Leadership`s darker side
Why are psychology books almost all concerned with unhappiness and failure, while leadership writers focus exclusively on success?
Economics is probably at work. Most psychology takes place in a clinical setting. Leadership gurus are employed at business schools, where enthusiasm is an entrance requirement and optimism the stock-in-trade.
So it is about time that the leadership industry turned its attention to the darker side. Why are some leaders so bad? How do they get to the top? Why do we tolerate them?
These questions are addressed in new books by Jean Lipman-Blumen, a professor at the Drucker/Ito School of Management in California, and Barbara Kellerman, research director at the Centre for Public Leadership at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.
In Bad Leadership, Kellerman points out that management writers have tended to advance a definition of leadership that explicitly excludes bad apples.
Warren Bennis, in his classic On Becoming a Leader (1989), says that leaders engage others by creating “shared meaning”, speaking with a distinctive voice, demonstrating a capacity to adapt and having integrity.
There is no room within this definition for the authoritarian, the malicious and the corrupt. Study of these unsavoury personalities has been left to psychologists and historians.
Kellerman starts with seven categories into which most bad leaders can be slotted: incompetent, rigid, intemperate, callous, corrupt, insular and evil.
To each category is devoted a chapter, anchored by a short pen portrait. Thus Mary Meeker, the pied piper of dotcom investment, is presented as a paragon of rigidity, refusing to change her tune even when it was clear that technology stocks were absurdly overvalued.
Bill Clinton’s biggest failing? Not, as you might expect, his economy with the truth but, says Kellerman, the insularity that prevented him from taking action to stop the Rwandan genocide.
On this view, the first Clinton administration was so wrapped up in its domestic agenda that it did “nearly nothing” while 800,000 people were slaughtered.
Do Kellerman’s biographical sketches, based mainly on secondary sources, capture the real essence of these personalities? Does Ms Meeker - arrogant at the height of her fame but guilty of no crime and still employed by Morgan Stanley - deserve to be discussed in the same breath as Radovan Karadzic?
Never mind. The result is a breezy, 250 page tour of human weakness - perfect for that transatlantic plane trip to see the boss. You can think of it as “The Seven Habits of Highly Ineffective People”.
The Allure of Toxic Leaders by Jean Lipman-Blumen is a more subtle, scholarly book. While many of the same personalities are discussed - former junk bond king Michael Milken, Enron’s Kenneth Lay and Jeff Skilling, Juan Antonio Samaranch of the International Olympic Committee - Lipman-Blumen is less interested in leaders than followers.
What are the forces, she asks, that compel us to “accept, often favour, and sometimes create” leaders who are toxic - in the sense of seriously harming us and our organisations?
Her answer is complex, ranging from the unconscious search for “parent figures” to the cultural myth of the “chosen few” - whether a religious sect, an exclusive business school, a company such as Enron at the height of its pomp or the White House staff.
It takes a special kind of courage to risk your membership of these select groups by challenging the leader.
Also at work is our existential anxiety, the fear of death and the unknown. Visionary leaders seem to offer certainty in an uncertain world: “We seek meaning and a controlled world from leaders, whom we agree to obey in exchange for this reassuring gift.”
Lipman-Blumen’s hope is that by understanding the ties that bind, we can more easily unseat leaders whose behaviour becomes unacceptably toxic.
Easier said than done, of course. Her point is that we are shackled to authority figures by forces that we barely understand.
Besides, toxic leaders can also have great strengths. Think of Charles Dutoit, the brilliant but temperamental former leader of the Montreal Symphony Orchestra, or politicians ranging from Winston Churchill to Lyndon Johnson.
Easily one of the best leadership books of the 1990s was Ron Heifetz’s Leadership Without Easy Answers (1994). By explaining why followership is equally demanding, The Allure of Toxic Leaders is a perfect complement.
BAD LEADERSHIP By Barbara Kellerman Harvard Business School Press ￡16.99 THE ALLURE OF TOXIC LEADERS By Jean Lipman-Blumen Oxford University Press ￡16.99
失败的领导人
为什么心理学书籍关心的几乎全是不幸和失败，而以领导艺术为题的作者只专注于成功事例？
经济学可能在这里发挥作用。大多数心理学研究发生在临床场合。领导艺术大师受雇于商学院，在那里热情是入门要求，而乐观则是行规。
现在该是领导行业将注意力转到阴暗面上去的时候了。为什么一些领导人这么糟糕？他们怎会进入高层？我们为什么容忍他们？
琼?李普曼-布鲁门(Jean Lipman-Blumen)和芭芭拉?凯勒曼(Barbara Kellerman)在她们的新书中阐述了这些问题。李普曼-布鲁门是加州德鲁克/依藤管理学院(Drucker/Ito School of Management)教授，凯勒曼是哈佛大学肯尼迪政府学院(Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government)公共领导中心的研究主任。
凯勒曼在《不良领导》中指出，管理学作者一直倾向于提出一个显然不包括害群之马的领导定义。
沃伦?本尼斯(Warren Bennis)在他的经典著作《论成为领导人》(On Becoming a Leader)(1989)中说，领导人通过创造“共享意义”，用独特的声音讲话，证明有适应能力，并且为人正直，以此吸引他人。
这个定义没有为独裁者、怀有恶意者和腐败者留有余地。对这些讨厌人物的研究则留给了心理学家和历史学家。
凯勒曼在开篇写了多数不佳领导人会被归入的七种类别：不胜任、刻板、放纵、无情、腐败、思想狭隘和邪恶。
每一类都有一章进行专门论述，并配有一段简短的文字素描。因此在书中，互联网公司投资方面的花衣魔笛手玛丽?米克(Mary Meeker)，被描述为一个行事刻板的典范，即使在科技股显然已被高估得离谱时，也拒绝改变论调。
比尔?克林顿(Bill Clinton)最大的失败是什么？你以为是他不尽不实？不是，凯勒曼说，而是妨碍他采取行动制止卢旺达种族灭绝的狭隘思想。
从这种观点来看，第一届克林顿政府是如此全神贯注于国内事务日程，以致于在80万人被屠杀时，该政府“几乎没”做什么。
凯勒曼的传记性概述主要基于二手资料，这些概述抓住了这些人物的真正本质吗？米克女士在她声名鼎盛时狂妄自大，但她毫无犯罪感，而且仍受雇于摩根士丹利(Morgan Stanley)，应当把她和波黑塞尔维亚共和国前总统拉多万?卡拉季奇(Radovan Karadzic)相提并论吗？
没关系。这本250页的书将让读者经历一段轻松愉快的人性弱点之旅。对那些飞越大西洋去面见上司的人来说，这是绝佳的读本。你可以将其视为“高度无能之人的七种习性”。
琼?李普曼-布鲁门所著的《有害领导者的诱惑》(The Allure of Toxic Leaders)是一本更细致、更有学术性的书。尽管书中讨论到许多一样的人物，包括前垃圾债券大王迈克尔?米尔肯(Michael Milken)、安然(Enron)的肯尼思?莱(Kenneth Lay)和杰夫?斯基林(Jeff Skilling)，以及国际奥委会(IOC)的胡安?安东尼奥?萨马兰奇(Juan Antonio Samaranch)，但李普曼-布鲁门更感兴趣的是领导人的追随者，而不是领导人本身。
她问，那些迫使我们“接受、往往是偏爱，并且不时创造出”有害领导者的力量是什么？这里的“有害”是指会对我们和我们的组织造成严重伤害。
她的回答很复杂，包括对“父母身份”无意识的寻求，以及“极少被选中者”的文化迷思，无论那是一个宗教派别，一所惟我独尊的商学院，一家像处于巅峰期的安然(Enron)那样的公司，还是白宫的职员。
要冒着丧失自己优等团体成员资格的风险，来挑战领导者，需要一种特殊的勇气。
存在的焦虑，以及对死亡和未知事物的恐惧，也在发挥作用。有远见的领导者似乎能在一个不确定的世界中提供确定性：“我们希望从领导者那里寻求意义，以及一个受掌控的世界。我们愿意服从他们，以换取这种令人安心的礼物。”
李普曼-布鲁门希望，通过理解约束关系，对于那些行为有害到令人无法容忍的领导者，我们就能更容易将他们赶下台。
当然，说总比做容易。她的观点是，在一些难以理解的力量的左右下，我们会使自己受制于权威人物。
此外，有害领导者也可能有巨大的力量。想想蒙特利尔交响乐团才华横溢但喜怒无常的前领导人查尔斯?迪图瓦(Charles Dutoit)，或者温斯顿?邱吉尔(Winston Churchill)、林顿?约翰逊(Lyndon Johnson)那样的政治家。
毫无疑问，罗纳德?海菲兹(Ron Heifetz)的《领导大不易》(Leadership Without Easy Answers)(1994)是上世纪90年代最优秀的领导艺术著作之一。《有害领导者的诱惑》通过解释为什么服从也同样要求苛刻，而成为《领导大不易》的一个完美补充。
《不良领导》(Bad Leadership)，作者：芭芭拉?凯勒曼(Barbara Kellerman)，哈佛商学院出版社，16.99英镑；《有害领导者的诱惑》，作者：琼?李普曼-布鲁门(Jean Lipman-Blumen)，牛津大学出版社，16.99英镑。
