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.
Ahhh…the Dark Side.
This burnout creep and response of anger is scary when it happens. And even worse when it happens to Great Managerial-Leaders who are reaching the top of the S curve.
I wonder if this would be where a ‘kitchen cabinet’ / trusted group of friend to coach and mentor would be useful.
Often I speak of this behavior as (-T) negative temperament. That a person must have a normative value of behavior that is not deleterious to them being effective in their role.
I’m not sure about the kitchen cabinet. I think a trusted friend who knows your patterns and when you’re about to act out negatively and stops you. Sounds like a good idea. Thanks for the comment.
While I agree that it’s a good, even necessary, idea for leaders reaching the top of the S-curve to seek feedback, I’m not sure friends would be the best source. My experience is that leaders do best when those who provide such feedback are not emotionally involved. It is this ‘one step removed’ professional that often has the objectivity required to provide the feedback that needs to be delivered. Friends are amazing sources of many things, but objective, critical feedback on one’s work performance is sometimes both uncomfortable and beyond their scope of expertise. I do think a friend’s ‘take’ could be a good place to start but the real meat is more likely come from a more objective source.
That’s a great point Doug. Perhaps even better if the third party is being paid to give such advice. For some reason, we always receive that better than the advice of friends. Thanks for the comment.
Another aspect of this story is the leadership propensity that some possess or lack. I wrote an article about how some talented individual contributors (leaders without “assigned” followers) fail in their attempts to replicate their success in others (http://bit.ly/wvyAOk), and my doctoral research explored the congruent competencies of leaders who ascended from individual contributor roles.
That said, leaders are people who have commanding authority or influence (or both). Once could surmise that your article is another view on how some are good at leading, but not so good at managing. Great read…
The individual contributor/leader gap is a big one. Thanks and Welcome Tony.
It would seem one would be wisewise to always stay in the day to day of their organization even if it is just in key areas. This would seem to keep the leader focused, sharp, and keenly aware of whether the organization is experiencing mission drift. This simple decision to discipline oneself toward day to day activities will help ensure the leader nor her followers lose sight of the core strategic objectives of the organization.
True. However the real temptation might be being in the day to day without insisting on making every little decision. Not only is that bad for followers, but it can lead to burnout even quicker. Thanks for the comment Blake.