Articles
When Leaders Care Too Much
Effective leaders care deeply about what they are doing. Add to that a clear vision of what needs to be accomplished, determination and the ability to communicate that vision to a group of followers in a way that inspires action, commitment and loyalty and you have what is commonly known as the ‘charismatic leader’. It is irresistibly attractive and it can move mountains. And it has been the downfall of many good organizations with leaders who care too much.
Caring too much begins with a process of identification. Identification is a basic psychological process that helps us define who we are and where we stand within our society and the world. In modern Western society, people tend to identify strongly with their occupation (e.g. I am a teacher. She is an engineer). We also define ourselves in terms of what we believe (I am a socialist. He is a vegetarian). Placed in positions of authority, people will identify with the office or organization itself (I am the Director. She is the Minister). Problems occur when people identify so completely with their occupation or position that they leave no room for other aspects of their lives. For example, insurance companies discovered long ago that males retired from senior and middle management positions have a higher than average incidence of death within 3 to 5 years of retirement. They identified so completely with the company and the position that they had nothing left for themselves and literally died of boredom.
When leaders ‘become the organization’ they harm not only themselves, they harm the organization and the people who work for them. In extreme cases they can destroy the organization. Usually they move on to bigger and better things before that happens, leaving only damage as their legacy. The downward spiral begins with a kind of autistic rapture by which the leader establishes a monopoly on caring. “No one cares as much as me, no one is more committed than me, no one sees the big picture in such clarity or depth as I do”. In the beginning, followers admire this intensity of commitment. It is exhilarating. It is an honor to be the focus of the leaders attention as he lays out the vision to you personally. But ever so slowly, followers come to feel excluded and diminished. No one can measure up to the standards of the leader. Nothing they do is enough. Nothing is ever good enough. Presenting another point of view demonstrates a lack of understanding. To question demonstrates lack of faith. To not accept the leader’s interpretation is treason.
Because the leader has become the organization, there is no longer any distinction between personal opinion, personal taste and organizational policy. No aspect of managing the organization is below the leaders notice or concern. In the beginning, followers are flattered by the leaders attention to routine tasks. The leader sits in on committee meetings and offers views. The leader meets privately with followers to enlist their personal support with various ‘issues’. The leader copyedits all outgoing communication and chooses the color for the cover of the annual report. Managing the organization becomes a process of interior decoration. Corporate policy is replaced with personal whim. Eventually, as their own scope for decision-making shrinks, followers come to resent what they now see as micro-management. Finally, people just give up making decisions because whatever they ‘decide’ has to be approved by the leader anyway.
Paradoxically, as followers come to regard the leader as remote, autocratic, paternalistic and demanding, the leader becomes more energized. The growing disillusionment among followers serves only to reinforce the leaders belief that he alone can carry the burden. The problem is the followers. They don’t have the required capacities. They don’t see the big picture. They aren’t really committed. The leader redoubles efforts to promote the organizations cause and its public image. Consultants are brought in to compensate for the “lack of capacity in-house”. Consultants are good listeners. If they disagree, they can be easily replaced. The leader can insulate himself from criticism with consultants and executive assistants. The main chore of the followers now becomes ‘handling’ the leader. What’s the best way and when is the best time to present a request of a certain kind so it stands a chance of approval?
The organization has now reached a kind of stasis. Everyone does their job and things get done, but the emperor has no cloths. The best people don’t renew their contracts. Outside the organization, cynical jokes begin to circulate. People shake their heads and hope the next leader will be better.
Advice to leaders
- Don’t confuse your own needs with the needs of other people or the needs of the organization.
- Don’t confuse your own beliefs with what’s ‘right’.
- Don’t confuse being right with winning.
- If the organization ‘falls apart’ after you leave, then you didn’t do your job. You didn’t leave it with people strong enough to run it in your absence. You failed as a leader.
- Consider yourself a ‘steward’ of the organization. The organization will outlive you. You are here to see it through the present times. Your job is prepare it for the next leader. Do that and your picture will always be on the wall, a wall near the entrance and not under the stairwell.
- If you ever wonder about your own importance, stick you hand in a pail of water and see how big a hole you leave when you pull it out.
November 13th, 2008 at 4:49 am
3xtg2eo5939kfsgv