list to see how these factors could be applied to leading an organization. Being explosive was a way of getting other people's attention. It also scared potential detractors and showed them you were serious. Most people would rather not confront someone in that state. Having a high ego is another tactic that implies you are right. After all, if you are so sure of yourself, well, why would anyone argue with that?
Always being right is a show of strength. If you are known around the organization as always being on the right side of an issue, then more people are likely to come onboard with you next time around. It reduces the amount of opposition you're likely to face and will help you win arguments more often than not. Being results driven is not an uncommon corporate position. The problem comes when nothing else matters. Treating people badly, taking shortcuts in processes, making promises you can't keep to customers, all these things are secondary to driving results.
The ability to minimize ethical issues is my favorite, especially when I'm presenting to lawyers and compliance officers. It sometimes gets referred to as ethical overrides. That is, you reward people for finding ways around codes of ethics, sometimes referred to as loopholes. So if I can justify why I needed corporate money for that private jet rental, luxury hotel, great meals, side trip with my family, and so on, everything is okay. I guess at Enron this only worked for a period of time, or until they got caught.
Being rigid is another way of telling people “it's my way or the highway,” something that seems to go over well in Texas, which conveniently is the home of Enron. Similarly, not having, or not displaying, emotional control is a fairly effective way to signal to others that one is not to be crossed/questioned. So is having strong attitude, which was described to me as being bold and assertive, in such a way that people knew not to question the leader's authority. This was described to me as a Texas attitude, which goes along with “don't mess with me.”
In looking at these traits it seems like they can be boiled down to being steadfast (high ego, always being right, results driven, rigidity, serious attitude) and being above questioning/criticism (no emotional control, ability to minimize serious issues, explosive).
It's hard to believe (at least for me) that companies can still operate this way in this day and age. Nevertheless, I've come across variations of this in my travels. Needless to say, some of these procedures can get you short-term results, but, as we've seen in this example, they don't seem to be viable long-term strategies. When I first started this work, it would often take a lot of convincing for some leaders to buy into the idea that managing emotions, for example, not using random anger to motivate, could be good for business. In the following chapters, we'll explore the case for emotionally intelligent leadership and what you can do to get there.
1. What were some of the best books you've read on leadership?
2. What did you like about them?
3. Are you familiar with a situation in which someone got promoted to a leadership position and was not well prepared for it?
4. Can you think of a “signature characteristic” that defines your current or a previous boss?
5. What would be the “ideal” signature strength of a leader you'd like to work for?
6. How would you want to be different from bosses you've had to work for?
7. What would be your signature characteristic as a leader?
8. Think about your own adaptability and willingness to change direction on important issues.
9. What do you think the signature strength of tomorrow's leaders will be?
1. Ask some of the people you work with for one-word descriptions of your boss.
2. Ask these same people what they would do differently if they were the leader.
3. Ask your coworkers about what they like best about their favorite leaders.
4. If you are a leader, ask some trusted subordinates how they would describe your leadership style.
5. Ask your subordinates what gets them most excited about their job. Then think about what role you play, as a leader, in cultivating their excitement.
CHAPTER 2
WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED ABOUT LEADERSHIP?
Effective leadership is not about making speeches or being liked; leadership is defined by results, not attributes.
The scientific study of leadership is about 100 years old. There are hundreds of studies that have looked at such things as personality, leadership style, cognitive intelligence (IQ), as well as leadership potential and performance. There have been a number of major reviews of the psychological and business/managerial literature summarizing much of what we know about leadership. One such review by Robert Kaiser and his colleagues nicely summarizes much about what we know from the academic literature.23 For example, they point out the overwhelming evidence that leadership styles are associated with certain effects – “considerate leaders enhance the job satisfaction of subordinates, structured leaders have higher performing teams, and transformational leaders inspire greater commitment.”
In addition, certain styles of leadership have been found to be better in order to get specific results. For example, the best way to lead when you have a high degree of control over a situation is with a task-oriented approach. On the other hand, when you don't have as much control over the situation a people-oriented approach can be better. In other words, in situations with low control, you would need to spend more time dealing with the people and their needs before getting them focused on the task you want done.
Defining Leadership
There are many different definitions of leadership that have been documented in the scientific literature as well as in popular writings. And many of them are very good. However, for the purpose of this book, I will define leadership as:
Behaviors used in any situation where you influence the thoughts, behaviors, or feelings of one or more people.
I see leadership not only based on skills, abilities, and actions, but as situational as well. Today, I am the leader and CEO of a company that employs about 160 people. This role carries a lot of responsibilities, weight, and prestige. However, once I get home, my responsibilities differ greatly. For example, my wife will order me to take out the garbage. She'll then give me several other tasks to do that include going through the mail, washing the dishes, and so on. Unlike being the queen or king, most leaders today are not 24/7 leaders. I participate in a number of groups for CEOs, and the size of their organizations can vary from 5 people to 500. I know very few, if any, leaders today who rule their kingdoms night and day.
The next important aspect for me is the concept of influence. For most of today's leaders, it's all about influence. We no longer live in a command and control society, whether in the workplace or at home. You can give orders, but that doesn't mean you will get the obedience of yesterday. Also, many people work in cross-functional teams where there is no designated leader per se. In order to be successful in leading others where you have no or limited authority over them you will have to be able to influence their behavior.
Today's leaders don't just guide behavior. If you truly want to be successful, you have to change minds and hearts. As the saying goes, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.” People today want to be inspired into action. You have to make them want to do what needs to be done.
Finally, how many followers does it take for a leader to be a leader? This almost sounds like the old light bulb joke. Well, in this definition you're a leader even if you only have one follower. You can be a leader if you can convince your partner to do their chores, get your child to do her homework, convince a friend to see the movie you want to see, or even convince your manager to let you take charge of the project. Many of the skills used to influence one person can, when used appropriately, be used to influence dozens, or even hundreds of people. One politician I know, started her career at a local level, convincing enough people, one at a time, to support