The leader
Another part of that distortion is necessarily a product of our biases about leadership. Our point of view is that some leaders want to be leaders and see themselves as leaders. Others rise to the occasion. In either case they see what has to be done and they do it. They provide stability and support while defining goals and providing reassurance. Sometimes they become leaders when they become angry about something, catch fire, and start to lead. The leader’s mistakes outshine others’ modest successes. Leaders state needs, formulate goals, and institute realistic methods for reaching them. They inspire and help others develop competences they need to serve the organization effectively. Managers become leaders when they learn to take a stand, to take risks, to anticipate, initiate, and innovate.
Leaders have a personal strategy, often vague, but nevertheless a blueprint that guides their careers. Leaders understand that big plans start small. Priorities and timing are of the essence. Step by step they build their integrated structure beneath them, not a single Maginot line but each step a platform for building more. They know what they do best and like best, and how to make those preferences and abilities valuable to others. They have a sense of what they want and a realistic, if not always conscious, understanding of how to get it. The leader is goal-obsessed. The goal may not be altogether clear, but the leader is always thinking about what should be done and how it can be accomplished, both in terms of life goals and organizational attainment. Their mental pictures of themselves as they would like to be in the future have an idealistic and idealized quality; therefore we speak of them as ego ideals. There is an intense striving for personal purpose which is translated into striving for organizational purpose, as differentiated from objectives and definable goals. And they become the leaders of others when they create the conditions for identification with themselves and thereby with the organization. By so doing they become the psychological glue that binds their followers together on behalf of the organization. The personal strategies of leaders, in the service of their ego ideals, breathe new life Into their organizations and attract others to their efforts, to sharing their vision and their sense of purpose.
Leaders work at getting support—from above, below, and way off on the peripheries. Early in their careers, they sense who likes them, trusts them, and appreciates them, and they find ways for these people to support their efforts. Leaders understand that without supporters, they simply won’t have the power to pursue their ideals. But they also understand that no supporter has to be behind all the leader’s goals, or even to fully understand what the leader is after. Generally, leaders are especially alert to people who respond positively to them—and they are astute at assessing how these people can give them leverage to get things done. Leaders get support because they give support. They seek people out, listen to their concerns, and help them understand and resolve the problems they confront. Leaders understand that disappointment and defeat are inevitable in everyone’s experience, and they help people anticipate and cope with them. Leaders also help others become more competent by sharing their skills, expertise, and political sophistication. They put their energy behind other people’s projects and find ways for others to share in their own success.
Leaders also build support by holding themselves up as models whom others want to emulate. They teach others how to persevere in the face of defeat, how to develop their abilities, and how to pursue goals that are worthy. Though leaders may demand more of their subordinates than other bosses do, their followers willingly give their best because they know they are doing more, learning more, and growing more than they thought possible. Leaders ultimately hold on to their followers because they impart great excitement and enthusiasm about their own work and devotion to the organization, and in that way spark their supporters’ creative energies.
Leaders are able to use their power base and implement their strategies because they are thinkers as well as doers. When a program, product, or strategy isn’t working, they don’t throw up their hands—they figure out what has to be done, confident that their efforts can make the future better than the present. Leaders enjoy conceptualizing, projecting, fantasizing. Where others dread afiibiguity, leaders welcome it, seeing opportunities to shape new directions. True leaders are not afraid to take over a failing unit or company, embark on a risky long- term venture, or face a sea of conflicting pressures: they welcome the challenge. And they know full well that safe ventures quickly go stale and never lead to significant success.
Because leaders are always figuring out how they can try new methods, take on more responsibilities, develop their people, and serve their organizations in new ways, they are never bored. They immerse themselves in their work because they love the process, and they seek the gratifications of mastery, usefulness, and creativity. Ultimately leaders are captivated by what their work means. They appreciate the larger social context of their work, and they shape their work to the significant social contribution they hope to make.
It is true that many people demand such perfection of leaders that no one could possibly measure up. Indeed, some demand that of themselves. But leaders cannot be leaders if they are driven by intense internal demand that denies them patience, timing, and flexibility. No leader can lay a major problem to rest in a matter of months, or sometimes, even years. Though necessarily heroic models, leaders cannot expect of themselves the wisdom to right the ills of the world. Wise leaders are those who are willing to propose, attempt, and initiate. They are leaders because they are ready to act when others are still confused, afraid, and indecisive. Leaders test their powers and expand their horizons, generating a life of creative activity that is, in itself, a gratification. Richard Nixon admired de Gaulle’s view of a leader as one who aims high, shows that he has vision, acts on the grand scale, and so establishes his authority over the generality of men who splash in shallower waters.’ 2 We agree.
Despite our experience and our biases, we learned much that surprised us (which we discuss fully in chapter 8). For example, we did not anticipate the degree of self-doubt several of our leaders verbalized, nor the effectiveness with which they mastered it. Although Levinson wrote a book, Executive, ‘‘ urging executives to be teachers, we did not anticipate the huge amount of time leaders at this level spent developing other people and ensuring succession. Nor did we appreciate the significance of the huge amount of money these leaders risked in research and capital expenditures as investments in an ambiguous future. Although the popular literature has it that the best place for innovation is in garages—in “the skunkworks”—the reality is that massive sums are required for systematic research. These sums were risked in three cases by leaders who were not themselves technically trained, and who overruled their own engineers and scientists to commit their companies to distant technical horizons. Despite much of the managerial literature advocating that management hang loose, all of the leaders were directive and demanding. Although they made a point of almost never giving orders, they got what they wanted because they didn’t tolerate for long not getting it. We were surprised by how willingly five of the six men handed over the reins to their successors, though each could have maneuvered to hold on longer. Finally, we were surprised that these leaders themselves were so willing to talk to us, and so easy to talk to. We were also struck by their modesty.
These, then, are our synopses of the experiences of six leaders, all of whom headed major corporations at the time of the interviews, one of whom still does. We think that what we have written accurately describes these men as they practiced their leadership and provides a reasonable basis for understanding their impact on their organizations. The reader can now test that understanding and share our surprises.
Tags: Reference