Positive Versus Negative Leadership 5l644k

c Wednesday, October 29 2008

I'm going to conclude this long series on leadership (I really am going to conclude, I promise!) with a few thoughts on positive leadership. The term is used enough these days to have become somewhat hackneyed, but I still really believe in it. Positive leadership is leadership that relies on optimism, hope, collaboration, and loyalty to achieve goals. It is the opposite of a leadership style that relies on division, acrimony, and backstabbing to get the leader where she wants to go. I've seen both styles in action during my career and I know, first hand, that while negative leadership can get the desired results, they are often short-lived and they are always vulnerable to being torn down. So, too, is the negative leader. Positive leadership on the other hand, draws people in because at heart (I still believe) people are more comfortable with positive attributes (like respect, empathy, and ethical action) than the reverse. Of course, blind optimism -- or sheer naivete -- doesn't produce results either, because it's not grounded in reality. But a leadership style that combines a realistic reckoning of events -- an optimistic vision of the future -can inspire an awful lot of followers.

Eight negative leadership characteristics 1. Unreliable 2. Untrustworthy 3. Uncooperative 4. Irresponsible 5. Lazy 6. Inefficient

º. Disloyal 8. No potential

ÿ p pp p pp

p p p p p p r rp p p p p p p p pp p p p p pp p p pp p p p p pp p pp p p pp pp p pp ppp p p p p p p p p p p p p p p pp p p p p p pp p p p pp p p p p p p ppp p p pp p p p p pp pp p p p p p p p p pp p p p p p p pp ppp p p p pp p p p pp!p p p p p

p pp p p p p p p p p pp p p p pp p p p p p pp p p p pp p p pp pp p p" ppp p p #p p pp p p p$ppp p %p p pp p p ppp p p p p pp pp p pp! pp p

p p p p p p ppp p pp p pp pp p p p p pp&p p

p p p p p " ppp p p pp p p p pp p p pppp pp pp p p p p ppp p p p p pp

p pp p p p p p p pp p p p" pp' ppp pp p ppp p ppp p ppp p p pp p p ppp pppp pp p p p pp'pp pp p p p

p p p pp pp p p p

p p pp ppp p p p p p p pp p p pp p p p p " p ppp!p p p p pp p p " p p p pp pp # ppp p

p pp ppp p pp p p pp p p$(p)

p**p+,%ppp p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p pp # pp p p pp - ppp pp p pp p p p p p p p p p p p p pp p p p

Negative Leadership Numbers 13:1 - 14:4 Pastor Dave Campbell

It has been said that we may learn leadership in two ways: by making a lot of mistakes or learning from other people¶s. The collapse of leadership displayed in our text is nothing short of disastrous. Perhaps the biggest disappointment of all is that the ten spies who returned with an evil report were actually the leaders from among the people. We can easily pick out at least five major leadership blunders from numbers 13: 1. THEY MISUNDERSTOOD THEIR MANDATE Numbers 13:1º-20 indicates that the spies were not mandated to see IF they can take the land, but HOW they are to go in. A common mistake that we as leaders can make is over-analyzing our call. We look at it from every angle we can to see how we can pull it off and we can even talk our-selves out of doing what God told us to do. 2. THEY GOT FOCUSED ON THE CHALLENGES

When the leaders of Israel saw the land, they saw everything from good to bad. They made the mistake of allowing their focus to be drawn to their inadequacies. Good leaders will not draw attention to the weaknesses. Neither would they let the facts obscure the truth. When they reported strong people and fortified walls and descendants of Anak, they were stating the facts. The fact is that the inhabitants WERE strong and the cities WERE hard to conquer, but the truth is, they were able to take the land. Good, godly leaders can state the facts, but they will also state the truth and offset the negative with faith building words. "Yes, the job will be difficult. Yes, we feel inadequate for the job, but the truth is God is Awesome and we are able!" 3. THEY FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THEIR POTENTIAL IN GOD The Lord seeks people of faith to give leadership to His church. Such stuff was obviously lacking in the hearts of these ten spies. In fact, they actually went so far as to refer to themselves as grasshoppers and erroneously declared that it would be the way their enemies would see them also (Num. 13:33). We learn from Rahab that the people of Canaan were actually terrified of the people of Israel once they heard of God¶s intervention on their behalf (Joshua 2:8-11). Their "hearts melted with fear". Too bad Israel¶s leaders didn¶t have the same confidence in God¶s power as their enemies did. 4. THEY FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THE CONTAGIOUS EFFECT OF A NEGATIVE REPORT Numbers 14.1 describes the mass hysteria that occurred after they heard the spy¶s assessment. All the people raised their voices and wept aloud. There was no rejoicing or dancing in the streets. There was no excitement or anticipation of great and new things in the Lord. There was only the tragic sound of a defeated people. The people completely bought into the spy¶s evaluation of the situation and believed it entirely. Never under-estimate the power of your words, especially if you are respected as a leader! I wonder if you have any idea how important you are to the morale and atmosphere of your church! The vision that you cast to the people will either make or break the direction of a church! Victory rises and falls on the faith of the leaders. 5. THEY FAILED TO GOD¶S MIGHTY DEEDS OF THE PAST

The ten plagues of Egypt and the deliverance through the Red Sea should have been fresh in their minds yet they seem to have forgotten what

å c

üohn Robb is pointing today to a great diagram by Steven Mason (PDF) that illustrates üohn Boyd¶s teachings on how positive reinforcement by leaders can create a strong organization, and negative reinforcement by leaders can undermine it. It¶s written for military audiences, but to my mind it¶s just as applicable to the business world. Ask yourself how many companies you¶ve worked for where the managers distrusted and closely managed their subordinates behaved in the ways described by Boyd¶s negative-reinforcement model. Lord knows I¶ve worked for a few :-/ ¢ ¢ says: May 22, 2004 at 6:22 am OK, the cynic in me can¶t help but note that üanis Karpinski clearly adhered to the first model and not the second. The much harder question is±how do you generate meaningful and deserved trust in an organization from top to bottom?

Reply ü says: May 22, 2004 at 7:51 am The top model is not Karpinski-style management. Notice how it stresses ³objective-driven orders´. The idea is that those at the top are involved and engaged, but in an appropriate way ² by setting a direction, establishing boundaries, and then letting their subordinates be creative in how they reach the destination within those boundaries. Karpinski did none of that. She just plain abdicated her responsibilities. Her failure to set appropriate boundaries and make it clear what the mission of the Abu Ghraib prison was is a big reason why her troops could be led to do the things they did, either by their own dark impulses or by orders from military intelligence (depending on who you believe). A unit managed along the first model would have been one where the troops would have felt comfortable telling MI to take their torture schemes and shove them, because (a) they knew that they were out of bounds, and (b) they knew their leadership would back them up if they took the initiative in saying so. Reply ¢ ¢ says: May 23, 2004 at 2:45 pm Objective: Get information on the ³dead-enders´. The top model actually doesn¶t discuss boundary-setting. In fact, it suggests that rules and regulations will be less in a trustful organization. So in this case, with that objective and no boundaries, what happened at AbuGhraib was almost inevitable. They met the objective in creative ways with no process-setting (or even review) by management. I would suggest that a useful addition to the top model would be the boundary setting that you identify as the key missing ingredient. Reply ü says:

May 23, 2004 at 3:37 pm I¶m putting the diagrams in context when I talk about boundary-setting. Boyd¶s bete noire was bureaucracy; he spent his life tilting at the Pentagon windmill, and it eventually destroyed him. It¶s important to note the distinction between formal rules (the kind propagated by bureaucracies) and operational boundaries (the kind set by local leaders). I made the distinction between ³rules and regulations´ and these operational boundaries because of the diagram¶s inclusion of ³regulations´ ² this is a Boyd-ism for ³clueless meddling from the top´. The top model suggests that regulations will be less, but it does not therefore imply an anarchic organization. It suggests that regulations will be less so as to clear the way for local leaders, who are presumably better informed about changing conditions than the people upstairs are, to set appropriate boundaries on their own. This is relevant to Abu Ghraib because there would appear to have been a failure on several levels to set those appropriate boundaries ² from Rumsfeld ( his suggestion that the Geneva Conventions were obsolete?) on down. But nobody ever took the time to clarify exactly what the new rules were. This put the soldiers on the ground in the unenviable position of having to either (a) take a moral stand without knowing if anyone would back them up, or (b) just follow orders. Notice, too, how the orders the MPs claim they got from military intelligence were not objective-oriented, as the top model would recommend; they were processoriented: ³Give him a rough night.´ The MIs were meddling in the MPs¶ chain of command. If the MPs¶ had been managed along the top model, they would have had the confidence to push back; being led by the feckless Karpinski, they did not. You¶re right that the diagrams do not completely encapsulate all of Boyd¶s thinking, but I¶m drawing inferences from other stuff he wrote to come to these conclusions. Sorry if I didn¶t make that clearer in the original post. I still think the diagrams are quite useful, though

å c

üohn Robb is pointing today to a great diagram by Steven Mason (PDF) that illustrates üohn Boyd¶s teachings on how positive reinforcement by leaders can create a strong organization, and negative reinforcement by leaders can undermine it. It¶s written for military audiences, but to my mind it¶s just as applicable to the business world. Ask yourself how many companies you¶ve worked for where the managers distrusted and closely managed their subordinates behaved in the ways described by Boyd¶s negative-reinforcement model. Lord knows I¶ve worked for a few :-/ ¢ ¢ says: May 22, 2004 at 6:22 am OK, the cynic in me can¶t help but note that üanis Karpinski clearly adhered to the first model and not the second. The much harder question is±how do you generate meaningful and deserved trust in an organization from top to bottom? Reply ü says: May 22, 2004 at 7:51 am

The top model is not Karpinski-style management. Notice how it stresses ³objective-driven orders´. The idea is that those at the top are involved and engaged, but in an appropriate way ² by setting a direction, establishing boundaries, and then letting their subordinates be creative in how they reach the destination within those boundaries. Karpinski did none of that. She just plain abdicated her responsibilities. Her failure to set appropriate boundaries and make it clear what the mission of the Abu Ghraib prison was is a big reason why her troops could be led to do the things they did, either by their own dark impulses or by orders from military intelligence (depending on who you believe). A unit managed along the first model would have been one where the troops would have felt comfortable telling MI to take their torture schemes and shove them, because (a) they knew that they were out of bounds, and (b) they knew their leadership would back them up if they took the initiative in saying so. Reply ¢ ¢ says: May 23, 2004 at 2:45 pm Objective: Get information on the ³dead-enders´. The top model actually doesn¶t discuss boundary-setting. In fact, it suggests that rules and regulations will be less in a trustful organization. So in this case, with that objective and no boundaries, what happened at AbuGhraib was almost inevitable. They met the objective in creative ways with no process-setting (or even review) by management. I would suggest that a useful addition to the top model would be the boundary setting that you identify as the key missing ingredient. Reply ü says: May 23, 2004 at 3:37 pm I¶m putting the diagrams in context when I talk about boundary-setting. Boyd¶s bete noire was bureaucracy; he spent his life tilting at the Pentagon windmill, and it eventually destroyed him.

It¶s important to note the distinction between formal rules (the kind propagated by bureaucracies) and operational boundaries (the kind set by local leaders). I made the distinction between ³rules and regulations´ and these operational boundaries because of the diagram¶s inclusion of ³regulations´ ² this is a Boyd-ism for ³clueless meddling from the top´. The top model suggests that regulations will be less, but it does not therefore imply an anarchic organization. It suggests that regulations will be less so as to clear the way for local leaders, who are presumably better informed about changing conditions than the people upstairs are, to set appropriate boundaries on their own. This is relevant to Abu Ghraib because there would appear to have been a failure on several levels to set those appropriate boundaries ² from Rumsfeld ( his suggestion that the Geneva Conventions were obsolete?) on down. But nobody ever took the time to clarify exactly what the new rules were. This put the soldiers on the ground in the unenviable position of having to either (a) take a moral stand without knowing if anyone would back them up, or (b) just follow orders. Notice, too, how the orders the MPs claim they got from military intelligence were not objective-oriented, as the top model would recommend; they were processoriented: ³Give him a rough night.´ The MIs were meddling in the MPs¶ chain of command. If the MPs¶ had been managed along the top model, they would have had the confidence to push back; being led by the feckless Karpinski, they did not. You¶re right that the diagrams do not completely encapsulate all of Boyd¶s thinking, but I¶m drawing inferences from other stuff he wrote to come to these conclusions. Sorry if I didn¶t make that clearer in the original post. I still think the diagrams are quite useful, though If you¶re an ineffective leader who recognizes they bring too much ego to the table, congratulations. itting you have a problem is always the first step. The next steps are a little harder.

In order to become an enlightened, effective leader (yes, this is a little redundant) you first have to realize that you don¶t have all the answers. Even if you¶re the owner of your company, you must understand very early on two important facts about industrial knowledge:

O

Those closest to the customers have the answers; andp

O

Two heads are better than one.p As a leader, you are generally not the closest person to your customers (and you only come equipped with on head). Assuming you know it all is asinine and can be destructive to any organization. Seeking advice and answers from others not only makes you appear more genuine, it also means you¶ll make better decisions. Your next step toward shedding that melon-sized ego is to instill some humility in your routine. Humility, for those egomaniacal loons reading this, simply means that you¶re humble; that you lack the pride and arrogance that makes you believe that everything is all about you. It also means that you see your major contribution as building and maintaining a motivating work environment that engages your team. (Leaders without humility believe their major contribution to the effort is the greatness that is ³me.´)

Once you understand that you don¶t know it all and that it¶s not all about you, you can begin learning. Enlightened leaders have a voracious appetite for learning. They learn from books, from seminars and they especially learn from others. Truly enlightened leaders believe that everyone, even the receptionist and the janitor, has something to teach them. And they understand that the best way to learn is to listen. · Without some outside help, of course, it will be nearly impossible for the ego-driven leader to change his ways. We recommend asg a peer or even a subordinate to call you to the carpet when you fail to provide humble, servant leadership.

Ask someone you can trust (and won¶t resent) to call you an egomaniac when you step out of line. Encourage them to stand on your desk and shout at you whenever you fail to remain humble. You have to be willing to permit these constant course corrections or you have no chance to recognize and repair the destructive effects of ego on your leadership style.

The bottom line is that can¶t let your ego get in the way of the goal. Your ability to overcome self-serving tendencies will determine your team¶s effectiveness and anything you can do to give up your desire to be the center of attention can only help.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Book Reviews 1 200º, Vol. 3, No. 6-º http://www.CognitiveTherapyAssociation.org/cbtbr.aspx Copyright 200º by the International Association for Cognitive Psychotherapy

þ 'ellerman, B. (2004). Harvard Business School Press (www.hbsp.harvard.edu/), 282 pp., $26.95 (Hardcover). This book challenges conventional thinking that suggests the activity of leading requires goodness, competence, and courage. This book compels us to consider, analyze and learn from bad leadership. It requires us to look at the human behavior of leadership in all its forms, including those that are not so flattering, and argues that bad leadership is all around us and that the only way to better address it is to study it, analyze it, learn from it, and finally, take action against it. It offers an outstanding compilation of noteworthy business and political leaders who have caused harm to those around them, both near and far. It is written in a structured and cohesive manner to allow the reader to understand that leadership is ³just one strand of a web that constitutes the leadership process.´ The book is divided into three parts and has a total of 12 chapters. In Part One, ³The Bad Side,´ there are three chapters, Claiming The Bad Side, Reasons For Being Bad; and Making Meaning Of Being Bad. This part addresses human behavior and leadership. In ³Claiming The Bad Side,´ the author speaks to the need to define and look at bad leadership. She argues that for far too long, the term ³leadership´ has been synonymous with ³good´ leadership. She proposes that all leaders must be studied, whether they used their power and authority for good or whether they were ³power wielders´ who served their own purpose and greed. In the second chapter, ³Reasons For Being Bad,´ 'ellerman offers a philosophical, historical and psychological perspective of leadership. She endeavors to explain the reasons that leaders behave badly, the reasons that we follow leaders who behave badly, and the reasons that followers behave badly. In ³Making Meaning of Being Bad´ (Chapter 3), she offers a model to better understand bad

leadership. This model puts bad leadership on two axes, Ineffective Leadership and Unethical Leadership, and suggests that these are more than just theoretical constructs. These are empirical constructs which are later illustrated. She identifies seven types of bad leadership: Incompetent, Rigid, Intemperate, Callous, Corrupt, Insular, and Evil. In Part Two, ³Leading Badly,´ 'ellerman provides seven chapters, one for each bad leadership type: Incompetent, Rigid, Intemperate, Callous, Corrupt, Insular, and Evil. These chapters are extremely well written, particularly in regard to their structure and content. Each chapter follows an outline of subsections which allows the reader to easily relate one chapter to previous and subsequent chapters and better understand bad leadership. Each chapter begins with an introduction, offers brief examples, and then identifies one bad leader as its main focus for the particular type of bad leadership. The subsections include: The Prologue, Context, The Leader, The Followers, The Web, and The Benefit of Hindsight. Chapters four through ten read as a ³Who¶s Who´ of bad leadership, each discussing its respective bad leadership style. Chapter Four: ³Incompetent´, offers a review of the leadership styles of Juan Antonio Samaranch, president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), who was disgraced because of the wide spread corruption among of the IOC; Abdurrahman Wahid, former president of Indonesia, the world¶s fourth most populous Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Book Reviews 2 200º, Vol. 3, No. 6-º http://www.CognitiveTherapyAssociation.org/cbtbr.aspx Copyright 200º by the International Association for Cognitive Psychotherapy

country, who after his capricious management style, inconsistent policies and erratic behavior, he was ousted after only 22 months in office; Jill Barad, briefly CEO of Mattel Inc. the largest and most successful toy company in the United States, who was ousted because of a failed merger. Chapter Five: ³Rigid´, identifies the leadership styles of Mary Meeker, opinion leader at the Wall Street firm Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co, who ignored information that the tech bubble of the 1990¶s was bursting and continued to recommend tech stock long after they had become risky; Robert Hass, former CEO of Levi Strauss & Co., who failed to see the implications of the global economy on his company; Sumner Redstone, CEO of Viacom, the media corporation, who failed to effectively address the issue of succession planning; Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, who failed to respond in a timely manner to the 'ursk submarine disaster. Chapter Six: ³Intemperate´, discusses the leadership styles of Marion Barry Jr., former mayor of Washington, D.C., who was tainted by drug use scandals; Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson, American politicians who were tainted by sexscandals; James Bakker, televangelist who was tainted by financial corruption; Henry Lyons, televangelist who was tainted by sex scandals; William Bennett, author of ³The Book Of Virtues´ and self appointed warrior of the culture wars, who was tainted by his own gambling behavior. Chapter Seven: ³Callous´, considers the leadership styles of Al Dunlap, former CEO of Sunbeam Corporation also know as ³Chainsaw Al´, who due to the short sighted way he managed corporate restructuring created a fiasco for Sunbeam share holders and employees; Rudolph Giuliani, former mayor of New York City, who, prior to 9/11 which changed how he was perceived, was seen as callous and unresponsive to of the minority community in New York City, particularly African Americans; Leona Helmsley, brash and capricious real estate mogul, who served time in prison for tax

evasion; Howell Raines, former executive editor of the New York Times, whose autocratic and callous management style during several scandals at the newspaper led to his termination. Chapter Eight: ³Corrupt´, assesses the leadership styles of William Aramony, former head of the United Way, who was forced to resign because of his ing and management practices; Vincent (Buddy) Cianci Jr., former mayor of Providence, Rhode Island, who was convicted of racketeering conspiracy; Mario Villanueva, former governor of the Mexican state of Quintana Roo, who was charged with shipping cocaine to the United States, drug trafficking, and money laundering; Andrew Fastow, former CFO of Enron, who pleaded guilty to two felonies relating to the ing practices which contributed in the collapse of Enron. Chapter Nine: ³Insular´, describes the leadership styles of Bill Clinton, former president of the United States, who failed to respond to the crisis in Rwanda; Lee Raymond, president of the Exxon Mobil Corporation, who failed to engage or demonstrate concern for anyone outside Exxon Mobil; James W. Johnston, former CEO of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco, who adamantly insisted that cigarette smoking and nicotine were not addictive long after the data had proved otherwise. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Book Reviews 3 200º, Vol. 3, No. 6-º http://www.CognitiveTherapyAssociation.org/cbtbr.aspx Copyright 200º by the International Association for Cognitive Psychotherapy

Chapter Ten: ³Evil´, details the leadership styles of Radovan 'aradzic, first president of the Bosnian Serb istration, who permitted the widespread genocide of Bosnian Muslims; Saddam Hussein, former president of Iraq, who was responsible for murder, torture, genocide, ethnic cleansing and use of chemical weapons against his own people; Jim Jones and David 'oresh, cult leaders and dictators, who caused or contributed to the deaths of their loyal followers. In Part Three, ³From Bad To Better,´ there are two chapters, Costs And Benefits and Comments And Corrections, that clarifY the short and long term consequences of bad leadership and offers suggestions regarding what can be done regarding bad leadership. In ³Costs And Benefits´ (Chapter 11), 'ellerman looks at the ongoing costs of bad leadership and the benefits of its study. It argues, quite convincingly, that bad leadership has a lingering and multigenerational effect. The benefits of study rely on our ability to identify and understand patterns of human behavior and bad leadership, so that we will better be able to confront it early in its genesis. In Chapter 12, ³Comments and Corrections,´ she offers hope that bad leaders can be made better or at least their harmful effects can be slowed. Additionally, it offers prescriptive suggestions to leaders and followers to remediate the development of bad leadership. This book should be considered a must read for anyone who has ever been interested in learning about leadership. It is well written, clear, instructive, and offers information in a well thought out format, unlike many books in this genre. It offers a structure which can be applied to many leaders currently on the world stage, and probably some of the leadership styles many of us experience every day. Finally, it offers concrete suggestions for leaders and followers to consider in order avoid the perils of bad leadership. p