thing and find the `right' answer but a behavior which ultimately led the organization into a mire of confusion and a tangle of inaction as the CEO was shunted into retirement.
Although there were significant differences in how each of these executives exercised their responsibilities, each wanted—needed even—to prevail and be seen as the star player in their respective organizations. They were difficult to influence, they generated win-lose dynamics and led increasingly fragmented and `disturbed' organizations. Personal insight into the disharmony they were creating varied from disbelief and sincere regret to total disdain. Sadly, in all three cases, colleagues who were brave enough to challenge their pronouncements or draw attention to organizational problems were penalized, excluded, ridiculed or `moved on'.
Whilst the experience of working with these executives was very different there were significant differences and similarities between them (Refer Table 2). What is interesting is how a failure of leadership may occur through too high as well as too low-levels of self-belief, drives for achievement, narcissism and misplaced charisma.
Whilst each wanted to `win' and remain successful, how they went about this varied as Table 2 indicates. Image and `impression management' were important preoccupations in cases 1 and 2 but such matters were of no interest in case 3 whatsoever where that CEO was more concerned with quiet, unassuming analytic thought. Cases 1 and 2 were also self-promoting and attention seeking whereas case 3 was more reclusive and retiring even though all three occupied prominent roles. Perhaps the most salient difference is the balance each struck between people dynamics and data-based leadership.
But what about the internal power structure? As competent, accomplished individuals as senior executives—at the top end of the organizational hierarchy—expect to prevail in discussions and debates about requisite action. Consequently, it should be expected that some executives will resent it when their views are challenged, blocked or denied. This may cause a petulant executive to disregard the opinions of others out of hand or even penalize those who challenge their views. Such reactions are particularly likely if the executive has fallen into what Culbert and Ullmen (2001) describe as the `Hierarchy Trap'. Their hypothesis is that whilst it is necessary for business decision making to have in place a hierarchy of roles, if that same hierarchy is applied to relationships it will inevitably create `…a negative dominance/subordination dynamic that works against an organization accomplishing its goals.'
The behavior of the executives in the first two cases would suggest that they had indeed fallen into the `Hierarchy Trap' and had used the role hierarchy to determine the worth of the people around them. Consequently, valuable insights and relevant contributions from colleagues lower down the hierarchy were discounted or dismissed if the views they held conflicted with those of colleagues positioned higher up the hierarchy. As predicted by Culbert and Ullmen (2001), this resulted in a behavior (as in cases 1 and 2) which was `…dominated by top-down, power differentiated thinking …' the higher up the hierarchy you are the more valid your opinion was seen to be, irrespective of the issue under discussion! In the third case evidence of the `Hierarchy Trap' was far less apparent as decisions in that organization were usually based more on the quality of the reasoned analysis presented than solely positions of seniority.
The careful management of personal and positional power remains a vital dimension when examining the bases for executive success and failure. Occupying a position of power and authority is no defence against failure and, paradoxically, an executive's failure to manage success prudently can lead to his ultimate downfall.
Staying Safe - Avoiding a Slide to Failure
The cases described earlier illustrates how three successful executives failed not because of incompetence or lack of ability, but because of how they used their power and influence. In two of the examples, the executives misused their authority and influence for personal gain, while in the third example, the executive became so focused on his solving an industry problem that he inadvertently pushed other contributors aside, became increasingly isolated, lost the plot and was shunted out. Whilst other examples could have been presented—with different underlying derailment factors—the purpose of these cases was to illustrate how, at a local level, even successful senior executives can easily fall from power, if they don't manage their success with prudence and care. So how can senior executives:
Whilst such questions are difficult to examine, doing so is vital in order to lessen the number of executives derailing and failing to achieve their full potential. Whilst there are no ready answers to such questions, four sets of considerations are suggested below which, if addressed, can reduce the likelihood of executive derailment and the emergence of toxic leadership behavior. These four `lifelines' can help an executive rebalance his approach to business life and also remind him of the pitfalls of corporate business and the seductive pressures of life as an executive (Drucker, 1999; Price 2008).
Four `Lifelines'
Prompts such as these can help executives remain alert to what is going on around them and can be helpful in resisting some of the derailment pressures inherent in the role of a senior executive. These four `lifelines' can be used as a way of identifying the varying pressures and demands experienced by busy executives at work. Finding a way of integrating and balancing these can help an executive `stay safe' and become less susceptible to the `self-destruct' option.
Conclusion
Senior executives are successful and influential people with considerable organizational power to influence and shape the course of events and determine the success or failure of those around them.
Although executives remain as susceptible to manipulation as others, they are more vulnerable to flattery and believing in their own publicity. Critically, a failure to manage their own personal success can breed arrogance, disdain for others and plant the seeds of ultimate failure.
No comments:
Post a Comment