I've been thinking about leadership lately, and the stark contrast between Jim Collins' humble "Level 5 leader" and the success of Steve Jobs. And while Collins' perspective has personal resonance for me, I have to conclude that there's more nuance here.
Here's a data point. When I did my dissertation, I found that if you exhibit a low level of responsiveness in an organization, this negatively impacted the degree to which people trusted you - except if you were more senior. If you're more senior, they assume you're busy rather than being a prick. Somewhat unfortunately, people with lower status tend to cut people of higher status a lot of slack.
Also - and follow me here - trust in leadership is based on competence as well as benevolence, people gauge competence by the maximum instance experienced rather than the median, their memory is more vivid when cortisol (stress) levels are higher, and abrasiveness can undoubtedly be effective in the short run in driving outcomes. In short, being an asshole can be impressively productive and memorably so.
I've found that leaders who are assholes but supremely competent or brilliant tend to be loved by their staff. Phrases used include "Challenging but rewarding", "The cost of genius", "It's not personal", "I've learned so much", and "I wouldn't take back the experience for the world." There's a belief that the leaders wouldn't have accomplished so much if they didn't knock down some walls. And A-players seek steep learning curves and development opportunities above all.
So does that lead us to the somewhat repelling notion that being an asshole is okay if you're really good at what you do? Well, here's the rub: This is true only if you're really that good, if you're right all the time, and the best strategy over the time horizon in scope is really to knock down walls rather than build bridges. Maybe Steve Jobs was, but it's a rare enough confluence that I wouldn't put my eggs in that basket.
Here's a data point. When I did my dissertation, I found that if you exhibit a low level of responsiveness in an organization, this negatively impacted the degree to which people trusted you - except if you were more senior. If you're more senior, they assume you're busy rather than being a prick. Somewhat unfortunately, people with lower status tend to cut people of higher status a lot of slack.
Also - and follow me here - trust in leadership is based on competence as well as benevolence, people gauge competence by the maximum instance experienced rather than the median, their memory is more vivid when cortisol (stress) levels are higher, and abrasiveness can undoubtedly be effective in the short run in driving outcomes. In short, being an asshole can be impressively productive and memorably so.
I've found that leaders who are assholes but supremely competent or brilliant tend to be loved by their staff. Phrases used include "Challenging but rewarding", "The cost of genius", "It's not personal", "I've learned so much", and "I wouldn't take back the experience for the world." There's a belief that the leaders wouldn't have accomplished so much if they didn't knock down some walls. And A-players seek steep learning curves and development opportunities above all.
So does that lead us to the somewhat repelling notion that being an asshole is okay if you're really good at what you do? Well, here's the rub: This is true only if you're really that good, if you're right all the time, and the best strategy over the time horizon in scope is really to knock down walls rather than build bridges. Maybe Steve Jobs was, but it's a rare enough confluence that I wouldn't put my eggs in that basket.
RSS Feed