Premeditated Thought

Psychopathology of Our Bosses

The April 9, 2007 issue of New York magazine published Boss Science, a fun article by Steve Fishman studying "the psychopathology of the modern American corporate leader."  Fishman studies research that shows that the shows narcissists (also known as corporate climbers) are promoted more frequently than competent managers. 

Too frequently quick promotion does not correlate with high performance.  Fishman quotes research done by Fred Luthans at the University of Nebraska "What do successful managers - those who have been promoted relatively quickly - have in common with effective managers - those who have satisfied, committed subordinates and high performing units?" Luthans asks.  Surprisingly little is his answer.

Fishman associates narcissism with charisma.  People love charisma, he says, and they love to follow charismatic leaders.  Unfortunately for them, once promoted to a new position, the narcissist is quickly thinking about his next move.  Luthans quote one such climber: "I find that the way to get ahead around here is to be friendly with the right people... I find a common interest... and interact with them on that level.  The other formal stuff around the office is important, but I really work at this informal side and have found it pays off when promotion time rolls around." That anecdotal account may ignore some important roles played by the climber, such as network connector, but it probably rings true for many organizations.

Fishman the goes on to quote Robert Kaiser, one of the authors of "The Versatile Leader."  "Four scholarly studies have examined charisma.  Not a single one finds charisma and performance linked.  The only thing charisma correlates to is high salary."

But there is a competing point of view:

Simply put, you need a strong leader. The boss-as-guidance-counselor with nurturing instincts may be the rage, but a strong leader stirs the pot. Maccoby [ Michael Maccoby, author of The Productive Narcissist ], who has been writing about leadership for the better part of four decades, extols the virtues of the narcissist’s selfishness, ethical blindness, and lack of empathy as indispensable to being an agent of change in a large corporation—or the world. To move the cheese, a strong man is needed. The book is a paean to strong leadership of a kind that Leni Riefenstahl might have admired.

Andrew Grove, co-founder of Intel is quoted as encouraging confident blowhards: "'Act on your temporary conviction as if it was a real conviction,' he says, and when you change convictions, act sure of that one, too."

So who do you want to work for, the effective manager or the climber?  I have always thought there is a tension between wanting to work for a narcissistic leader and an effective manager.  The narcissist is likely to grab more power, more resources, and create more opportunities for their subordinates as climbs the ladder or expands his organization.  She or he will be maddening to work for, will make enemies, will be a poor mentor, and will leave a waste-pile of failed projects, but will help you be successful nevertheless.  You will just have to look elsewhere for coaching.

The effective manager, on the other hand, will run an admired organization and will treat employees respectfully and fairly.  You will receive better coaching from the effective manager, and will be a better professional for it.  But working under an effective manager rather than a climber may limit your opportunities.  And, in the end, if you yourself have the potential to be an effective manager at a higher level your organization, the climber may be better suited to give you that opportunity.

Mapping Your Site's Network

Ken Auletta, in the February 12, 2007 New Yorker, describes ubiquitous public relations man Howard Rubenstein (apparently the man doing the talking for the bland, mild George Steinbrenner of the past few years) as wielding power through a "special talent for bringing his clients together for their mutual benefit."  In Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point, Rubenstein would be described as the ultimate network connector.

This got me thinking about my worksite and my notion of site power, the collective power of a geographical location in a company.  In that blog posting, I separated traditional sources of individual power from collective sources of power.   I assumed that a site's network was just the sum (or the union, to get technical) of everyone's personal networks.

However, that does not seem to go far enough.  The posting identified information sharing as a vital determinant of site power.  So how should one go about maximizing site power given individual networks?  Here is what I am thinking of doing:

• Make a map of everyone's personal networks.
• Publish the map to maximize knowledge and use of the networks.
• Identify weak links in the map with limited access to key external power-brokers.
• Cultivate new relationships to strengthen these links.

Fear. Change. Or Else.

I started my final semester of my MBA today.  My last class - somewhat appropriately, I think - is  managing change, a required elective for the leadership specialization. 

For many students at the finance-heavy NYU Stern program, it is an odd sort of class.  The class started  with the professor warning there are wrong answers but no right answers.  How do students who would sooner calculate return on investment than create positive energy cope with such ambiguity?  (One of them has so failed to understand the basic lessons of management that he believed fear to be the best motivator.  I'm scared for our future.)

In my first semester at Stern, I was chosen to ask Jack Welch a question during a Stern guest lecture - well, more of a book promotion tour.  I asked him what MBA classes he wished he had taken.  His answer came easy: more management classes.  Corporate finance, strategy, accounting, this he could read about.  Management and leadership took him much longer to learn.  Cutting your teeth on the job is a high-risk strategy.  The interactive classroom is the perfect place to share your opinions, gauge others' reaction, and refine your "people" skills.

In our first class, fear seemed to rule the day.  A number of times the professor asked us "When are people ready to change?" The popular answer: "When you're fear of not changing is greater than the fear of embracing change."   This may be an appropriate answer when you are thinking about how to lead others through change, though it was somehow unsatisfying.  Too much negative emotion for me.

Change brings opportunity - when change occurs, some people lose power (influence, status, etc) and others gain power.  People who embrace change sooner are more likely to share in the spoils.   In a static environment, opportunity knocks only when people above you in the organization move on.  Career progress may be predictable, but it is slow.  So while change may bring stress, it may be your lucky break. 

Just say no to Wal-Mart Digital Distribution

This is old news, but today, when Wal-Mart is launching its digital download site, is a good day for a reminder of Wal-Mart's power and its insidious impact on freedom of expression.

As Hank Hoffman points out on MetroActive, "adulterated, censored" media proliferates in Wal-Mart stores.  Hoffman also details how Wal-Mart uses its power to censor what it does not condone.   Excuse me, but we don't need Wal-Mart dictating morality to America. 

Wal-Mart's penetration in media distribution is cause for alarm in a country that claims to believe in freedom of speech.  The larger they get, the more power they exert over content producers.  Every time you buy from Wal-Mart, you make them that much stronger.

If you think this is just about bleeping out the bad words, consider this from Hoffman's article:

The New York Times also identified creepier instances of corporate power being used to suppress ideas. Wal-Mart won't carry Sheryl Crow's new record because she chides the company for allegedly selling guns to children. The figures of Jesus and the Devil flanking John Mellencamp on the cover of his new record, Mr. Happy-Go-Lucky, are airbrushed out of the copies available at Wal-Mart. Mellancamp reportedly OK'd the change in the interest of record sales.

Turning on the Power at Con Edison

An MBA colleague - who has wasted too many precious moments of his life disagreeing with me - had this to say in response to my "Location is Destiny" posting about site power.

I’ve had a somewhat different experience based on working at Con Edison.  In short, Con Edison is known by what goes on in the street or “the field;” everyone relates to the white trucks and the guy in the hardhat.  Although you can run into the VP’s and the CEO’s in the elevator every now and then, it’s very difficult to make any name for yourself at Con Edison working at headquarters.  The successful people at Con Edison pay their dues in the field, away from headquarters.  Your theory is very much a function of the company that you work for.

No doubt true. But this is all about personal power.

But I realized I left a question unanswered.  If personal power means being able to get others to do what they want, how would I define site power?  Here is one possible definition:  A site has more power than another site if working in the site enables a person to exercise more personal power than they would be able to exercise in the other site.

Location is Destiny

As an east-coast software industry veteran working for companies based in other areas of the country (SCO, Novell, BEA Systems), I have often wondered how my career would have been different had I been at corporate headquarters.  But given my reluctance to relocate, I have settled on a different question: what determines an organizational site's power and influence?  Not everyone can be at corporate headquarters, but we would all like to work at a location that allows our career to prosper.

An individual's power is understood to come from several sources (French and Raven breaks it down to five sources, but sometimes it is summarized as below):

• Positional Power: Legitimate, coercive, and reward power lumped together.  Where you are in the organization, your control of resources, and the ability to reward and punish people.
• Expert Power: What you know and its importance to the organization.
• Referent Power: The power that results from personal characteristics.  This includes relational power, or your personal network.

Using this as a framework, is it possible to a site's power just by summing the power of all the people in the location?   Simply looking at a site as a collection of individuals discounts several key factors:

• Gravitational Power: How often do employees (especially senior management) travel to the site?  Gravitational Power would include sources of power not summarized by a sum of personal power, such as a location's physical location.  For example, it is better to be five miles from headquarters than a plane ride away.
• Structural Power: I would argue that the organizational structure within a site is important to its power.  It is better to have one large organization reporting into senior management than multiple organizations reporting into less senior management.
• Information Power: How much information a site collectively has and how well the site collectively shares this information.   Also, to what extent does the site utilize this collective information as feedback to other sources of power.

I would love to learn about formal studies of site power.  The sources of site power I've identified above are based on my observation of a limited set of companies at which I've worked.  I would love to hear your views on this subject.