Apply today for a FREE subscription to CIO Magazine!
Thu, May 31, 2007 20:27 EDT

|
Posted by: Esther Schindler in Best Practices Topic: Enterprise ManagementBlog: You're the Boss
Current Rating: |
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell was this morning's keynote speaker at the AMR Research Supply Chain Executive Conference. His talk touched on many subjects, some of which I may comment on elsewhere, but leadership (the real stuff, not the buzzword) was a key theme throughout the speech.
"Leadership is all about followership," General Powell explained, and you must put your followers in the best position possible. That means you have to give followers (whether soldiers or IT workers) the tools and resources they need to achieve the goals you set. Otherwise, he cautioned, they'll realize they're being misled. "You can't con the followers for long," Powell said.
General Powell served under four U.S. presidents during his career. During the Q&A session, he was asked to compare and contrast the individuals whom he called Boss (and all of whom, he made a point of saying, he liked and admired). Without regard to political ideologies or the nature of specific presidential decisions, I found Powell's comparisons instructive about the nature of leadership and how top executives make decisions.
This are interesting simply from the perspective of character studies of important men. But in a practical fashion, perhaps these four views of leadership will give you another ohm of enlightenment about the way you — or your CEO — run the company. Which is most like your own? Which would you prefer?
President Reagan's strength, according to General Powell, was that he was "a great conceptualizer." Reagan could view the USSR as "the evil empire" and then construct a plan to deal with that reality. But, Powell said, that conceptual approach could be difficult on a day-to-day level."
For instance, Reagan would listen politely to Powell explain a work-related challenge, but in a distant manner; he made it clear that the problem was Powell's problem, and he had been hired to deal with such things. Once it became Reagan's problem, however, he was right there, ready to make decisions.
"Bush 41" (as Powell referred to him) did have "the vision thing," but he just wasn't as good of a showman. Bush also let his staff argue in front of him, "which is something we'd never do in front of Reagan." The first President Bush wouldn't ask questions, but instead would let the fight unfold and listen to each viewpoint. He would stay out of the way until it was all over... and then he'd be extremely decisive.
President Clinton, on the other hand, wanted to talk about everything: on and on and on. "He loves to talk a problem to his conclusion," noted General Powell, though Clinton discovered that wasn't always the best thing to do.
"Bush 43," according to Powell, is very different from the others. He wants to hear what every advisor has to say. But then he decides "in a very instinctive way," said Powell; he'll make the decision alone, and then inform others what his instinct is. Bush 43 gets in trouble (leadership-wise, folks!) when only a few people give their presentations, and then his instinct is formed with incomplete data.
This isn't to say that you need to adopt any of these management styles yourself. And, of course, there were more than 40 other U.S. presidents, each of whom presumably had their own ways to get input and to make decisions. (Teddy Roosevelt may be my personal favorite; as I learned elsewhere, Roosevelt ran outside with a shotgun when someone tried to assassinate him instead of letting the Secret Service deal with it. Definitely not someone who delegated!)
However, I think the
It's tough to avoid the politics, but here goes.
I think that Bush the elder had the "better" approach. Conflict among advisors is good, and should be welcomed. Let each discuss, and yes even argue, their various points. Allowing (and even encouraging) all sides to present their cases allows for the most complete advice one can receive. Once the points have been made, the leader can then act given the most complete sets of "facts" and arguments.
After all, isn't that why he has advisors, and why we have knowledgeable staff?
The point here is not to say what is "better" or "worse", only to acknowledge that there are different and equally effective approaches to management. The style that works best for you may be different than the CEO that you have to work for. It is good to acknowledge that the difference exists and plan your strategy accordingly.
For example, if I were working for a Bush43 style CEO, I would make sure that any presentation I give takes into account all the different viewpoints and facts that I can gather before the meeting. However, if I'm working for a Clinton styled CEO, I don't know that I would bother since we will end up discussing all the point eventually anyway.
I don't believe that it is better to let staff argue in front of you.
Especially in corporate world where back-stabbing becomes norm rather than exception as you move up the food chain, this approach will let staff members hide their objections to approach right up to the last minute ... and so you as a leader may end up listening to their internal turf war rather than constructive discussion.
Yes. In the perfect world, everybody is thinking about the best result ... but how many corporate cultures and worlds are 'perfect world'?
It seems to me that each of the three last presidential styles waited for the advisors to bring issues and then decide the issue in various ways. That's a reactive style: only Reagan seems to have set the agenda himself.
I find it's easy to get caught up (or bogged down) with the daily issues and not pay enough attention to the "vision thing."
And TR is my favorite president, too!
The focus of this article is particularly meaningful at this time. The management styles of the two candidates for president will foretell how successful each candidate will be as president.
The best president (in my opinion) will be the president who does the best job of empowering his followers.
A dictatorial president will fail to lead; relying instead on his power to force his will on other people.
Somehow we should learn which candidate will be the most effective leader.
As of today that isn't clear.
Jay