Forster N. - Maximum performance (2005)(en)

20 MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE

is able to fight for a small seedling company. They are able to recruit and develop the best kind of set-up team possible and are very good at obtaining venture capital and investment. They are good at networking and, as a result, are often very good at recruiting skilled staff from other companies to join them in achieving their new dream or vision (for example, Bill Gates poaching younger computing staff from IBM and Rank-Xerox in the late 1970s and early 1980s).

Letting go of the reins

Moving from a small entrepreneurial operation to a medium-sized company, the kind of leader/manager required here is someone who can adopt a more ‘hands-off’ leadership style by delegating more responsibilities to other people. They have to be able to ‘let go of the ball’ and act more as an overall driver and coordinator of the people who have been brought into manage an increasingly complex and departmentalized organization.

Good housekeeping

Different leadership and management skills are required when an organization is maturing and when the primary need is for it to be run efficiently and economically. This involves skills such as strategic acumen, business planning, delegation of responsibilities, cost control, continuous improvement and quality initiatives, the ability to develop effective cross-organizational human resource (HR) policies and, perhaps, a global commercial mind-set.

Squeezing the pips

When an organization nears the end of its life cycle someone who can get the best out of what is left is required. The leader/manager in this type of situation has to be very tough in order to sort out the problems that have brought the company to this situation. He or she also has to be visionary because, if the company is to survive, this person must then be able to champion the need for radical organizational change and renewal.

In practical terms, this means that leaders have to develop a chameleonlike quality. This allows them to develop a flexible leadership/ management style that can be adapted to each new situation they find themselves in and, equally importantly, one that takes into account the

aspirations and expectations of their followers. This does not mean that they simply abandon core leadership attributes and behaviours in response to each new circumstance they find themselves in, but all leaders entering an organization for the first time have to possess a keen ‘radar’ that allows them to get a feel for the culture and climate that exists there, and an ability to modify their leadership style when appropriate. We will review this capability in Chapter 3 and Chapter 8.

Other perspectives on the contingent nature of leadership and people management have emerged in the last 20 years. These include implicit leadership and social exchange theories and the idea of followership. Implicit leadership theory suggests that the idea of leadership as being something that is ‘done to’ people is flawed. This is because we all come into organizations with largely unconscious sets of values, beliefs, prejudices and assumptions about many things – politics, cultural identity, human nature, human motivation and so forth. And, as part of this baggage, we all carry in our minds a mental picture of what an effective leader ‘is’. These ideas about ‘appropriate’ traits and behaviours can have a significant effect on the way we respond to different leaders and how we lead and manage others. We can see how this happens if we reflect for a moment on the origins of our ideas and beliefs about leadership (Table 1.1).

Table 1.1 The origins of our ideas and beliefs about leadership

From our mothers and fathers and the way they raise us during childhood From our interactions with siblings and peers, and our experiences at school From the stories, legends and myths we hear while growing up

From our work and career experiences, by observing leaders and being led From personal experience, and through trial and error

From active self-reflection about our leadership beliefs and practices From studying leadership and leaders

From formal instruction and education

There are four conclusions that can be drawn from this. First, we are all exposed to a unique set of influences that shape our perceptions of leadership. How our parents raise us as children can have a profound influence on how we lead and manage people as adults; as can our interactions with our siblings and peer groups at school.

Second, we do not create these implicit leadership constructs in any conscious sense, because our brains automatically and selectively screen the information we receive from our environments as we are growing up (see Chapter 9 for some examples of this). This is how a normal

22 MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE

mind works. Without this automatic filtering process, we could not function in any meaningful sense, because only a pathological mind can see the world unfiltered through prior knowledge.

Third, these selective perceptions operate almost entirely at an unconscious level. That is, we rarely think consciously about our perceptions or practice of leadership/management unless others challenge these (by, for example, refusing to do what we ask them), or unless they are systematically evaluated through the use of 360° feedback techniques, or in performance appraisals or by actively reflecting on what we do as leaders and how we do this.

Fourth, it would appear that the least effective way of becoming a better leader/manager is to read about it and/or from formal instruction and training – unless we use these to reflect actively on our current practices and apply new insights and knowledge we may have acquired when back at work.

The natural consequence of these processes, for almost everyone, is a partial and selective view about what constitutes effective leadership. These pre-existing constructs also influence the way that people pigeonhole others into ‘leader’ or ‘non-leader’ categories. In practice, this means that leaders may believe that they are acting effectively, but if their behaviours do not correspond with the selective constructs that their followers have about appropriate leader behaviour, then these leaders will be ignored and their employees will try to find ways to get on with their work without them. This is an important insight because, if we find ourselves in new work situations, or join an organization with a different culture to one we have been used to working in, our leadership/management style may be viewed as being inappropriate by a new group of followers. This may also have an effect on how employees may react to leaders who do not fit into pre-existing stereotypes they may have about a leader; for example, following the arrival of a new woman boss in a male-dominated profession (issues we will return to in Chapters 6 and 8).

Another direct consequence of selective perceptions about other people is that leaders may also have a tendency to separate their followers into distinct groups, an in-group of people they instinctively like, and an out-group of people they like less. Many leaders do this and, for the most part, without thinking consciously about it. The consequence of this separation of subordinates into favourites and non-favourites is that each group is treated differently, with the inner group being allowed more latitude in behaviour and much closer relationships with the leader. Being in the in-group also leads to higher

motivation and performance and greater loyalty to the organization (Wayne et al., 1997). However, there are many obvious dangers with this. There may be a tendency only to hire people who are ‘like us’, leading to the emergence of a management team of sycophantic ‘yes’ men and women and, over time, to widespread organizational sclerosis and nepotism. This is a common failing of political leaders. Examples of this include Adolf Hitler during World War II, or Margaret Thatcher’s creation of an inner cabinet of close personal advisers whom she considered to be ‘one of us’, before she was ruthlessly ousted from office in 1990, having lost touch with her backbenchers in the Conservative Party (described later in this chapter). This phenomenon can also be found in business organizations, when leaders of organizations become inward looking and complacent, surrounded by obsequious acolytes. Think, for example, of the selfsatisfied complacency of the entire American automotive industry in the 1960s and early 1970s about the threat posed by Japanese car companies, or IBM’s initial dismissive reaction to the emergence of the PC in the mid-to-late 1970s. Another example is the international mining and resource company BHP-Billiton, which was described as having an ‘out-dated, inward looking and clannish senior management culture’, by the Australian Financial Review in the fall of 1998, just before John Prescott was ousted from the CEO position, and the American Paul Anderson was brought in to sort the company out (and in the process, create a younger and more diverse group of senior managers). Similar phenomena were also observed among the senior management echelons of many companies that have collapsed in recent years, such as Enron and Worldcom.

As an adjunct to this idea, Social Exchange theory views leadership as a two-way process in which both parties trade benefits. It also shows that subordinates can have a profound influence on the behaviour and performance of leaders. Peter Drucker once observed, with his customary clarity, that the only true definition of a leader is ‘Someone who has followers’. This is something that can be easily forgotten when we create long shopping lists of the skills and qualities of ‘great leaders’ and ‘charismatic CEOs’. In this two-way relationship, the leader helps subordinates achieve valued rewards by directing them toward goals desired by the organization. In return, subordinates help the leader by performing well and, the better subordinates perform, the better their leaders will perform. In this symbiotic relationship, the leader becomes a servant to all of their followers, not a directive boss with an in-group of favourites. This is not a new idea. It was first articulated by Mahatma Gandhi, as part of his philosophy of non-violent protest in the 1930s and 1940s against British imperial rule in India.

24 MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE

This approach to leadership emphasizes that leaders have a responsibility, not just to lead and direct, but also to provide teaching, development, coaching, mentoring, guidance and feedback, so that their people can perform to the best of their abilities and realize their full potential. The most effective leaders are very aware of the simple but powerful idea that effective leadership, like communication, is a twoway process. In the context of Steve Waugh’s captaincy of the Australian cricket team, described earlier in this chapter, there is no doubt that his success was due in part to the quality of the players he had at his disposal, as well as the consistently successful performances he was able to get out of them. It is unlikely that he would have been regarded as such a successful leader if he had been captain of any of the other test-playing teams of the late 1990s and early 2000s. As General Douglas MacArthur, Allied Commander in the Pacific region during World War II, once commented, ‘A general is just as good – or just as bad – as the officers and troops under his command.’

Before reading the next paragraph, can you guess to which American president this quotation refers?

He knew that true leadership is often realised by exerting quiet and subtle influence on a day to day basis, by frequently seeing followers and other people face to face. He treated everyone with the same courtesy and respect, whether they were kings or commoners. He lifted people out of their everyday selves and into a higher level of performance, achievement and awareness. He obtained extraordinary results from ordinary people by instilling purpose in their endeavours. He was civil, open, tolerant and fair and he maintained a respect for the dignity of all people at all times.

(Norton, 2002: 12)

The answer is Abraham Lincoln, but notice how modern this description of his leadership style sounds. There are clear parallels between this and the leadership style of Steve Waugh, and business leaders like Andy Grove (Intel), Akio Morita (co-founder of Sony), Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard, and Alfred Sloan (General Motors). Many successful business leaders have regarded themselves as primus inter pares – first amongst equals – and they understand that true leadership is, by necessity, a two-way process of mutual influence and causation with their followers. It is not about ‘telling people what to do’ (Forster, 2000b). To conclude this section, here are some more examples of the leader-as-servant philosophy in action:

What is a leader? To me, the concept of leadership is very straightforward. A leader is the servant of the organization. It’s as simple as that.

(Paul Anderson, former CEO of BHP-Billiton, 2001)

Because leadership is an action, not a position or title, managers need to learn when to lead and when to follow. If you try to lead all day, every day

26 MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE

very good care of our clients in what can be a dangerous environment. The third thing would be some signs of professionalism in how they deal with the public. The fourth thing would be a capacity to learn, because we get enough technically good skiers applying for these jobs every year, who can’t teach skiing to save their lives. And so, the fifth thing would be actual skiing ability because, while we expect a minimum standard, that is by far the easiest thing to teach.

While there are obvious differences between business and sporting organizations, this quote suggests that there are parallels between effective leadership in both environments, and many of the skills that are utilized in sports settings can also be applied in organizational contexts. Leader-coaches in sporting environments have to establish objectives for their teams, athletes or clients to work towards. They have to jointly agree collective and individual goals with them, and then find the best methods of achieving these. Effective coaches have to understand what individuals need, develop their talents, set appropriate goals, give appropriate feedback and reward their athletes/ clients accordingly. Coaches have to form strong bonds with their followers, and be trusted and respected. They must lead by example, walk the talk, and be excellent communicators. Last, coaches are rewarded on concrete results not promises and, if they don’t deliver, they will soon find themselves out of work (Forster, 1994a, 1994b, 1995a, 1995b, 1995c, 1995d; Carron, 1984; Smith, 1979).

Leaders in sporting and organizational contexts have to understand broadly similar concepts and questions; in particular, ‘What makes this person or group of people tick and how am I going to get the best possible performance out of him/her/them?’ In recent times, some of the world’s leading companies, such as ABB, Coca-Cola, Microsoft, Intel and Hewlett-Packard, have all embraced the concept of ‘the leader as coach’. The value of sporting and coaching analogies to leadership and people management in organizations is also reflected in the growing number of books that have bridged these parallel worlds. An increasing number of sports psychologists are also being headhunted into the corporate world, where their ability to teach goal-setting skills, how to cope with pressure and manage emotions are becoming highly valued (Maguire, 2002).3

Of equal relevance to leaders has been the rapid growth in personal ‘peak-performance coaching’ in recent times. Taking their cue from 30 years’ development of this method in many sporting environments, a number of consulting and corporate training businesses have begun to offer intensive workshops that embrace a complete range of personal health and fitness issues. Examples of these include LGE Performance Systems in the USA and WAMCG in Western Australia. These

companies run courses that cover issues such as developing a clear sense of individual purpose, physical strength, emotional intelligence and mental energy, as well as how to interpret and respond to feedback about their leadership styles in questionnaires completed by work colleagues and subordinates. The purpose of this coaching is to create business leaders who are more self-aware, energized, focused and determined, as well as being physically and psychologically balanced. In turn, this produces leaders who are able to coach and develop their employees to perform at higher levels (see Chapter 4). Lou Schneider, a managing director at Salomon Brothers in the USA, maintains that this ‘corporate athlete’ philosophy has transformed hundreds of people at the company for the better, with across-the-board improvements in their physical health, emotional well-being and job performance, their ability to cope with stress, and in helping them to balance their busy work and home lives (Gemignani, 1998: 40).

Transformational, charismatic and visionary leadership

Up to this point, we have been looking at approaches to leadership that have been described as ‘transactional’. These regard the leader–follower relationship in terms of a formal exchange that is largely instrumental, task-focused and reward-based. However, transformational leaders seek something much more than mere obedience and compliance from their followers. Transformational leaders want to change their followers’ beliefs, values and attitudes in order to get superior levels of performance and achievement out of them. Sometimes described as ‘Super-Bosses’, they are perceived to lead by virtue of their ability to inspire devotion and extraordinary effort from their followers. An example that is often cited of this kind of boss is the legendary Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric, voted ‘Business Man of the 20th Century’ by Fortune magazine in December 2001.

These individuals are driven, often from an early age, by a very strong need for achievement and success. They are self-confident and believe that they can truly make a difference to the world. As a result, they may sometimes come across as domineering characters who do not suffer fools gladly. They are often hyperactive, appear to need little sleep and are capable of dealing with many tasks at the same time – characteristics shared by some political leaders, such as Winston Churchill. They can be exhausting bosses to work for, because they expect similarly high levels of motivation and performance from their followers. Above all else, they understand what power is about and,

28 MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE

whether they are benevolent or malevolent leaders, they understand something about human behaviour and how to motivate or, if required, manipulate people to do their bidding. They are often regarded as good communicators and storytellers. Transformational leaders are also able to adapt their leadership styles, depending on the circumstances, particularly when they are brought in as trouble shooters to sort out an organization in crisis.

Another characteristic noted earlier in this chapter is their special ability to ride the white-waters of change. This transformational mind-set is absolutely essential these days. When we unpack this ability, we discover that it is actually a combination of a number of skills, including the ability to think long-term, the ability to create visions, effective two-way communication skills, the ability to link strategies with opportunities and, increasingly, systemic and lateral thinking (described in Chapters 3, 8 and 11). Transformational business leaders embrace change with enthusiasm and believe that change is good and inevitable. They have the ability to create an impetus for change and recognize that change must be proactive rather than reactive. For example, Don Argus, the former American CEO of the National Australia Bank was fond of saying that, ideally, you don’t change when you have to – you must continue changing when you don’t have to. This belief echoes an old American saying, used by many US presidents, including Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton, that ‘The time to mend the roof is when the sun is shining.’

Transformational leaders are sometimes perceived to be larger than life and to possess hypnotic, magical, heroic or charismatic qualities (from the ancient Greek word, charisma, meaning ‘gift of grace’). Such individuals, by the sheer force of their personalities, are regarded as being capable of having profound and extraordinary effects on their followers. People may identify with charismatic leaders, and follow them willingly, because they are perceived to have an allure or magnetism that transcends normal human experiences. When asked, most people can recall being in the presence of charismatic or larger than life personalities at some point during their lives. This archetype of the powerful and magical super-leader has been prevalent throughout human history, and it still pervades the business cultures of many countries. Nevertheless, there are several reasons why charisma is probably the single most misunderstood and overrated capability that leaders are supposed to possess.

First, charisma is often something that is in the eye of the beholder: what appears to be charismatic to one person does not appear to be so to another. Second, charisma is often regarded as being innate, a

special quality that a few people are born with. How can this be, when there is no gene, or DNA cluster, that is responsible for creating a charismatic personality? Third, charisma comes and goes. It is always ephemeral and rarely lasts for long. If it is an innate part of a person’s psychology, this is not possible. It would be as if one’s personality changed from being extroverted to introverted within a very short period of time. Fourth, all the historical evidence we have shows that charisma can be created by historical circumstances; that is, the situation can create the apparently charismatic leader as much as the supposedly unique individual creates the situation (for example, Adolf Hitler in the 1930s or his evil ‘twin’, Joseph Stalin, during a 30-year reign of terror in the former Soviet Union). Fifth, leaders invariably come to be perceived as charismatic after they have reached positions of power, indicating that a cult of personality can be created and manipulated through media exploitation and propaganda, and the judicious use of the physical trappings and patronage that accompany power. Stalin was a seething, paranoid and introverted man when he grabbed power in Russia in the early 1920s. By the early 1930s, he had become the larger-than-life and charismatic ‘father’ of the USSR. Sixth, in some cultures the concept of charisma does not exist. In Japan, for example, leadership is often regarded as largely symbolic and charisma is an extremely rare phenomenon.

Seventh, several studies on leadership effectiveness have suggested that those who are seen as charismatic are simply more animated and expressive, when compared to people who are perceived to lack this quality (for example, Bryman, 1992; Bass, 1985; Friedman et al., 1980). Hence, what appears to differentiate perceptions of these two types of leader are the verbal and non-verbal communications skills they exhibit when in public. Those perceived to be charismatic are more enthusiastic, speak faster, smile and laugh more often, listen actively, pronounce words more clearly, and are more animated and energetic in their physical movements and gestures. They are also more likely to touch other people during greetings and conversations. So what we often call charisma may be better understood as the ability to communicate in a visceral and connective way with others, verbally and non-verbally (a suggestion we will return to in Chapter 3). Eighth, and this reinforces the last point, it has been possible for several years to get leadership coaching in ‘charismatic behaviours’, which covers the development of selfconfidence, maintaining a positive outlook, enhancing one’s emotional intelligence, improving deportment, body language and dress style, and improving communication, media and public speaking skills.

The ninth and perhaps most powerful criticism of the myth of charisma in a business context can be found in the work of Jim Collins