« I dropped my cholesterol 70 points in two weeks | And then there was Foundry . . . »

The power paradox

  • Comments (-)

Dacher Keltner (Psychology prof at Cal) has written a fascinating article that describes some of the important attributes of leaders.  He discusses these attributes in the context of obtaining and maintaining "power" – really leadership if you’re reading the article from the eyes of a VC or entrepreneur.  The title of his article refers to the fact that the attributes necessary to obtain positions of power and leadership are the very attributes that tend to be eroded by those positions themselves (i.e., once people obtain power, they tend to lose it by acting in a way that is antithetical to the reason they rose to that position in the first place). 

Reading the piece through the eyes of a VC, there are a couple of great lessons for those in leadership positions and Keltner really nails a few very common traps that CEOs – particularly first time CEOs – fall into as they navigate the complicated management dynamic with their management and board. As the former manager of a large organization (before becoming a VC I managed a 250 person organization) I see some of the rookie mistakes that I made as I navigated my first really meaningful management position (which is to say managing more than a dozen or so people).  A couple of points stand out (but be sure to read the whole article):

[O]ne’s ability to get or maintain power, even in small group situations, depends on one’s ability to understand and advance the goals of other group members. When it comes to power, social intelligence—reconciling conflicts, negotiating, smoothing over group tensions—prevails over social Darwinism.

One of the key jobs of a CEO is to manage and guide organizational conflict and disagreement – on product direction, on time-lines, on strategic direction, etc.  While a firm hand is often required – the hammer is generally not.  Being a dictator – and putting your opinions and feelings above those of any and everyone else is a quick way to erode one’s standing as leader and diminish the respect for you from your management and board.

Time and time again, empirical studies find that leaders who treat their subordinates with respect, share power, and generate a sense of camaraderie and trust are considered more just and fair.

Successful leaders not only recognize their own limitations and hire people around them to fill in the gaps, they tend to be consensus builders and somewhat hands-off delegateors.  They "share power" and show respect to their teams by empowering decision making and individual action, rather than micro-managing and second-guessing every decision.  Thoughtful managers define general course and direction and for the most part allow their teams to run their respective areas.  If you’ve hired well, this should be the natural dynamic amongst a management team (and with each other, not just with respect to their interaction with their superiors).

[P]ower is [not] acquired strategically in deceptive gamesmanship and by pitting others against one another.

This is particularly true at the board level, but also clearly relevant amongst any group of company managers.  Selectively managing information flow to support a specific, pre-determined outcome; engaging in a series of one-off conversations with the intent of lobbying your position or picking off the group one at a time eventually back-fires.  Acknowledging group differences, understanding the various perspectives brought to the table by your management team and making your case out in the open are much more effective ways to drive a process of decision making.

I look forward to other thoughts on the subject – please comment away!

February 21st, 2008     Categories: Uncategorized    
  • http://nicolasmas.typepad.com/nm/ Nicolas Mas

    I was just wondering, while reading your post if cultural aspects have impacts on leaders behavior. For example, i am French and i surely would build my leadership differently than a Chinese guy because we do not have the same cultural background. And we might both be right on our own baseline. But what would happen if we switch?

    Or do you think that a successful leader went necessarily well beyond his culture?

    • sethlevine

      nicolas – i definitely think there are important cultural differences to be considered – both in terms of the expectations of other managers and board members, as well as inherent difference in how people grow up learning about management style and expectation. good point – thanks for bringing it up.

  • http://dawnkey.wordpress.com Dawn Douglass

    Too bad there aren't more confidently female CEOs…we tend to do these things naturally.

    Many women managers get into trouble thinking that to be successful they must “act male” — all that “nice girls don't get the corner office” crap that makes them think business is about walking on people and gaining power at the expense of others.

    • sethlevine

      its funny you bring this up, dawn. i've been mulling over a post on the differences between male and female ceo's (i've worked with both) but am not sure that i want to jump into that fray. this post really supports the fact that many women's personalities make them naturally good leaders and CEOs . . . and you're right, there's a lot of pressure for them to act “male” to fit into our corporate culture in america (i think this is much more intense in larger companies than at smaller start-ups). thanks for the comment!

      • http://www.breadcrumz.blogspot.com/ Holly Hamann

        I'd love to see what you would write about the difference between male and female CEOs. I am VP for a tech start-up and I have found that being a female leader at any level requires vigilant social awareness. The waters are tricky and expectations of female leaders by employees sometimes drastically conflict. Female employees often think we're automatically on their side. Male peers are great at treating us like equals but don't like it when we encroach on the fundamental male role (where would that leave them?). In the end, everyone wants the same thing…to be respected and valued. Totally agree that there is less pressure to act male in small companies than large. Love your blog!

        • sethlevine

          thanks holly. i'm torn on this (as you saw from my comment to dawn). i'm starting to put some stuff on paper and we'll see what comes of it. i should probably just suck it up and do it (if you've looked through this blog you'll know that i don't generally shy away from my opinions). but as you know, this topic can be particularly charged . . . you bring up a pretty interesting point (the expectation that female ceo's might have that other female execs are “on their side”).

  • Rick J

    What about Steve Jobs?

    The guy has his failures as a leader, but a lot of success as well and last I checked he's not the consensus builder type. There's many types of leaders and different types have strength and weakness. Being a consensus builder is not always good.

  • http://newmanva.com/blog arinewman

    there is certainly an art to providing the guiding hand, and not the hammer when leading a company or a team. I agree that in the long-run (in general) leading by empowering the team and building consensus creates a better culture and creates a greater sense of ownership. That said, the leadership still needs to be there. The art is taking in the feedback, opinions and views but still providing the guidance needed to get to the right decision. Easy words, harder to do…

    I've certainly seen it both ways – too much iron-fist and the mgmt. team feels no personal responsibility for the success of the company because they don't “own” the decisions being made. I'e also participated in management teams where the leadership is too passive, and in an effort to delegate power and decision making to the team, the CEO only erodes their own power and stock.

  • Zach

    I think there is a certain merit to both leadership styles. At least in terms of their ability to manifest power. The difference is that to benefit the company, a leadership style in which collaboration is encouraged is almost always best. But personal power can surely be developed through the use of Machiavellian tactics. History has shown this again and again. Of course these guys tend to get hung up in the town square.