My last posts here and at Harvard Business Review were about the unintended dangers of the distinction between leadership and management. I argued that leadership is too often over-glorified and management is too often under-appreciated, which results in management being treated as a second class activity. The discussion these posts provoked, a total of about 30 comments in total, yielded great examples and details. I especially liked Rick's statement that "there is an ebb and flow in what is required, the mix of leadership (inspiration) and management (perspiration) which best matches the in-the-moment need of the entity which is being managed and led." Good stuff. This very consistent with the notion that the best bosses are in tune with others, and skilled at making the right adjustments in response.
I was thinking about all this when I read a fascinating editorial by Joe Nocera in The New York Times about the Mark Hurd story, where he makes the argument that perhaps HP wanted to get rid of Hurd for other reasons, and used sex/misuse of funds scandal as an excuse. The editorial contained a lot of quotes from ex-HP executive Chuck House (an amazing guy, once given an award by David Packard for "Exceptional Defiance and Contempt Beyond the Usual Call of Engineering"). It ended with this assertion:What H.P. needs in its next leader, Mr. House told me, is “someone with Carly’s strategic sense, Mark’s operational skills, and Lew’s emotional intelligence.” (Lewis E. Platt preceded Ms. Fiorina as C.E.O.)
Nocera described this as a tall order but not an impossible one. My first reaction was, well, it is impossible, no one boss can do that. My second reaction OH it is possible -- so long as we make some different assumptions. In Chuck's quote, and in some of the ways I was talking about connecting management to leadership, there was an implicit and I think inaccurate assumption that there are single magical leaders who can do everything. This is called the romance of leadership, something researchers have studied a lot and I write about in Good Boss, Bad Boss. The best bosses --and the best companies, including the best boards -- don't fall prey to this cognitive error and look for an all powerful and flawless CEO who can do everything. Rather they look for a boss who can build and properly lead a team with the right range and balance of skills. Note that Carly's inability to delegate operations to others and try to do too much of it herself is one reason she lost her job. And if Nocera is right, HP's emerging troubles with innovation and morale are things that were not being handled well enough by his team.
The upshot of all this is that the best bosses aren't all powerful and all knowing, but by understanding their own limits and developing the wisdom to rely on others who can compensate for them, they can have a team that applies the right blend of management and leadership skills to achieve greatness. This is one of the reasons that I emphasize wisdom so much in Good Boss, Bad Boss, which includes the ability to recognize one's weaknesses and blind spots and find ways to dampen or reverse the negative effects. You can see this quality in some of the greatest companies of our time, at Pixar under Ed Catmull, P&G under AG Lafley, and it appears, at Apple with the blend of Steve Jobs visionary brilliance and Tim Cook's operational excellence. Indeed, I think Job's deserves more credit than he gets for building a team that compensates for his weaknesses.
In the case of HP, I don't think it is possible to find the one superwoman or superman that Nocera and Chuck House hope might exist. But I do believe it is possible to find a CEO with skill and wisdom to build a team with Carly's strategic ability, Hurd's operational skill, and Lew's EQ. As a final note, when you take this perspective on leadership as team sport -- which is especially crucial in a big company -- you can see why academics have become increasingly convinced that the dynamics of top teams have such strong effects on performance, probably stronger than the characteristics and actions of the CEO alone.