Max Mckeown

We are an inter-dependent species.

We are an inter-dependent species. We cannot do a thing without others. Just possibly you could survive alone on fruit on a tropical island, but it would not be pleasant, and even here your education and upbringing will influence how you can keep your wits about you. In every other situation we need others: teachers, farmers, suppliers, capitalists, workers, pupils, house-builders, refuse collectors, law-makers; but above all, teachers, because we rely on skills.

The ways to un-shrink ourselves are rooted in un-shrinking each other. We can overcome the superstitions that prevent us from developing our individual talents, but the fullest achievements are collective. The keys to open this door lie in a fuller and more rounded perspective of leadership and of teamwork than we are used to in the ugly stereotypes of politics and business.

One problem is that we have a limited view of leadership. The myths we discussed in the last chapter, about winning at all costs, come accompanied with a view of leadership as being reserved for a few, naturally gifted supermen and women. Or some people rush to the other extreme and say that we do not need leadership at all. This chapter will look at how we motivate and sustain each other; how acts of leadership can be small or great and are carried out by everyone. Let us look at the a great myth of leadership:

Myth: The Boss is Superhuman 

In many ways, “The Boss is Superhuman” is the most understandable of our myths. Supermen and superwomen do not necessarily have more ability than others, but in a few, rare cases they actually do, and combined with their natural charisma, the effect is indeed other-worldly: the most inspirational leaders in our lives are blessed with heavenly qualities. The hair on the back of one’s neck stands up on hearing Martin Luther King say “I have a dream”, whether it is for the first or the 50^th time. A charismatic leader takes one briefly outside of oneself and onto a higher spiritual plane. They can enable us to slip the chains of earth and live momentarily in the state of our dreams. It is an other-worldly, superhuman quality. These glimpses can inspire us to build a better life. But they are momentary and such leaders are human. Moreover charismatic leaders are not the only ones who can be divinely inspired – anyone can be, and leadership is not the only skill. The meaning with which the phrase “The Boss is Superhuman” is mythological emerges in the common assumptions that a leader does not have weaknesses, does not have vulnerabilities, and does not need to continue learning along with everyone else. These are very damaging beliefs which limit us all, the leader included.

Good leaders recruit balanced teams; they give people confidence through accurate praise; they know their own strengths and weaknesses and know when to delegate.

Where the “Boss is Superhuman” is a truly damaging myth is where it becomes addiction to the notion of a ruthless, omniscient leader who eschews consultation and whose buccaneering sword can work miracles in our lives. The management writer Jeffrey Pfeffer has charted the dizzying obsession of investors and journalists with “hero chief executives”. Those who were aggressively opposed to trade unions were particularly feted. Whether or not they were any good was immaterial. As Pfeffer himself devastatingly comments on Frank Lorenzo, scourge of the airline unions and erstwhile head of Continental Airlines, who received a standing ovation from students at Harvard Business School:

“This is the same Frank Lorenzo who, in the decade of the 1980s, took Continental Airlines into bankruptcy twice and led Eastern Airlines to its final demise on 18 January 1991. It is not just any business executive who can take the same company into bankruptcy twice, losing $2.5bn in 1990, and completely ruin what was once the third largest airline in the industry, Eastern.”[i]

The irony is that the desire among anti-communists for a capitalist hero like Frank Lorenzo leads them to worshipping someone who failed to deliver for them – in an identical manner to the adoring fans of Communist leaders like Mao and Stalin.

In business, the desire for a buccaneering hero who can rescue shareholders remains strong. Consider the following extract from the Financial Times, dated 28 November 2001:

“Josef Ackermann [at Deutsche Bank] wants to strengthen the senior manager’s role and turn it into something akin to a strong US-style chief executive. Executives say that he runs Deutsche’s investment banking division with an ‘iron fist’”

It adds: “The writing is on the wall for Germany’s traditional Vorstand [management by collective responsibility]. ‘The old consensus model is a hurdle to quick decision-making,’ says Dieter Hein at Credit Lyonnais Securities. ‘A strong CEO and clear lines of executive responsibility are a natural next step’.”[ii]

The plea of the executives referred to in this report is “give me more power because I want it”. One would imagine that, given this enormous political pressure to rip out checks and balances on the influence of chief executives, that there is a body of scientific knowledge demonstrating that an autocratic boss is better for shareholders, for staff and for society, than others. Those of us who hear the negative voice in our mind “Others know more than me” can assume that the writer of this news piece is onto something that we are too dim to understand. But the truth is, he isn’t. There isn’t such a body of knowledge. Management thinker Henry Mintzberg has been charting what actually happens to hero chief executives and their companies over the last ten years. He finds an extraordinary rate of failure. Moreover those with MBAs, the highly prestigious badge of executive respectability, were no more likely to succeed than others[iii].

At this point, a reader may think: “Ah but that doesn’t mean that Germany has solved all the problems and that every company should be run by a committee.” This is true, but it misses the point: it focuses on structures, which are unimportant, rather than people, who are important. Of course it is better to have one good chief executive than five mediocre ones. But it is also better to have five good chief executives than one mediocre one. Leadership, teamwork and achievement are not the result of formulae or structural diagrams that can be drawn on pieces of paper. They result from mutual respect, allowing each other to grow. They are a function of people.