I did an online interview on Good Boss, Bad Boss with Professor Bret Simmons, who is one of my favorite bloggers. Bret does a lovely job of striking a practical balance between what the best evidence shows about management and other organizational behavior and the practicalities and realities of organizational life (as an example, don't miss his most recent post on the Ten Most Important Leadership Functions). Bret asked me some mighty hard questions about the book; perhaps the one that caused me to pause most is this exchange (see the rest of the interview here)
Bret's Question:
Of
all your suggestions on how to be a good boss, the one I struggled the
most with was the first one – take control. Is it really possible to
“trick” others that you are in control? What conditions might cause the
illusion of control to be ineffective or even backfire?
My Answer:
Bret, I struggled with this too. In fact, if you look at the table
that summarizes these tricks I warn “Learn to be assertive enough. Don’t
become an overbearing asshole when you use these strategies.” I guess
there is sometimes a fine line between what is “faking it” versus what
means a skilled leader uses to convince others that he or she is in
charge. There is pretty strong evidence that when we BELIEVE our
leaders are in charge, we do better work and they have a better chance
of keeping their jobs and being admired by others. That list was meant
to show well-meaning leaders the evidence-based moves that help
convince others they are in charge so they can get things done.
So, in
the case of one leader I worked with a bit who was well-liked but was
not instilling enough confidence, it was useful for him to learn things
like he should go to the head of the room and stand-up, to battle back
when others interrupt him too much, that going through a process of
grabbing some power and then giving it away (he did this by taking a
large high status for awhile and then, as he saw how crowded people
were, he had it turned into a conference room and took a smaller
office). On one level, these are “tricks,” but on another level, by
learning about the kinds of things that were seen by his people as
evidence that he was “finally stepping-up and taking charge” made him a
more effective leader.
When does that backfire? It backfires especially badly when a boss
becomes so confident or pig-headed that he or she feels superior to
everyone else – the smartest person in the room, who doesn’t need to do
things like listen to people, like allow and encourage them to question
his or judgment, and to admit and learn from setbacks and failure. Note
this is delicate balance that I talk about a lot in Chapter 3 on
wisdom. More broadly, the best bosses constantly do a balancing act
here – acting confident but not really sure (see this post
at HBR). I think of three bosses I’ve met who are especially adept at
his, David Kelley of IDEO, Brad Bird at Pixar, and AG Lafley at Procter
& Gamble. In fact, I seriously considered naming the book “Top Dog
On A Tightrope (this was Marc Hershon’s idea, a guy who, among other
things, names things for a living – he named the Blackberry and the
Swiffer).
I think that Bret forced me to think more deeply what I see as a real dilemma for bosses. Yes, I believe that all of us, including bosses should aim to be our "authentic selves" BUT we also need to realize that there might be times when we follow or habits and instincts and say whatever is on our minds, that we undermine the ability of others to get their work done, drive them crazy, and undermine their confidence in us. Or to put it another, I once had a rather unpleasant argument with a colleague where (without using the word), I asked him to be less of an asshole to students, he argued back that he was just being his natural sense. I argued back that his authentic self was doing enough doing enough damage to other people and to his reputation that he might want to think about making some adjustments. I am not arguing for bringing in the clones,there is clearly a tough balance to reach here as weirdos, people rough edges, naysayers, and a host of other difficult people play essential roles and, if we stomp the zest out of them or send them packing, our lives will be duller for it, we will make worse decisions, and our organizations will be less creative.
I would appreciate your thoughts on this dilemma or balancing act, as it can be a tough one for bosses and their followers, peers, superiors and mentors to navigate.
In an old episode of the TV show 'Bones', a lab associate commits murder because he follows someone's logic (of course it turns out later that the logic was flawed).
I, too, can manipulate my own actions (temporarily trick employees that I'm in control) by following some sort of reasoning. I have to talk things over with a family member or a close friend to check if my logic is flawed. Quite often it is, but because someone has pointed that out to me, I can avoid killing the morale of my unit.
Posted by: Anna Smith | September 20, 2010 at 12:00 PM
Hi Bob,
I think this "taking control" business is really dependant upon the situation. If there are employees who are constantly stepping over their bounds and generally not respecting you as a leader, some of these measures may be necessary. I also think that the approach varies by style that the leader is most comfortable with. This may include one-on-one discussion of the behavior or simple "tricks". But you are correct that there is a law of diminishing returns with this before you become an asshole. So its a balancing act.
All in all great post.
Posted by: Jakenady.wordpress.com | September 20, 2010 at 11:35 AM
My take:
It's not about control, but about responsibility.
I think most of us run away from responsibility, not only in our work, but in our lives because we're afraid of uncertainty. We reach the point where we even say: "you're not motivating me enough" which implies that I'm not responsible of my own motivation. (or we say "you didn't tell me", "it's not in the manual", etc).
With an unbalance in the responsibility (power?) like this, of course you need someone in charge.
I think that a good leader would fill the "responsibility void". I also think that a great leader would encourage her people to take the responsibility (and power that comes with it) back.
Posted by: JACH | September 20, 2010 at 11:11 AM
Bob, great questions, as always.
I believe that control is an agreement, like most everything else in a relationship. I used to lead a major department of a large corporation, and now I lead a small nonprofit organization, and it's pretty much the same equation. They put me in charge with the expectation that my expertise, focus, and attention could shape the daily process and the long-term results; and they allow me to lead with the agreement that we will all make it possible for me to exert that control.
The moment I give up overall control to someone else, or to the random forces of fear or dithering or chaos or peer pressure, or whatever, I have abrogated that agreement.
Collaboration, facilitation of consensus, involving others in decisions that affect them -- these things are part of control, not its antithesis. These things allow leaders to make better informed decisions, and make it possible for the team to continue in their expectation of, and agreement to, the control.
Controlling a team is like driving a car. The whole machine can work wonderfully well, but if no one's at the wheel... Who's driving is either an agreement, or it's a car crash.
Whenever I work in a situation where someone else is in the lead, I want that person to assume control. I agree to trust them to have a notion of where we're going. I do not want to have to backseat drive all the damn time.
Posted by: Kelley Eskridge | September 19, 2010 at 09:52 PM
This is a subtle and powerful point. I think the question is confidence versus authority, rather than being "in control". I believe people need confidence that a leader has a vision or direction, and that they are capable of making the decisions, where warranted, to realise it. I believe it is also about confidence that a leader can keep their promises. I am not so sure that it is about control or authority per se, and perhaps confusing authority with confidence is one of the symptoms of power poisoning.
I look forward to reading the other comments.
Posted by: Richard | September 19, 2010 at 05:45 PM
I would argue that despite the fact that most individuals don't wish to "take control," the ideal manager needs to do just that. That doesn't mean simply giving the impression you are in control, but really making sure your subordinates understand that in fact, you are in control. Any task given to you in any level of an organization is done with (generally) the expectation that you are in control of exactly what you're doing. So, if you are the leader of a team, simply "acting" as though you're in control is not enough. This makes the conversation almost a moot point in that by simply acting in control, you intrinsically don't understand that you, in fact, are there already.
Fostering an environment of discussion and dialogue is a great method of encouraging fair play in teams, but the reality is that in the end, it is up to the manager to determine the course of action. That may simply mean saying yes to someone's suggestion, but at the end of the day, the control is inherently in the position. Understand that your position, however, is not a permanent one. By overbearing your employees, you will ostracize them and generate bad feelings toward you, but most people understand that the decisions must, in fact, be made; and you are the one who must make them.
Posted by: Christian Fey | September 19, 2010 at 02:12 PM