Management by Intimidation

I recently read Comaford's Smart Tribes, a book that has become trendy in certain circles lately - and for a change, I have the sense that's a good thing.   While I don't expect many readers will get the message, anything that seeps in to help evolve management out of the industrial era and into the present age would be helpful.

I've likely mentioned before, perhaps several times, that management tactics are stuck in the Industrial era in which workers were unskilled drudges whose contribution was to do as they were told without thinking, and how this ill-concived methodology has been carried forward in firms that want, but fail, to be innovative.   Workers can be terrorized (threat of terminating the income on which his family depends is nothing less) into doing the will of management, but they cannot be terrorized into thinking innovatively, or thinking at all.

Much of this has to do with the processes of the human mind: any stimuli that is perceived as a threat gets an immediate reaction that includes very little intelligence.  While human beings do not have instincts in the sense that animals do, they do have stored procedures that they immediately fall upon when faced with a threatening situation, and they are more sophisticated in their threat-assessment algorithms.

Not only does this mean that any management directive that is backed by an "or else" threat receives an immediate and unintelligent response, but any situation perceived as being a problem is also categorized as a low-grade threat that gets a quick reaction - the first thing that comes to mind, based on patterns established by past experience in dealing with threats, is put into action without much consideration.    Neurologically, the activity all occurs in the limbic system, a part of the brain humans have in common with lesser species.  In a sense, it's entirely accurate to say that human beings behave like animals in dealing with threatening and stressful situations because the response does not give them access to the parts of the brain that are unique to humans.

In order to activity to take place in the frontal lobes - the distinctly human "thinking" parts of the brain - the threat-response algorithms must be bypassed.  If they are triggered, the stimulus and response never get further than the animalistic limbic system, and the intelligent mind can only be engaged after an action has been taken - hence the common question of "what was I thinking?" and the invariable answer that "I wasn't thinking."

The problem is not solved, not even partially, by traditional managers who seek to use traditional intimidation/terror tactics to motivate their subordinates to be innovative.   To be threatened into thinking is as absurd and contradictory as to be ordered not to follow orders.   It simply will not work.

What is necessary is an environment of opportunity-seeking rather than problem-solving, which is more than a matter of cleverly rephrasing a problem as an opportunity, but a significant shift for an organization.  It is a change not only in tactics, and not only in strategy, but in culture.

And with that in mind, I think Comaford is definitely onto something.   I'm not ready to jump on the "smart tribes" bandwagon after having read her book because there's a little too much cheerleading and a little too much junk-science for my taste - but that doesn't mean she's not heading in the right direction and that exposure to her theory of management would be harmful.  Quite the opposite.   Perhaps the best way to frame it is to say that it's good but in need of further consideration and refinement.

Leadership: Desire and Ability

A colleague of mine, in a pessimistic mood, remarked that the kind of people who seek leadership positions tend to be the kind of people who are least capable of being successful leaders.   They are seek dominance and power over others as an end in itself, and have no specific objective in mind except to dominate and control others.   And sadly they very often hound their way into management, where they do quite a bit of damage.

I could not disagree with him, as I routinely see exactly this kind of person in a position of authority - but if it's any consolation, many of them do not go very far, or remain managers for very long.   At the top levels of management, C-level executives and senior vice presidents, there are many very good and capable leaders.  Below that level, it tends to be a mixed group, with a constantly rotating gallery of power-hungry clowns beneath them.   Granted, it's not universally true: there are strong leaders in the lower echelons and clowns in the firmament, but these seem to be rare.

And being a tedious person, I've meditated on the matter, and put together a simple matrix of the desire to lead against the ability to lead, to define four basic "types" of leader in terms of these two parameters.  Hence, this article.


Core Qualities: The Desire and Ability to Lead

The two core qualities evaluated in the present assessment are the desire to lead and the ability to lead.   There may be other parameters that are worth considering, but these are most germane to the discussion that started my wheels turning.

The desire to lead is merely the degree to which a person wishes to be a leader.  The motivation of such a person could likely be investigated further by asking "Why do you want to lead?" in order to get a better sense of an individual's motivation, at least to the degree they will make an accurate statement - whether they wish to lead because they need people to accomplish a personal objective, for the salary and esteem of a leadership position, a response to a cultural imperative that motivates them to attain a given position in life, or merely for gratification of their psychological need to be in command of others.

The reason a person wants to lead is likely a determinant of whether they have the ability to lead competently - or are willing to apply themselves diligently to the task of learning to become an effective leader.  But my sense is that a person is driven by lust for power may be just as likely to hone his abilities and become a good leader as one who gets into leadership for the "right" reasons.   That is, a person may have good intentions and state strong desires but be too lazy to do what is necessary to achieve them.

The ability to lead is more easily measured in the behaviors of a person.  A leader can

• articulate his goals
• define a plan to accomplish them
• persuade others to contribute to the effort, and 
• maintain the morale of his followers over a long period of time.   

Anyone who does less may be a boss or a manager, but is not a leader.

These four qualities of leadership are not matters of opinion, but are demonstrated in action.  A man may claim to have leadership qualities, and he may even convince others that he has the makings of a good leader - but his ability to lead will become evident only when he is in a position of leadership, at which point it will be obvious and unmistakable whether he possess them.

These qualities defined, I will consider their convergence.


Inspirational Leaders: High Desire and High Ability

An inspirational leader possesses both the desire and the ability to lead, and is the very model of what a leader ought to be.

A high desire to lead is necessary, as a person who does not see the need for others can be competent in a task all on his own and will not see the need to command the cooperation of others to achieve it.   Such a person can be a great individual performer, but lacks sufficient desire to lead to become a great leader.

This begs the question: are great leaders always leading others?   My sense is that they are not.  They will at times identify tasks that do not need others to cooperate and can perform them without followers.   But at the same time, I sense it is more than just happenstance: people choose the goals they wish to pursue.  Therefore, a person who routinely chooses tasks that require no assistance may have the potential to lead, but not the desire to do so - and his lack of desire causes him to choose to pursue tasks that do not require others to support.

In that sense, if a person is to be in a position of leadership on a regular or ongoing basis, he must have a desire to lead, and express this desire in choosing to pursue goals that require him to be a leader of others in order to accomplish them.


Terminal Followers: Low Desire and Low Ability

The diametric opposite of an inspirational leader is a terminal follower: such a person has no desire to lead, nor the ability to lead, and will likely never find himself in a leadership position.

Given that western culture is prone to hero-worship and takes a very negative perspective on anyone who does not wish to become a hero or a leader, there may be the tendency to dismiss a "terminal follower" as a useless and shiftless person - but my sense is that perspective ignores the value of followers.

Without followers, there would be no need for leaders.  Conversely, if a single leader means to inspire a thousand others, there must be a thousand others who have no desire or ability to lead, but will happily resign themselves to supporting roles.   Leaders require followers, and society requires a great deal more followers than leaders.

The question may arise: how can a terminal follower become a good leader?  The obvious answer is that he can't, and should not be encouraged to assume a role for which he has no desire or talent.  Allow such a person to do what he does best and is most comfortable doing rather than push him into a role where he ill be miserable and doomed to failure.

However, that is not to say that a terminal follower cannot become a good leader, or even an inspirational one - but this motivation must come from within.   Generally speaking, a terminal follower must discover a cause about which he feels so strongly that he is willing to undertake the task of learning to be a leader and assume a position that will be uncomfortable for him.

While I am not aware of the proportion of leaders who were once followers, history and literature provide quite a few examples of a person hidden among the ranks who discovered the need and desire to lead.   Such a character transformation makes for quite a compelling story, and is often a prominent turning point in the biographies of many legendary leaders.


Occasional Leaders: Low Desire but High Ability

The occasional leader is an individual who has the abilities to be the best sort of leader, but who has little desire to apply himself to the task.

These individuals are easily mistaken for "terminal followers" simply because they do not demonstrate in action the leadership qualities they happen to possess under everyday circumstances.   But every so often, when they are inspired to step into a position of leadership, they excel at the task.   But as soon as the goal is achieved, they blend back into the scenery.

My sense is that a great many individuals are occasional leaders, as western culture extols the virtues of leadership and western education seeks to prepare every student to become a leader, even though the great majority of them will never have an opportunity to serve in a position of leadership.

Encouraging the occasional leader to step out of the pack and put his skills to use is no easy matter.   In that way, he is like the terminal follower who rises to the task of leadership only on the rare occasion that he sees the need.

However, it stands to reason that the occasional leader is more open to encouragement - in general, people find pleasure in doing the things that they are good at doing, and it is likely easier to persuade the occasional leader to put existing skills to work than it is to persuade a terminal follower to develop skills he does not have so that he may then utilize them.

It can also be observed that the progression is not always from occasional leader to inspirational leader, but can often go the other way around.  When an inspirational leader is disgruntled or frustrated, he may abdicate his position of leadership to blend into the ranks - still having the ability, but not the desire, to lead others.


Tragic Leaders: High Desire but Low Ability

The worst form of leader, and seemingly the most common, is a person who desires to be in a leadership position but has no ability to exercise leadership.

This includes the swollen ranks of those who are in leadership positions, but are mediocre or incompetent leaders.   At best, such people maintain the status quo but accomplish no improvement; at worst, they do a great deal of damage to their organization, whether through the waste of resources in pursuit of ill-conceived directives or merely running off competent followers who wish to devote themselves to a more competent leader.

It's my sense that the lower ranks of management are infested with tragic leaders for two reasons: there are those who desire to be better leaders and require time and experience to hone their skills to become effective in the task, and then there are those whose desires are more in the nature of personal gratification who will never become competent leaders.

The first class of tragic leader is mere inefficiency, as the damage they do during the learning process will be surpassed by the dividends achieved once they attain competence in their role when they become good leaders, and possibly outstanding ones.   Training, mentoring, and other forms of education and guidance can be used to mitigate the damage they might do and expedite their development into effective leaders.

The second class of tragic leader may well be incurable.   Particularly because their desire to control others is psychologically motivated, it is often entrenched in ego defenses that prevent them from accepting guidance or training - and will most likely resist any suggestion that they need to develop skills as a threat to their authority.  Because they desire to be autocratic, they will not listen to anyone, but persist in their unproductive behavior.

That is not to suggest that the second-class tragic leader is entirely wasted, but it will take a dramatic event to get such a person to recognize his own incompetence and apply himself to improving his performance.   However, a dramatic event is often so catastrophic that organizations will seek to get rid of such people rather than attempting to salvage them.

Thus considered, the best approach to a tragic leader is to facilitate that epiphany - to help him discover, before he has damaged the organization and run off all the good followers, that he is incapable of leadership such as he is, and either to reconsider his desire to lead or channel it into improving himself to become a better leader.

It is also my sense that the lower ranks of management are infested with tragic leaders because most of them do not cause catastrophes, but merely inefficiencies.  The damage they do to the firm is minor and sustainable, and they alienate employees at a slow enough rank that they can be replaced.  They fail to wreak enough havoc to seem to require a reaction, but at the same time fail to achieve enough success to seem to be worth promoting, and so languish in the lower eschelons indefinitely.


Conclusions

The first and most obvious set of conclusions to draw from this meditation is that organizations should assess the leaders they have, both in terms of desire and ability, and take action accordingly:

• Inspirational leaders should be cherished, and put to work in places where good leadership stands to have the most positive impact on organizational performance
• Occasional leaders should be sought out an encouraged to apply themselves to the task of leadership where no inspirational leader can be assigned, with the understanding that it is motivation rather than skill that needs addressing
• Tragic leaders should be identified and encouraged to develop their skills, and if they cannot recognize their incompetence or apply themselves to improvement, they should be removed from leadership
• Terminal followers should be value for what they do, which does not include leadership roles in which they would be both uncomfortable and unable to succeed

The second and most germane to the conversation that set my mind in motion is that the proportion of tragic leaders who selected for leadership, who rise within the organization or, or who linger in the lower levels of management is a testament to the competence (or lack thereof) of the higher-level leaders who have selected, appointed, and maintained such people in positions of authority - and that it is highly likely to be an indicator of the effectiveness of the organization as a whole.

A firm can either succeed in spite of poor leadership, or fail because of it.  There need be no matrix to explain that particular correlation.

Trustworthiness Trumps Intelligence

I've been reading a bit on social psychology, and stumbled upon a concept related to interpersonal relationships that I think has a great deal of applicability to brand marketing and customer experience design.   The general notion is that people do not wish to engage with others because they are intelligent, but because they are trustworthy - and moreover, intelligence can be a liability.  And I think the same goes for companies as well:

Trust in Personal Relationships

Assessing the degree to which we can trust other people is fundamental to every human relationship, and a necessary survival skill: we assess whether another creature poses a threat before we begin to consider if there is any possible value in interaction.   While we are drawn to others because we recognize the efficiencies gained by collaborative effort, and while we must often depend on others due to the differentiation and specialization of labor, our first question is merely "will this person do me harm?"  That is, we are distrustful immediately, and develop trust afterward.

Only once we have satisfied ourselves that the other person means no harm can we consider whether working cooperatively with them will be beneficial to ourselves, or if it is merely a one-way street in which we are being manipulated into serving the other party's interest rather than our own, or even to the detriment of our own.   It doesn't take very much experience to recognize that not everyone is truly collaborative, and pretensions of altruism are often a method of deception.

At this point, intelligence works both for and against our willingness to trust in others.   We feel confident that the outcome of cooperation is positive if the other party has the intelligence to formulate a sound plan (though realistically, this is more in terms of insightfulness - their ability to perceive something we do not - rather than intelligence, because it is our own intellect that is used to assess the plan they are proposing).  On the other hand, we have the distinct sense that clever people use their intelligence to deceive others, which causes us to question the confidence we have in a plan that seems intelligent, but may merely be clever.  It is for that reason that we value intelligent people, but are reluctant to trust them.

After the initial encounter, trust has less to do with our gut reaction to a person, and more to do with our experience dealing with that individual.   If previous engagements have, indeed, been mutually beneficial then it is out expectation that future engagements will follow in the same line - and we spend less time scrutinizing the person and their plan and place greater faith that this time will turn out like the last time.   Even so, we remain apprehensive to some degree, until we have had sufficient experience with a person to take it for granted that they are likely to be fair with others.

Trust in Brand Relationships

The way in which we relate to brands and companies is entirely analogous to the way in which we relate to people and groups (respectively), with one marked difference: we are well aware of our interests and theirs.   The customer has a need or aspiration that he wishes to address, the brand or company offers him a promise to serve that interest while meanwhile having its own interest in receiving money in exchange.

The customer is well aware of the primary risk that he is taking on - that the product he is being offered will fail to meet his needs, and that in spite of consumer protectionism and any guarantee or warranty the seller might intimate, he stands to lose the amount of money he gave to the seller - which is significant only in that its loss will prevent him from purchasing an alternative product that would have been successful.  In certain instances there are secondary risks, such as having to take on the disposal cost to rid himself of the product or the damage that may be done to him or his property in the course of using it, but these tend in most instances to be relatively minor.

Germane to this topic, however, the problem is not that companies are unable to convince their intended customers that their products are capable of addressing their needs in a cost-effective manner.  This has been the thrust of advertising and sales promotion all along, and while its success rate is dismal, this is likely the best that can be done given that most of these messages take the intelligent approach and fail to build trust.

That is to say that customers are aware that, in order to get money out of them, companies wish to give them the impression that their products are capable of meeting their needs at a price that's comparable to or less than other alternatives.   But until trust is established, these claims are not regarded as being truthful or reliable, but instead as subterfuge offered by a party whose primary interest is in getting what it wants from others, and doing as little as possible for them in return.

While companies often engage in "brand marketing" or public relations campaigns in order to build trust, it is with some sense of irony that it can be observed how little of the marketing budget is devoted to these initiatives - the majority is spent on promulgating claims that no-one will believe rather than investing in developing the trustworthiness for those claims to be believed.  Hence, the dismal success rate for promotional and product advertising.

Afterthoughts

A few topics came to mind during this meditation, but I set them aside to avoid clouding the fundamental issue:

• Experience - The degree to which past interactions cause us to give trust to someone without as much consideration of their present proposal
• Reputation - The degree to which we grant trust to an unknown person because other people have positive opinions and share anecdotal evidence
• Groups - The degree to which the behavior of some members of a group causes us to regard the entire group
• Cross-Wiring - The degree to which a person is similar in incidental ways (they have a similar appearance, voice, etc.) to another whom we have positive or negative experience

There are likely other topics as well, as trust is a very complex issue, but a critical one for customer engagement.

Human Behavior and Organizations

I recently read A Manager’s Guide to Human Behavior, a book that’s draws attention to several areas in which the psychology of individual employees (perception, cognition, and motivation) is critical to the effectiveness of a commercial organization, but which stops short of offering much in the way of useful information about the topic of behavioral psychology itself.  I found this highly annoying, yet likely necessary given the scope of the topic.

In essence, a commercial organization, or any other form of organization, is a system of people who collaborate toward a common goal.   The buildings, equipment, materials, and all other resources that are listed as “assets” on a balance sheet are largely inconsequential to the value that the firm creates – even the extreme instance of a fully-automated production facility where all labor is performed by machines depends on people to design the machines, keep them running, monitor their operations, provide their inputs, and sell their outputs.

But in order to collaborate toward the common goal that is proposed by the firm, there must be motivation on the part of each employee to achieve it.   The simplistic view that people work only for compensation, and are indifferent to the nature of the duties placed upon them for that sake, is an entirely nineteenth-century concept that presumes that both people and jobs are commodities – that anyone would be equally happy with any activity, any job can be satisfactorily completed by any able-bodied worker, and the only difference between one job or one worker and the next is the amount of compensation provided.

There likely remain many instances in which that is true, on the lowest levels of present-day society: there are people who don’t much care what they do for a living so long as they make the income they require, and jobs that are so facile that anyone is capable of doing them with a few hours’ instruction.   But such instances are rare: even the most menial minimum-wage job requires some level of knowledge and skill, and even the lowest orders of human society require some level of engagement and motivation in their work that stems from non-economic needs.

As to the identity of those non-economic needs the book could only provide a vague notion along with a small handful of well-trodden theories of motivation – and that’s likely where it falls short.   A “guide to human behavior” should likely go into greater depth on that topic, and as such this is more of an argument as to why human behavior should be considered important – but likely that’s not as marketable a title.

Loyalty and Sales Promotion

I read a rather damning case-study about Groupon and the way in which participating in this program (which offers discounts of more than 50% off of regular price when a sufficient number of people indicate an intention to take advantage of a deal) will create a very brief spike in sales, but have a long-term negative effect on customer loyalty.   Not only do those who show up to take advantage of the deal fail to become loyal customers, but the deal itself and the flood of bargain-seekers makes existing loyal customers feel cheated.

I couldn’t disagree with the premise of the study, but it does not seem entirely fair to single out one company for consternation.  Nor does it seem entirely fair to suggest that Groupon is to blame for the problem – but instead it is the retail establishment, desperate to drum up business, that leverages this service that is likely most to blame – just as we do not blame the automobile or the alcohol for an incident of drunken driving, but the individual who failed to exercise good judgment and self-restraint.

Long before the internet came into existence, retailers used sales promotions of various types to bring in the hordes: coupons, sales events, direct-mail offers, and other similar tactics had the very same effect, just on a smaller scale and over a longer period of time: they brought in people who were only interested in an advantageous offer, for only as long as the offer was valid, who would not later be willing to consider purchasing the product at its regular price.

Likewise, long before Groupon came into existence, retailers bewailed the manner in which they were hoist by their own petard: those who held regular weekly sales events found their shops empty on dates when they were not offering deals, and those who offered coupons regularly found that no-one would order their product unless they had a coupon.   That is to say that customers had no loyalty to the retailer, and only came looking to take advantage (in every sense of the phrase) of a discount offer.

Not only does sales promotion attract shoppers who have no loyalty, it also diminishes the loyalty of customers who are willing to shop the retailer for reasons other that price.   After all, it seems foolish to pay full fare when a discount is available, or would be available in a very short time – and in that situation anyone who is loyal to the brand feels that they are being punished for their loyalty, whether it is the financial loss they feel they have incurred by purchasing at full price or the shame they feel at having been so easily deceived.  (It is in fact quite common for these very same brands to include copy in their promotions that is very insulting to those who pay full price.)

It is in that way that brands that bemoan the loss of customer loyalty but continue to discount merchandise as a matter of course that seem rather foolish – as their own behavior has done much to discourage and destroy loyalty to their brand, to drive away loyal customers in catering to the demand of bargain-seekers, and thereby to ensure that no-one purchases from them except in instances where they have set themselves up to as an attractive mark for the kind of person who seeks to take advantage of them - and they get exactly what they worked t ogain

So in the end, it would be just to suggest that retailers who smother loyalty by offering special deals are getting what they deserve –they are reaping exactly what they have sown and have worked hard to earn the low grade of customer that they have chosen to pursue.