• /
    • Archives / February 2012

Archives For February 2012

Are Great CEOs Always Great Leaders?

John Bell —  February 29, 2012

In my mind, the best CEOs are usually the ones who are in a race to the future – they’re obsessed with defining the future because they can’t stomach the thought of reacting to a future created by their competitors. During his era, Steve Jobs was miles ahead of every other forward thinking CEO in that race. Somehow he was able to see the unseen, and marshal Apple’s resources to deliver the innovative products that fulfilled his view of what lied ahead. In the process, Apple became the most valuable corporation on the face of the earth. That established Steve Jobs as the greatest CEO of our time. But was he the greatest leader of our time? Apple shareholders would surely say yes. Former subordinates, who suffered under his autocratic and abrasive style, might differ.

Theoretically, the principles and personal characteristics that constitute great leadership should mirror those of greats CEOs – but not always. Here’s why:

  1. By definition, the person who fails to deliver quantitative business results for the company he
    leads is not a great CEO     (of that company). That does not preclude the individual from being a great leader and a great CEO somewhere else. Reportedly, John Scully was the top of his class during his Pepsi years. Then he moved to Apple and failed miserably. Same leader, different result.
  2. Companies, markets, and the categories in which they compete can be exceedingly dissimilar. Fundamentally, the leadership style or the skillset required of a CEO in one environment may be the kiss of death in another. Is a “turnaround” artist right for a profitable, steady bureaucracy? Can a good “start-up” CEO guide a mature organization? Are shareholders looking for a builder or a banker?
  3. CEOs can exhibit some odd leadership characteristics and still get the job done. One has to wonder
    if Apple would have been as successful had Steve Jobs not been ruthless, impatient, emotional, stubborn, intense, and controlling.

On point number 3, I’m the first to admit that if I could go back, I would have done a few things differently during my years in the corner office. For starters, I would have injected more fun into a culture that was intensely competitive, but unnecessarily serious. Secondly, I treated everyone the same; at the time I justified my behavior as fair and equitable leadership. It was also “easy” leadership because I led without much regard to filtering the intensity of my personality. On reflection, I should have paid attention to the unique personalities of my management team and made some adaptations that would have allowed their business lives to be even more fulfilling.

In the final analysis, would these improvements in human resource strategy have made any difference to the company’s performance? The answer to that question is an unequivocal, “no”. On the other hand, these adaptations would not have hindered the result. The most important question a CEO must answer is still, “what should we do?” Once he or she has taken care of that, the next question is “how should we do it?” This is the question that affords the opportunity for a leader to provide satisfaction to his or her followers during the long journey to a purposeful destination.

In Leadership , ,
permalink

M: Motivation

David Burkus —  February 27, 2012

This post is the first in a series on motivation theory. Over the next few weeks, we’ll review the history of empirical thought on how to motivate followers.

Motivation is elusive. We struggle with the challenge of motivating ourselves to get out of bed and find a job. If and when we’ve found one, we try to remain motivated by something other than the weekend. Sure, there are a lucky few who are motivated just by the very nature of their work. But we more often write those people off as workaholics

or just plain nuts.

Those of us who are normal (or so we believe) figure that it’s the role of “management” to motivate us to work. That shifts the job of improving performance from the contributor to the supervisor, but it doesn’t make motivation any less complex.

Management hires silver-tongued speakers, hangs pretty posters and designs complicated “incentive compensation” bonus plans. Yet still something is missing. Few people rise, shower and drive to work because their utmost desire is to look at a picture of an eagle and read its pithy caption.

What is motivation? How do we motivate others?

These are the questions researchers have sought to answer for some time. They’ve made some great strides. They’ve created useful theories and models to explain motivation and improve performance.

Management just needs to find the motivation to learn them.

David Burkus is the editor of LDRLB. He speaks, consults and serves on the faculty of management at Oral Roberts University’s College of Business.

In Leadership , ,
permalink

Creative People Must Be Stopped: David Owens’ Framework for Innovation

David Burkus —  February 24, 2012

Most people claim they want more creativity in their organization. They claim to want big, innovative new ideas. But research reveals that, when faced with new ideas, most of us do whatever we can to kill it. In his new book, Creative People Must Be Stopped, Vanderbilt professor David Owens examines just why we feel the need to squash creativity.

He suggests that creativity killers come from six different potential constraints:

  • Individual – you actually don’t have a good idea
  • Group – your group doesn’t like the idea
  • Organizational – your organizational bureaucracy smothers the idea
  • Industry-wide – Competitors or customers kill the idea
  • Societal – cultural norms or regulations hinder the idea
  • Technological – current technology can’t leverage the idea

Within the framework of these six constraints, Owens outlines how we can determine what factors will be vital for the success of our potential innovations. He suggests that we look at these constraints as a path to innovation, for which steps must be taken in order and roadblocks removed until we can bring the idea to full implementation.

Equally useful is Owens’ Organizational Innovation Constraints Assessment, which can be found at the end of each chapter and on the book’s website. If you lead a company that is desperate for innovation or that kills creative ideas too often, then Creative People Must Be Stopped can help keep you from stopping your creative people.

In Innovation , , ,
permalink

Take the Creative Risk

David Burkus —  February 22, 2012

I just finished working on a PSA with Creative Oklahoma, an awesome non-profit dedicated to developing creativity and innovation in my home state. The film below considers the risks involved in letting people be creative but asserts that those risks are necessary if you’re trying to lead innovation.

[Can't See the Video? Watch It Here.]

David Burkus is the editor of LDRLB. He speaks, consults and serves on the faculty of management at Oral Roberts University’s College of Business.

In Innovation , , , ,
permalink

How Good Leaders Become Bad Bosses

David Burkus —  February 20, 2012

In his work on the perils of success, John O’Neil (1993) provides leaders with a handy way to follow their own progress on the path to burnout and entropy. He compares this path to an S-curve, where entropy begins near the top. As we move toward the top, we start to change the way we behave. Our days seem mindless, we experience more anxiety and our less likely to be growing and learning. In addition, we find ourselves in conflict more with our environment and peers. O’Neil argues that when we reach this top, we need to take a step back and observe our needs and ourselves.

Dan Ariely, a behavioral economist at Duke, offers an addendum to O’Neil: we don’t just need to step back to observe, we need to step back to avoid hurting ourselves and others. Ariely (2010) introduced the concept of “self-herding,” which is to say that humans make decisions about future behavior based on past behavior. Therefore, when we act out in anger in a situation we are more likely to behave the same way the next time we encounter that situation, whether angry or not.

I believe this is how well meaning leaders develop into terrible bosses. As the approach the tip of the S-curve, as burnout and entropy sneak in, they act out against their people. The next time they face a similar situation, whether rested or not, they may act the same way. Gradually, they turn toward this dark side.

O’Neil’s (1993) path to entropy becomes even more important if this is true. Leaders must develop awareness for when anxiety, conflict and burnout creep in. When this happens, the not only need to observe but they need to resist negative actions – as they may have lasting effect on themselves and their team.

Ariely, D. (2010) The upside of irrationality: The Unexpected Benefits of Defying Logic at Work and at Home. New York: Harper

O’Neil, J. R. (1993). The Paradox of Success: A Book of Renewal for Leaders. New York: Penguin Putnam Books.

David Burkus is the editor of LDRLB. He speaks, consults and serves on the faculty of management at Oral Roberts University’s College of Business.

In Leadership , , , , ,
permalink