Bill Taylor’s recent post on Steve Jobs and leadership, “Decoding Steve Jobs: Trust the Art, Not the Artist,” is a must read for emerging leaders or those who aspire to lead.  Taylor discusses how Jobs clings to the Great Man Theory of leadership which works well for him as an unusual skilled leader creatively, but fails miserably for others who try to implement it.

From the blog:

“So In terms of the impact his products have had on the world, Steve Jobs represents the face of business at its best. And yet, in terms of his approach to leadership, Jobs represents the face of business — well, if not at its worst, then certainly not as something worth emulating. It’s not so much the secrecy about his liver transplant or the controversies over backdated stock options. Those are matters of corporate governance and investor relations, which, while important, aren’t all that urgent. To me, the issue is more Jobs’s approach to leadership itself — which, despite the compelling and cutting-edge quality of his products, is strangely unappetizing and often downright retro.”

The author further generalizes:

“. . . The best leaders I know don’t want the job of thinking for everybody else. They understand that if they can tap the hidden genius inside the organization, and the collective genius outside the organization, they will create ideas that will be much more powerful than what even the smartest individual leader could ever come up with on his or her own . . . “

I couldn’t agree more.  While there are a few very successful leaders who can pull off the smartest guy in the room thing [count ‘em on one hand kinda numbers], most great leaders don’t and can’t lead this way.  Replicating Jobs’ tirades, my-rules-are-the-only-rules attitude and overall hubris would destroy most leaders and would doom almost any person trying to establish a leadership role to a crash-and-burn type failure.

Don’t get me wrong.  None of this is meant to take anything away from Jobs as a leader himself – he’s proven to be a successful leader on many levels.  It’s merely to point out that trying to copy his leadership techniques will likely end in failure.  Your odds are much better when you use the capabilities of those around you and share the credit wisely.  Humility is an incredible leadership tool and is very easy to use if you keep your ego from getting in the way. 

Read the article.  Its author does a much better job telling this story.

I recently finished reading Walter Isaacson’s terrific biography of Benjamin Franklin.  Having read his superb biography of Albert Einstein a couple of months ago, I was anxious to see how he applied his craft to other great people in history.  I’m not disappointed (although I like the Einstein biography a bit more).

In the book, Isaacson refers to Franklin’s autobiography frequently.  So, I decided to check it out as well (full text available online here).  It offers an incredible peak into the ideas and actions of one of the most thoughtful and introspective thinkers in history.  Franklin was always working to improve himself and, as such, used his amazing powers of observation to study social interaction.  In addition to describing these in several of his other writings, he detailed many of them in his autobiography.

Outwardly, he was interested in understanding how people think and react, but inwardly, one gets a sense that he had a strong desire to learn how to lead and, perhaps, even to manipulate people.

Of course, a fundamental arrow in every leader’s quiver is the ability to listen and be listened to.  Further, by understanding another’s position, to be able to then convince them to come around to your way of thinking.  Even better if you can get them to represent your thinking as if it was theirs from the very beginning.  This is one of the fundamentals of strong leadership.

Being the overbearing sort, Franklin thought long and hard about this challenge and how he needed to change to receive a “readier reception and less contradiction” to his opinions.  That is, how to be more humble and less obviously proud.  Here were his conclusions (the numbers in the square brackets are mine so that I can more easily refer to the text in the rest of this post).

My list of virtues continued at first but twelve; but a Quaker friend having kindly informed me that I was generally thought proud, that my pride showed itself frequently in conversation, that I was not content with being in the right when discussing any point, but was overbearing and rather insolent, of which he convinced me by mentioning several instances, I determined endeavoring to cure myself, if I could, of this vice or folly among the rest, and I added Humility to my list, giving an extensive meaning to the word.

I cannot boast of much success in acquiring the reality of this virtue, but I had a good deal with regard to the appearance of it[1]. I made it a rule to forbear all direct contradiction to the sentiments of others, and all positive assertion of my own [2]. I even forbid myself, agreeably to the old laws of our Junto, the use of every word or expression in the language that imported a fixed opinion, such as certainly, undoubtedly, etc., and I adopted, instead of them, I conceive, I apprehend, or I imagine a thing to be so or so, or it so appears to me at present [3]. When another asserted something that I thought an error, I denied myself the pleasure of contradicting him abruptly and of showing immediately some absurdity in his proposition; and in answering, I began by observing that in certain cases or circumstances his opinion would be right, but in the present case there appeared or seemed to me some difference, etc [4]. I soon found the advantage of this charge in my manner; the conversations I engaged in went on more pleasantly.

The modest way in which I proposed my opinions procured them a readier reception and less contradiction; I had less mortification when I was found to be in the wrong, and I more easily prevailed with others to give up their mistakes and join with me when I happened to be in the right [5].”

– Benjamin Franklin from his autobiography

Here’s what I take from this excerpt from his autobiography (the numbers in the list below refer to the corresponding numbers in brackets in the text):

1. “I cannot boast of much success in acquiring the reality of this virtue, but I had a good deal with regard to the appearance of it.”  Meaning, that it’s great if you are actually humble, but if you’re not, it’s important that you at least act this way.
2. “I made it a rule to forbear all direct contradiction to the sentiments of others, and all positive assertion of my own.”  This is, perhaps, the most important point for a leader during brainstorming or in a group discussion – let all ideas fly; don’t shoot them down if you disagree (there’s plenty of time for that later); and don’t place your own ideas over those of others.  Doing so will end any real contribution from others and will eventually prevent others from even wanting to contribute at all.
3. “I even forbid myself, agreeably to the old laws of our Junto, the use of every word or expression in the language that imported a fixed opinion, such as certainly, undoubtedly, etc., and I adopted, instead of them, I conceive, I apprehend, or I imagine a thing to be so or so, or it so appears to me at present.”  A follow-up from point 2.  Select your words wisely, they send subtle messages about whether you are really open to the opinions of others.
4. “I began by observing that in certain cases or circumstances his opinion would be right, but in the present case there appeared or seemed to me some difference, etc.”  Steer the conversation.  Rather than putting up a stop sign, use directional signals to move the conversation in a direction that you want it to go.
5. “The modest way in which I proposed my opinions procured them a readier reception and less contradiction; I had less mortification when I was found to be in the wrong, and I more easily prevailed with others to give up their mistakes and join with me when I happened to be in the right.”  By doing all the above things, eschewing open pride and showing some humility, I got what I wanted and made everyone feel good about giving it to me.

Of course, what Franklin learned and subsequently wrote about is how to get what one wants through the basic understanding and manipulation of human nature.  If people feel good about themselves when interacting with you, they’ll feel good about the ideas and direction that come out of such an interaction.

Yeah, it sounds a bit mercenary, but it’s the basic platform for all successful leaders.  It worked 250 years ago and it works exactly the same now.  Try it.  You’ll see.

A long time ago I read a book about group brainstorming – using group-think to solve problems and uncover new ideas and directions.  I don’t remember the book or much that was in it, as is the case for the vast majority of business how-to books that I’ve read.  My one take-away, though, was the concept of accepting all input during a brainstorming session without passing judgement on anything said by anyone.

Yeah, this is hardly a breakthrough when you think about it.  As soon as you shoot down one idea, others are afraid that their idea will be similarly criticized and they clam up.  This then sets off a domino effect of fewer ideas with even fewer add-on ideas which, in turn, completely kills any opportunity for the group to chain off the thoughts of others to come up with new or modified concepts. 

As this un-remembered book suggested, it’s critical for the leader to just shut up, giving every idea its due (always a good idea to write it down on a white board of something to openly signify its value) and encourage everyone else to contribute, learn and grow.  Gee, this idea of the leader shutting up at times comes up frequently.  It’s too bad I suck at it.

As a flawed leader, I’ve made the mistake of shooting down ideas too quickly too often.  As my kids point out today, even when I remain quiet, my face contorts in strange ways clearly indicating how incredibly stupid I think what I’m hearing is.  So, even when I actually dig deep inside and make myself shut up, I really don’t hold back at all.  My face gives away everything.

This might even be acceptable if, in fact, all the ideas I shoot down were actually bad ideas.  The problem is that they often are not bad ideas at all.  My reaction is based on my initial thinking about what has been proposed or, sometimes, just my initial understanding of it.  Once I think it through, I often warm up to the idea.  Although, by that time, I’ve usually squelched the discussion and killed any upside to the brainstorming going on.

You get the idea . . . When you’re in a leadership role during any type of brainstorming, it’s really important to sit back, smile and treat every idea like it was your own.  Even better, like it was from someone that you would listen to even if they were saying something completely wacky (think Albert Einstein or Mahatma Gandhi).  Encourage people to put forward the most preposterous idea possible and for others to add to those ideas.  The minute you put up a wall, the traffic of new ideas will slow to a crawl and, eventually, disappear.

Unless you know everything there is to know (I doubt it), then you and the organization you run will be better off with as many ideas floating around as possible.  After all, you still can think they’re stupid and shut them down later <g>.

They say it’s lonely at the top.  CEOs are uniquely responsible for the results of the company and how those results are achieved.  No one shares this total responsibility.  There are no peers in the organization and there is, generally, little understanding of the pressures that such responsibility carries.  As such, CEOs are often held up as superheros when things go well and as almost satanic when they don’t.  Fair?  Not exactly.  Reasonable?  Well . . .

In my career, I’ve had the opportunity to run several private companies and a few public ones.  There have been some successes and there have been more than a fair share of failures.  Some of the successes were big ones that were highly visible and some were small and less visible, although at times, even more important.  The same can be said for the failures – while they came in both big and small forms, the big, hairy, nasty ones were not always the most important ones.  Although, they were always the ones that everybody got to see and, likely, remember. 

Sometimes I basked in the glory of the company’s success, getting treated like I carried 750 people on my back across the finish line.  Other times, I got the crap kicked out of me by employees, investors and/or shareholders who thought I was solely responsible for a hiccup in performance.  Both of these points of view are right and both are wrong.

I’m a strong believer in the buck stops here view of the CEO’s role and responsibilities.  The CEO’s role is unique for the fact that he/she is responsible for everything that goes on inside the company – whether or not they are actually in control of it.  In good companies, the CEO is held accountable for what the company does and how it does it.  In this way, getting the lion’s share of credit for a success and being taken to task for a failure are both right.

On the other hand, the job of running a company is complex and multi-faceted.  There are loads of factors related to whether or not the company has short or medium-term successes or failures.  In recognizing the performance of the CEO, some of these factors are often ignored, biasing the external view of the CEO’s performance.  Because of this, both reward and blame may be out of context.  Take, for example, when the overall economy is good, raising all boats with the tide.  Or, when changes in regulatory laws make it difficult to continue to address a market, regardless of the company’s efforts.  Yeah, as I write this I know it sounds like I’m equivocating about the responsibilities of the job.  I’m not, really.  I’m just stating that no judgement about CEO performance is simple, although they are often made that way.

Most CEOs do a good job and are appropriately managed by company boards in a fair and reasonable way, of course.  Glaring and notable cases where CEOs receive insane awards for mediocre performance or no punishment for failure (sometimes even rewards for failure) are the ones we hear about, though.  This is primarily the result of that fact that in the past, many (most?) companies, meaning the directors and shareholders of those companies, have not held their CEOs accountable to a reasonable degree.  They have mostly sat by and watched as the CEO has taken the company to new levels, augered it into the planet or really didn’t do much either way.

So what’s a poor CEO to do?  Well, until there is some universally applied standard for accountability and a commonly understood measure of performance, it is unlikely that there will be a rational and balanced view of how a CEO is actually doing over the long haul.  Perhaps, because it’s the sometimes irrational money of shareholders involved, there can never be a common standard and CEOs will continue to bask in glory one day only to be hung from the gallows the next.

From the CEO’s point of view, the odds of being evaluated correctly increase tremendously when decisions are made in thoughtful, considered ways.  That usually means that truly major decisions, with respect to the company’s size, are made with some level of involvement of the rest of the management team, company advisors and the company’s Board of Directors.  From the Board’s point of view, corporate directors need to always hold the CEO accountable for major decisions and company performance.  That doesn’t mean simply recognizing what happened, but teaching, rewarding, or punishing based on both the results and the process of what the CEO does. 

Yeah, even in a perfect world, it’ll still be an emotional roller coaster ride for the CEO, but that’s part of what makes the job interesting.  Being judged in virtually unpredictable ways in a sometimes irrational manner keeps things exciting <g>.