When Great Leaders Become Good

November 29, 2016

No, this isn’t an article about the recent presidential election, though I suppose it could – maybe should – be interpreted through that lens.  It’s about the difference between good leaders and great leaders – and the imperative for us all to strive to be both.

 

I read two great articles on leadership recently, both published by the Harvard Business Review.  They’re written by two different authors with two very different conclusions, but when intersected, I found a powerful insight that could help any leader improve his/her effectiveness…

 

The first article is Managing Yourself: Don’t Let Power Corrupt You, written by Dacher Keltner (Oct 2016 HBR).  Basically, Keltner’s message is that leaders should strive to retain the virtues that enabled them to rise up the hierarchy.  But he claims that doing so is inherently difficult, as most leaders eventually experience something he calls the “power paradox”:

 

“While people usually gain power through traits and actions that advance the interests of others, (such as empathy, collaboration, openness, fairness, and sharing), when they start to feel powerful or enjoy a position or privilege, those qualities begin to fade.  The powerful are more likely than other people to engage in rude, selfish, and unethical behavior.”

 

To illustrate, Keltner describes one of his experiments where people in groups of three (one of whom is named the “leader”) are asked to do a writing task.  About 30 minutes into the experiment, a plate of four freshly baked cookies are brought in.  He claims that in every single case, each person took one and left the last cookie, out of respect (how many dinner parties have we all been to, where the last piece of whatever is left on the serving platter??).  Keltner’s research shows that in nearly every case the designated leader eventually took the last cookie.  Entitlement, perhaps.  He also found that leaders were more likely to chew with their mouths open, lips smacking and crumbs falling onto their clothes.  It seems they somehow forgot (or just ignored?) manners and courtesy.

 

What’s interesting is that Keltner found similar conclusions in other studies across all types of settings and in all types of leaders: athletes, corporate CEOs, and yes, even politicians.  As John Dalberg-Acton once said: absolute power corrupts absolutely, I guess.

 

He also found that wealth and credentials can have a similar affect.  In a University of California-Irvine study, drivers of the least expensive cars always yielded right-of-way to pedestrians, but owners of luxury vehicles only yielded about half the time.  And a survey of employees in 27 countries (which means cultural differences were neutralized) revealed wealthy people are more likely to say it’s acceptable to engage in unethical behavior, such as taking bribes or cheating on taxes.  Finally, Keltner cites a study at HEC Montreal, which found that CEOs with MBAs are more likely than those without MBAs to engage in self-serving behavior that increases their personal compensation but decreases the value of their companies.

 

We’ve seen it before: Enron a decade ago; Wells Fargo just this fall; and the conflicts of interest and blurry line between personal business and personal gain versus the responsibility of governing the country, as we’re seeing unfold with our President Elect.

 

Keltner asserts that the impacts are far-reaching: “…the abuse of power ultimately tarnishes the reputations of executives, undermining their opportunities for influence.  It also creates stress and anxiety among their colleagues, diminishing rigor and creativity in the group and dragging down team members’ engagement and performance.”  Losing your leadership virtues can have a significant negative impact on your team and your organization.

leadership1

I’ll get back to Keltner’s compelling conclusion in a second, because he does offer some remedies that I think are useful.  But the second article is worth mentioning here.  A September 22, 2016, HBR blog post by George Washington University School of Business professor James Bailey (The Difference Between Good Leaders and Great Ones) claims that leaders should strive to be both great and good.  He asserts that leadership is not a continuum between bad, good, and great, but rather there are two continuums: one that describes force or execution, and one that describes direction or values.  Where those two continuums intersect produces a continuous tug-of-war between results, activities, execution, and rules on the one hand and virtues, values, collaboration, and serving on the other.  As Bailey says, the former moves; the latter aspires.  The former is great leadership; the latter is good leadership.  And the best leaders have both.

baileymatrix

Where great leadership and good leadership intersect is where leaders want to be: it combines productive and constructive energy.  Results are achieved; projects are successful; plans are executed.  But this success is achieved through collaboration, positivity, empowerment, and serving others.  Bailey calls this the Vital leader.

 

At the top left, the person is a good, virtuous leader but practices not-so-great leadership.  He/she has good intentions, but doesn’t have the power or capability to implement them.  Values are desirable, but there is minimal motion forward.  As Bailey indicates, everyone is happy in this environment, but nothing gets done.  This is the Amiable leader.

 

The Vacant leader is worse: both great and good leadership are absent.  There is no execution; there is no direction or goodness.  There is no movement toward a goal; there is no optimism.  Leaders – and the organizations they “lead” – are, according to Bailey, listless and fetid.  These leaders have checked out (or never were checked in!); they are a drain on resources and energy.

 

The last leader type is Maleficent: capable of causing harm.  This type of leader is explosive, combustible.  They have sweeping force – they get things done, compel action and movement – but usually without direction for good.  Bailey: “the force is mighty, but the direction unprincipled.”  This type of leader represents some of the most frightening authoritarians the world has seen (both heads of state and corporate CEOs).

 

Bailey’s construct I think is helpful: great leadership can be vital and productive but also destructive; good leadership can be compassionate and collaborative but impotent.  Leaders need to be both good and great.  They need principles, values, and virtues.  But they need discipline, accountability, and the force to execute.  Which brings me back to Keltner and his power paradox…

 

Keltner claims that leaders can remain what Bailey labels good through awareness and action.  He offers four suggestions.  Great leaders can become (or remain) good by:

 

  • Reflection.  The first step to being a good leader is to develop greater self-awareness.  Notice changes in your personal behavior as you ascend leadership ranks.  Acknowledge your feelings (joy, confidence, arrogance, even frustration) and try to keep your decisions, actions, and behaviors in check.
  • Being empathetic.  Try to relate to others – to truly understand their needs, their feelings, their hopes and fears.  Ask questions.  Practice active listening – look at the other person; concentrate and paraphrase their answers.  Acknowledge others’ problems and challenges (even saying something like “I’m sorry” or “I understand your frustration” can go along way).  Avoid a rush to judgment; don’t give unsolicited advice.  Appreciate your colleagues – what’s going on in his/her life as well as at work.
  • Practicing gratitude.  Offer (frequent and thoughtful) thank you’s.  Communicate your appreciation of others, using specific behaviors or accomplishments as much as possible.  Celebrate (publically and privately) successes.  Small expressions of gratitude can go a long way toward increasing engagement and productivity.
  • Being generous.  Give some one-on-one time with those you lead.  Delegate important and high-profile responsibilities.  Give praise generously; give credit generously.  Give small gifts – a nice lunch, team celebrations, a gift card or thoughtful, personalized gift.

climbing helping  team work , success concept

Leaders can – and should – be benevolent.  They should respect and serve others first.  They should practice reflection, empathy, gratitude, and generosity.  They should remain positive – be optimistic.  They should be good, not just great.

 

PEN is hosting a one-day workshop on the (research-based) principles of good leadership – and featuring some solid, proven tools that improve leadership effectiveness: Accelerating Leadership Performance, facilitated by Paul Batz of Good Leadership Enterprises, December 15 in Rochester and January 12 in Bloomington.  This is one of PEN’s most highly rated workshops, and is useful for current and emerging leaders at all levels.  Take this opportunity to refine and improve your leadership effectiveness as we move into 2017 – be great and good!

 

What other insights do you have regarding good leadership?  Participate in a discussion on this topic: visit our LinkedIn group to post a comment.

 

Never stop improving!

 

Brian S. Lassiter

President, Performance Excellence Network (formerly Minnesota Council for Quality)

www.performanceexcellencenetwork.org

 

Catalyst for Success Since 1987!

 

Photo credit businesspundit.com, poncier.org