Shaking-up Leadership
By Mike Myatt, Chief Strategy Officer, N2growth
Conventional leadership theory is littered with misunderstood and misapplied practices. The fact is that any practice, no matter how highly regarded, when taken out of context or taken to the extreme can not only erode the intended value, but can often cause great harm. To prove my point, today’s post will examine the downside of a topic you have not likely considered as a possible area of weakness…Leadership Continuity.
In general, continuity of leadership is an admirable goal and something that I advise all my clients to work toward. That said, the manner in which you work toward this end does in fact matter. As mentioned above, anything can be taken to unhealthy extremes. You see, leadership development and succession are only positive practices if they’re applied to those worthy of the investment. Do you ever wonder how businesses can fall from the pinnacle of success to the depths of stagnation in only a few short years? One of the main contributors to corporate stagnation and decline is keeping the wrong leadership team in place for the wrong reasons. My premise is a simple one – because the marketplace is ever changing, corporate leadership must adapt and change with the times in order to survive.
The point I ask you to ponder is this: Leadership teams often espouse the need for change and innovation, but rarely apply this thinking to themselves – why? Ego, pride, arrogance, fear or just being out of touch with reality can cause major blind spots. Leadership is not a right of entitlement, but rather a privilege that must be earned. Leadership teams who view themselves as a protected class are leadership teams not living-up to their obligations and responsibilities. Leadership teams on autopilot, while they may be adept at maintaining course, will rarely soar to new heights. The simple fact of the matter is that the most costly legacy system a company can maintain is poor leadership.
A lack of fluidity, development or contextual savvy can cripple even category dominant brands. Case in point – I was reading an interview with Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE in which he touted the fact that his top 175 executives have been with the company an average of 21 years. While Mr. Immelt may actually believe this is a good thing, I would submit it is far from a foregone conclusion…Creating a fraternity does not constitute great leadership. It is simply not possible that all 175 of these executives have been the best people for their respective positions for the last two decades. A cursory examination of GE’s stock performance over the last decade would tend to support my logic.
What Mr. Immelt should do is not continue to build the fraternity, but rather shake things up by bringing in fresh talent from the outside to invigorate a stale enterprise. If you want to drive innovation, lead change, and create growth, stir the pot…It has been my consistent experience that when longevity of leadership is brandished as a badge of honor, it is usually just the opposite. The length of someone’s tenure is not nearly as important as whether they are the best person for the job, and whether they are performing at tier-one levels. Smart companies realize that if someone is performing below expectations that they need to be coached to productivity or replaced – there is no third option if a healthy organization matters to you.
Static organizations also tend to embrace comfort zones and are often built upon the “DITWLY” (Did It That Way Last Year) principle. This attitude precludes the advancement of change initiatives and cripple innovation. Albert Einstein said it best when he noted “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time.” Don’t be the CEO who causes your management team to continually say “the boss won’t go for that one.”
The bottom line is this…leaders need to possess an extreme bias toward performance. Reward talent, innovation, loyalty, attitude, creativity, work ethic, contribution, and leadership ability…not tenure. Meritocracy or Mediocrity – the choice is yours…
Great post Mike! I really like how you point out the fact that leadership can get "blurry" when new trends become stagnant and sometimes using a "no-rules" approach is a direction some organizations benefit from.
Side note: I often wonder if Jeffrey Immelt ever seeks advice from Jack Welch?
I really enjoyed this Mike, and it certainly hit home during my first years of corporate experience. My question is how do you bring in fresh talent and empower them with higher level "strategic decision making" without making the current leaders feel threatened?
Working in the digital space, I think 20 years experience is worse than 2 years of experience (generalization). Shortly after reading this article I read this Harvard Business Review on "When you think the strategy is wrong".
http://blogs.hbr.org/hmu/2010/02/when-you-think-t...
Hi Geoff:
Thanks for the comment. Your comment is an astute one. Chaos and disruption are only bad things if they occur by default and not by design. Every organization needs to "freshen-up" a bit from time-to-time.
As far as the relationship between Immelt and Jack Welch goes, I have heard differing accounts. My take is that Immelt was hand-picked by Jack and that Jack highly regarded Immelt's leadership ability. That said, Jack has been openly critical of Immelt's performance over the years. It sounds like it's an on again – off again relationship from what I can gather…Thanks for adding to the conversation Geoff…
You have a raised the critical issue in my opinion – Since when do real leaders feel threatened by talent and ideas? Over the years I have worked with countless CEOs and entrepreneurs and I've yet to see a strong, capable leader feel threatened by new talent. In fact, it's just the opposite…Great leaders seek out the best talent they can find and consistently surround themselves with very bright people. Real leaders only view the job as theirs so long as they're the best one for the job. It is those that hold positions of leadership out of self-interest that feel threatened, and in my opinion they should feel threatened…
Mike, your insight is always right in the bulls-eye and I really appreciate your ability to articulate issues so well. You're right-on (again); the competitive landscape is never static. If an organization doesn't adapt (= change) they will certainly fall behind. And I wonder how many of the businesses that fall from the pinnacle of success to the depths of stagnation in only a few short years look back and wonder how it happened?
Thanks for the kind words Brad…
My guess is that most of those who fail wonder how it happened, but I doubt that many of them do enough introspective thinking. It's much easier for failed leaders to start playing the blame game and pointing fingers at others than it is for them to look inward and accept responsibility.
Mike,
great article. As a leader of a non-profit, this can be real sticky ground. It’s easier just to let it go
and not confront non-performance. However, as a passionately mission driven organization, not to confront mediocity is a disservice to those we serve and even leadership malpractice! Thanks for reminding me of that fact. It’s easy to get comfortable. It’s great to have people like you keeping the bar high!
Hi Brad:
Thanks for the comment and the kind words Brad. I concur that good leaders do everything in their power to confront and disrupt mediocrity wherever it exists. As you so eloquently pointed out, to do anything less is to let down those that have placed their faith and trust in you. Something I use to help keep leaders sharp is to get them to view comfort zones as danger zones. Comfort zones lull you into a state of complacency and even apathy – nothing good can come from this. Great observations and insights Brad…thanks for sharing.
And not to forget adding a dash of ethics. Ken Lewis, James Dimon, Lloyd Blankfein – how can you accept huge pay packages while your companies go or nearly go bankrupt…?