Lead2Transform

The Diminisher Affliction

Mark McCloskey — Tue, 31 May 2016 21:46:49 +0000

Beware the leader too smart to be wise.

What is a Diminisher?

Author and consultant Liz Wiseman’s book, Multipliers, features two distinct and contrasting types of leaders; multipliers and diminishers. Multipliers are strong and capable leaders in their own right, but they use their talent and organizational power to access and leverage (multiply) the strength and talent of others. Multipliers believe most everyone is smart, are capable of figuring things out, and will get even smarter along the way. They affirm that a top priority of a top leader is to identify and multiply the intelligence, talent and insight of others on behalf of the organization. In the words of Wiseman, multipliers are talent magnets.”

Diminishers are also strong and capable individuals; smart, articulate, motivated, and highly competent. But here is where the similarity with the multiplier ends. For the diminisher, a top leadership role provides the opportunity to showcase their superior intelligence and ability, and correspondingly, to suppress (diminish) the talent and insight of others. In this sense,

diminishers are elitists—they believe they are the best and brightest; that intelligent, insightful and creative, people are few and far between, and of course they are members of this rare breed.

Additionally, they adhere to a static mentality—they believe that most people lack sufficient intelligence to get the job done and won’t get any smarter along the way. Correspondingly, diminishers do none of the listening and all of the talking; they do all of the thinking and make all the important decisions.

The Personal Affliction.

Multipliers, secure in their own identity and capabilities, develop and support others, and explore opportunities for their further contribution.

Diminishers, afflicted with low levels of emotionally immaturity and prone to destructive narcissism, have an unrealistically high regard for their own intelligence and expertise, often elevating themselves to genius level. Operating from a paradoxical combination of a low self-regard and an elevated assessment of their abilities, diminishers must put others down to lift themselves up.

The Organizational Affliction.

Diminishers afflict the organization in three ways.

First, diminishers drain the organization of talent. Like the alpha and toxic leader, diminishers provide no space for others to contribute to the leadership work. Since diminishers must, out of emotional necessity, play the role of smartest person in the room,”

by definition, at least in their own minds, they generate all the correct, best and brilliant answers and ideas. Diminshers see it as their birthright and public duty to monopolize conversations, shut down discussions, and ignore or devalue the insight of others. Answers and ideas from others are, by definition incorrect, faulty or just plain stupid. Mature adults pick up on this pretty quickly, with most fleeing the diminisher, hopefully to work with a multiplier.

A few months after reading Wiseman’s book, I had the misfortune to encounter a leader that insisted on dominating discussions, believed he was not only the smartest person in the room, but also the only smart person in the room, and ignored the input of other talented and insightful leaders. Wiseman’s framework was enormously helpful in interpreting his attitudes, behaviors and decisions, and, as it turned out, the future trajectory of his leadership.

As I observed this leader over a period of months, it was obvious he was a master diminisher, and in fact had raised the practice to an art form. He was always right—and I do mean always—and anyone—and I do mean anyone—who disagreed with him was by definition dead wrong. This became painfully evident as I sat in a meeting where the diminisher discounted the perspective of other strong and capable leaders—all stronger and more capable than he—leaders with decades of experience in the subject matter at hand. Instead of listening and learning from these colleagues, the diminisher used his organizational authority to impose his decisions—not supported by research or facts—on the organization.

He was adamant, fully convinced that his plan was brilliant, genius in fact. He made it abundantly clear that his thinking was superior to all of us in the room. He monopolized the conversation with a lengthy, mind-numbing PowerPoint presentation sprinkled with anecdotes about why his plan was superior to the recommendations of the experienced leaders in the room. He used conversation-ending stock answers to respond to questions about his decisions, as in

You obviously don’t have all the information,” and If you knew what I knew, I think you would agree with me.”

My favorite was,

I know you don’t have access to the information I have access to, so you’ll just have to trust me on this.”
Embedded in his responses was a not-too-subtle put down.

I know more than you and your dissent only reveals your ignorance.”

While this individual retains significant formal authority—that’s for another discussion—with the exception of a few sycophant omegas, he has lost any semblance of moral authority in the organization. People don’t trust his “expertise” and whenever possible, steer clear of him—within months every leader in the aforementioned “discussion” found other places to contribute.

If he keeps this up—and he most likely will—he will indeed become the smartest person in the room, because he will be the only person left in the room as others flee from his influence.

Join us in our next blog when we discuss how diminishers “expert status” creates a bottleneck that no 21st century organization can afford to ignore.

Download this post

The Woodenhead Affliction In Action

Mark McCloskey — Mon, 16 May 2016 12:39:34 +0000

Were you able to read our recent information on The Wooddenheaded Affliction in leadership? If not, take a minute to read it here, and then read below to learn about the Woodenheaded Affliction in action

A tragic example.

General Douglas Haig is a tragic example of what can happen when a top leader afflicted by woodenheadedness doubles down on a failed strategy and insulates himself from the consequences of his decisions. Haig was given command of the British First Army Corp in France at the outbreak of World War I. He soon became the Commander in Chief and was later promoted to Field Marshal for the remainder of the War. Haig is remembered as a “good man” but second rate general. He is best known for his mishandling of the Battle of Somme, where he earned the title, “Butcher of the Somme” after unnecessarily sending thousands of British troops to their deaths.

Haig was a meticulous military planner. He made ample use of military intelligence and began his attacks on the German line with heavy artillery bombardments to weaken enemy positions. Haig was utterly convinced that success in battle was primarily a matter of morale and determination.

So, the best way to win, he reasoned, was not by strategic advantage, but by sheer force of will.

A firm believer in the superiority of the cavalry charge, Haig believed that mere bullets had little stopping power over horses. Consequently, the best way to break through the German front lines was a massive cavalry charge.

Supremely confident in his military judgment, Haig wrote in his journal on the fist day of the Battle of Somme,

"Very successful attack this morning. All went like clockwork…The battle is going very well for us and already the Germans are surrendering freely. The enemy is so short of men that he is collecting them from all parts of the line. Our troops are in wonderful spirits and full of confidence.”

He was right. On the first day of the Somme, as Haig was recording his upbeat version of the battle, the British took an astonishing 61,816 casualties—the greatest single day loss in British military history. In the first five days of the Somme offensive, over 100,000 thousand British troops would be killed, wounded or taken prisoner. Four thousand German prisoners would be taken and a little more than a mile of disputed ground gained.

Perhaps just as astonishing as the casualty figures was the fact that Haig remained unaware of the tragic consequences of his orders. Historian John Terraine notes,

First, Haig didn’t grasp the fact that in battle some things don’t go as planned—common knowledge to any general.

Sometimes artillery shells didn’t explode and weaken enemy positions. Sometimes the Germans moved soldiers and artillery out of the range of his artillery. Consequently, British troops faced murderous return fire from machine guns and artillery as they charged the German line.

Second, Haig lived in self-imposed blindness to the consequences of his decisions.

He resolutely determined never to visit the front line or familiarize himself with the actual day-to-day of warfare. During the entire course of the war, he never visited the front lines once. His reason? He worried that scenes of the carnage might influence his strategic judgment. Winston Churchill later wrote that Haig reminded him of

Third, Haig’s subordinates refused to tell him the truth—remember the filter principle.

Without excusing his terrible judgment, Churchill laid some of the blame at the doorstep of Haig’s advisors. “Sir Douglas Haig was not at this time well served by his advisors in the Intelligence Department of General Headquarters. The temptation to tell a Chief in a great position the things he most likes to hear is one of the commonest explanations of mistaken policy. Thus the outlook of a leader on whose decision fateful events depend is usually far more sanguine than the brutal facts admit.”

These three factors were enough to fuel and sustain Haig’s woodenheadedness, allowing him to remain convinced that his decisions were sound and that doubling down, in his case tripling and quadrupling down, and sending more troops into the line of fire made perfect sense.

Haig was frequently in error but never in doubt. Over the four months of the Somme campaign, he stubbornly refused to abandon his failed strategy of throwing men at machine gun nests after an ineffectual initial bombardment. After five months of fierce battle, Haig finally called a halt to the slaughter. The official British history of World War I would tactfully conclude that Haig was “not swift of thought.”

Summary and Impact.

Douglas Haig is a spectacular example of the incapacity of the woodenheaded leader to “read reality” and metabolize its feedback. Cognitive psychologist Dietrich Dorner connects this brand of poor leadership performance to what he calls. In Haig’s case this included an overreliance on outdated military theory, laziness in seeking out and properly interpreting feedback, mixed with a blatant moral disregard for the personal and collective consequences of his decisions.

"bad habits of thought.”

In Haig’s case this included an overreliance on outdated military theory, laziness in seeking out and properly interpreting feedback, mixed with a blatant moral disregard for the personal and collective consequences of his decisions.

Haig is testimony to the principle that the denial of one’s mistakes is the greatest of all mistakes.

As the saying goes,

"The greatest of sins is to be conscious of none.”

Download this post

The Woodenhead Affliction

Mark McCloskey — Mon, 02 May 2016 12:37:43 +0000

"The greatest of sins is to be conscious of none."

Introduction.

What is Woodenheadedness? In The March of Folly: From Troy to Viet Nam, historian Barbara Tuchman describes human history as the “unfolding of miscalculation,” a litany of failure, mismanagement and delusion in the pursuit of disastrous national and organizational policies. She explores four historic conflicts—The Trojan War, the Protestant Secession from the Catholic Church, the American Revolution and the Viet Nam War. All four conflicts, she argues, share a common theme.

In spite of alternative courses of action, and in the face of evidence to the contrary, top leaders chose to act counter to the best interests of their organization or nation.

Tuchman writes that this foolish (her words) leadership behavior is a “child of power,” noting,

"the power to command frequently causes failure to think.”

She labels this power-induced, unthinking state of mind woodenheadedness.

A woodenheaded person is “dense,” “thick headed,” “thick-skulled,” a veritable “blockhead,” “dull,” “foolish,” and thus painfully slow to learn from experience, if at all.

Let’s not miss Tuchman’s point. She is not saying the woodenheaded leader is “stupid” or unintelligent. Rather, it is the possession and exercise of power that turns an otherwise intelligent person into a woodenheaded leader.

The Personal Affliction.

The woodenheaded leader suffers from what could be rightly termed a

"leadership learning disability.”

This “disability” finds its source in the emotional landscape of the afflicted leader, especiallyhis or her lack of emotional realism. Additionally, the woodenheaded leader is

Afflicted by the arrogance of power

rendering them incapable of metabolizing feedback, and blinding them to the personal and collective consequences of their decisions.

The Organizational Affliction: Doubling Down.

Woodenheadedness brings with it only one organizational affliction, but it is lethal. It is called “doubling down,” or the “cycle of escalating commitment.” Author and consultant Peter Block calls it “hope through repackaging.” Whatever the name, the affliction is the same. Decisions made by top leaders are declared sacrosanct, above critique, beyond review, and worth the continued commitment—and recommitment—of the organization’s people and resources, regardless of results.

Woodenheaded top leaders insist that the organization stay committed to self-destructive policies, ineffective strategies or failing products in the vain hope that their judgment will eventually be vindicated.

More resources are released to support the failed decision, and members are urged to work harder to support it, in spite of evidence to the contrary, which is ignored by the top leader.

Check back soon to read a spectacular example of the Woodenheaded Affliction, and how we can learn from leadership failure.

Download this post

The Impact Of Reality-Editing Leaders

Mark McCloskey — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 08:53:49 +0000

We hope you have been following along in our series of The Impact of Reality-Editing Leaders. If you have not had a chance to read Part I, do so now, prior to reading this conclusion.

Strategies of Reality-Editing Leaders

First strategy is the generation of a “reality distortion field.” Among his many talents, Steve Jobs possessed a world-class ability to spin the truth and create, in the words of biographer Walter Isaacson, “a reality distortion field, …a confounding mélange of a charismatic rhetorical style, indomitable will, and eagerness to bend any fact to fit the purposes at hand.” As one colleague put it,

"He reminded me of Rasputin…He laser-beamed in on you and you didn’t blink. It didn’t matter if he was serving purple Kool-Aid. You drank it.”

Jobs regularly used this strategy to motivate colleagues, and, as necessary, bend others to his will.

Second strategy is more explicit and aggressive.

Afflicted leaders often use reality editing as an offensive weapon to silence opposition, and coerce and manipulate individuals, or even the entire organization to “stay true to the party line.”

It typically plays out like this. The spun narrative (our leader is trustworthy and powerfully effective and thus all is well, etc.) is called into question, as facts to the contrary become publicly known. Of course, the reality-editing leader never goes down without a fight, and those loyal to the narrative (omegas and others with a vested interest in perpetuating the leader’s narrative) join in the reality editing work. The inconvenient facts are denied, disputed, or discredited, and those who persist in believing them are given the same treatment.

The reality editor’s view of things must be the only view, the one right view.

Accordingly, they work feverishly—and often quite adeptly—to convince the organization they are right and the facts are wrong. If that doesn’t work, they banish dissent, even loyal dissent, from the camp.

I got a first hand report of how this narrative-protection process took shape in a conversation with members of an organization that was unraveling due to the unethical and immature behavior of its top leader. The undisputed public facts were these: the leader had misappropriated the organization’s money and displayed a pattern of blatant arrogance, treating other leaders and members with contempt and disregard. These accusations prompted a burst of narrative spinning reminiscent of a nasty political campaign.

The top leader, so the newly re-framed narrative went, had been under extreme pressure to help the organization succeed.

Due to his selfless service to the organization he was, of course getting tired and frustrated, especially in light of the incompetence and foot-dragging of his subordinates. He should be applauded for his sacrificial work. While he was indeed “aggressive” his actions were simply a reflection of his “leadership style,” and should not be misunderstood as a character flaw. The leader took great pains to remind his critics that “he had broken no law” in his financial dealings and everything had been done in service of the organization.

His inner circle of supporters came to his defense, touting the line that “average members just didn’t appreciate the leader’s genius.”

Then the reality editing turned on the offensive

and a slur campaign was launched against those who continued to verbalize their concerns. Some were said to be “critical people lacking in maturity”’ Other members were said to have “personal issues,” were not “team players,” or had “problems with authority.” Many critics were made an example, as they were named by name and systematically marginalized. Not surprisingly, many departed as support of the party line continued to substitute for honest inquiry and candid discussion.

Summary and Impact

Reality editing has disastrous consequences for top leaders and the organization unfortunate enough to have them in charge. When leaders don’t learn from experience, they undermine the learning capacity of the entire organization.

Isolated from candid feedback, the organization will be slow to embrace the realities of the external operating environment, especially if those realities don’t support the prevailing narrative that our leader is wonderful and thing are going well. Reality—the real version—comes soon.

It always prevails and has zero regard for the leader and his or her narrative fiction.

Download this post

The Reality-Editing Affliction

Mark McCloskey — Mon, 04 Apr 2016 08:52:03 +0000

"Human kind cannot bear very much reality.”

T. S. Eliot

What is Reality Editing?

Reality editing is the process of

reframing, reconfiguring or “spinning” the “facts” such that they support a plausible, attractive but highly selective narrative, which, predictably, features the leader at the center of the narrative, always in control, always right, and above critique.

Reality-editing leaders instinctively recognize the power of a narrative to shape the daily life of the organization and the interactions of those in it—he who controls the narrative controls the organization.

The Personal Affliction.

The reality-editing affliction has its roots in emotional immaturity and destructive narcissism. Leaders with this affliction lack sufficient emotional realism to process “the real world as it really is.”In an act of emotional self-defense,

they distort reality to confirm their dark suspicions, support their fragile ego, and affirm their grandiose expectations.

Reality editors are easily threatened by negative feedback, which is a direct challenge to their self-regard. And, due to low emotional maturity, they fail to take responsibility for the outcomes of their attitudes and actions. For the reality editor, the facts must be “edited” to serve the larger script, which supports the leader’s elevated self-regard and protects his or her idealized self from facts and outcomes that call the leader’s judgment and actions into question. Consequently, the spun narrative, regardless of its specific content, is predictable in its major theme: the leader can do no wrong; their judgments are always correct; and if problems occur others are at fault.

Like all destructive narcissists, the reality editor’s narrative spinning work is shaped by an unhealthy sense of self, typified by arrogance and self-absorption, and an inordinate need for admiration, even adulation.

Preoccupied with bolstering a fragile and insecure self, the reality editor is devoted to constructing narratives that conform to their idealized self, exaggerated self-importance, unrealistic expectations, and grandiose ambitions

Toward this end, the reality-editing leader utilizes their considerable energy, talent and creativity to spin convincing narratives that, predictably, feature them as superior leaders—in control, all wise and above reproach.

The Organizational Affliction

Reality-editing leaders afflict the organization by setting in motion four destructive patterns in organizational life.

1st

First, the reality-editing leader lives in a world of their own making, and imposes this false reality on the organization. Reality editing leaders play the revisionist historian by distorting the facts or revising the interpretation of events to insure that “reality” conforms to their narrative. For the reality editor

Reality is what I say it is.”

Napoleon, a world-class reality-editor, is case in point. As one of his generals reflected,

In many a circumstance, to wish something and believe it, were for him one and the same thing."

Lyndon Johnson possessed a similar talent for editing reality. A colleague observed,

He had a fantastic capacity to persuade himself that the ‘truth’ which was convenient for the present was the truth and anything that conflicted with it was the prevarication of enemies. He literally willed what was in his mind to become reality.”

Consequently, organizations led by reality-editors operate in a world of the leader’s own making, not the “real reality.”

2nd

Second, insulated from the “real world,” the reality-editing leader does not, cannot learn from experience. A powerful and pervasive organizational principle comes into play to increase the insulation of the reality editor, and, sadly, maximize his or her “afflicting impact” on the organization. It is called the filter principle, which states that the higher a leader goes in an organization, the more insulated he or she becomes from performance feedback. (This is less likely to happen at lower levels of the organization where members have direct access to the consequences of their decisions and actions).

Many top leaders assume that if their decisions or performance is in some way deficient someone will tell them the unvarnished truth. It is not uncommon for members to withhold, adjust or spin information to conform to the leader’s narrative out of fear that the messenger bearing bad news might be, figuratively, shot. As movie producer Samuel Goldwyn once told his staff,

I don't want any yes-men around me. I want everybody to tell me the truth even if it costs them their jobs.”

It’s understandable if members don’t consider the risk worth taking.

So, while it is counter-intuitive, top leaders have to work harder than most to get a steady supply of candid and constructive performance feedback

But, the reality-editing leader, interpreting circumstances and outcomes through the rose-colored lens of their self-serving narrative, sees no need to get the feedback in the first place. Of emotional necessity, reality editors must be right and are consequently incapable of receiving critique and considering input that challenges their self-serving, self-promoting narrative. Dissent, even loyal dissent must be banished from the camp. Predictably, Lyndon Johnson shrank his circle of advisors to those who agreed with him on his handling of the Viet Nam war.

In combination with the filter principle, the reality-editing affliction makes it all but impossible for the leader to learn from feedback. The outcome is potentially lethal both for the leader as well as the organization.

Top leaders who would rather be right than effective are neither.

They can insist on always being right, at least in their own minds, or they can embrace feedback and make the necessary adjustments to stay effective in the real world. But they can’t have it both ways.

3rd

Third, the reality-editing leader re-interprets troubling information to protect themselves and at times, the organization from bad news. While the filter principle shields top leaders from most of the bad news, some of it is bound to get through, and most of it becomes evident to the organization sooner than later. But here, the reality editor is at his or her best. In East of Eden, John Steinbeck’s wise Chinese character Lee quotes his father’s observation on the ancient art of reality editing.

The storytellers at the city gate twist life so that it looks sweet to the lazy and the stupid and the weak, and this only strengthens their infirmities and teaches nothing, cures nothing, nor does it let the heart soar.”

Reality editing leaders raise to the level of art form the practice of

twisting life so that it looks sweet.”

Substituting their narrative spinning ability for the exercise of candor, reality editors excel at putting a positive spin on negative information. At times this is perfectly understandable. As T. S. Eliot observed in Four Quartets,

Human kind Cannot bear very much reality.”

Meaning well and in the hope of protecting the organization from bad news, the reality-editing leader may perpetrate the illusion that things are not so bad, that problems can be engineered away and that there is a painless way forward.

Or, more ominously, some reality editors spin a self-serving narrative to protect a fragile ego—as in

Things can’t be going so wrong because I never make mistakes, and if truth be told, I simply can’t deal with the possibility that my decisions might be the cause.”

Due to deficits in emotional maturity, most reality-editing leaders need to protect their public image as a powerful, all-wise person in charge of events and immune from error. Fearing failure more than they love candor, they spin a narrative that “adjusts” the facts such that the leader is always right even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

Consequently, the reality editor “creatively readjusts” information, withholds it or times its release such that it serves their interests rather than the interests of the organization.

4th

Fourth, reality-editing leaders use their narrative-spinning ability to coerce and manipulate individuals and at times entire organizations to “see things their way.”

False narratives often have surprising staying power—the Soviet Communist narrative lasted 70 years and still persists in a number of countries despite a global demonstration of its ineffectiveness. But, eventually most “spun narratives” start to crumble under the accumulated weight of indisputable facts and undeniable outcomes. When the explanatory power of the narrative is challenged, reality editors go into high gear, employing two organization-afflicting strategies to protect their narrative against competing versions of reality. Check back to read our next blog, we will discuss the main strategies of reality editing and bending and the consequences of reality-editing leaders.

Download this post

The Toxic Leader Vs. The Generative Leader

Mark McCloskey — Mon, 14 Mar 2016 11:40:42 +0000

In our previous blog, we discussed how toxic leaders operate in a world of scarcity, thinking he or she is in constant danger of lacking scarce, precious resources like power, recognition or affirmation, creating self-centeredness. We also discussed how the toxic leader afflicts the organization. If you haven’t had chance to read The Toxic Affliction, do so now.

Having read the first part of this series on toxic leadership, you will know that the toxic leader afflicts the organization in one, fundamental way: operating out of their personal affliction, they in turn afflict the organization with a decidedly “leadership unfriendly” ethos of scarcity that undermines the emergence of the next generation of leaders. But, how do you know if a leader is really toxic?

Perhaps the best way to identify this affliction is to compare and contrast the toxic leader with his or her healthy counterpart, the generative leader.

The Generative Leader.

The practice of generativity in top leaders demands a rare combination of personal attributes associated with emotional maturity, especially generosity and wisdom.

Researcher Daniel McAdams suggests that the practice of generativity involves the creative blending of both intimacy and a healthy power motivation. In the act of generativity, the leader both creates something of value and willingly gives it up on behalf of others, surrendering control over that which they themselves have produced.

As McAdams notes,

"Generativity challenges us to be both powerful and intimate, expansive and surrendering at the same time. In motivational terms, generativity draws on our desire to be strong and our desire to be close to others, mandating that we integrate and reconcile power and intimacy motivation.”

Generative leaders believe the welfare and progress of the organization depends on the contribution of generations to come, and so the best thing they can do today for the organization today is to identify and develop more leaders. As the saying goes,

"Anyone can count the seeds in an apple. Only God can count the apples in a seed.” Or, If you want a crop for one year, grow corn. If you want a crop for ten years, grow trees. If you want a crop for 100 years, grow men and women.”

The toxic leader stands in sharp contrast to the generative leader. Like their alpha cousin, instead of generously sharing resources, the toxic leader turns the organization into a constricted and withholding place. They view emerging leaders as competitors for scarce resources such as recognition and rewards, perquisites and power, and so poison the “organizational soil” to protect these resources from would-be competitors. This “poisoning” takes a variety of forms—withholding personal support, hoarding valuable leadership prerogatives and denying or rationing precious and scarce resources, especially information. Consequently, the encouragement, trust and flow of resources so fundamental to the emergence of new leaders are tightly controlled and cautiously rationed, if shared at all.

Summary and Impact

Most organizations embody a natural law that applies to all living organisms—plants, animals and humans alike: when resources are scarce—or perceived as scarce—competition and conflict abound. Both the alpha and toxic leader reside in a world of scarcity, and consequently, are acutely attuned to this competitive reality. While the toxic pattern is less overtly competitive than the alpha pattern—wolves are more aggressive than pine trees—the result is the same. The toxic organizational soil makes it difficult if not impossible for new leaders to take root and grow.

The organization will eventually manifest what Erikson calls a

"pervading sense of stagnation and personal impoverishment.”

This has disastrous consequences for the organization, as unused resources have a way of vanishing, and human resources are no exception. Emerging leaders will soon get the message—you are not valued. Many will depart for organizations with a more generous climate. And of course, like the alpha, this suits the toxic leader just fine.

Download this post

The Toxic Affliction

Mark McCloskey — Mon, 29 Feb 2016 17:53:59 +0000

"Nothing grows under the giant banyan tree.”

—Indian proverb

Introduction: When Plants Compete

We don’t think of plants as competitive in the same way as animals or people. But, it may surprise you that

the quest for scarce, precious resources is just as much a part of the plant kingdom as the animal kingdom.

Plants need access to resources like sunlight, water, air, and nutrients from the soil to survive and thrive. When the conditions are crowded or the resources scarce (as in arid climates), some plants play a deadly, zero sum game in the quest for limited, precious resources. These competitive plants protect their space by excreting psytotoxic chemical substances (chemicals that are harmful to other plants).

This chemical process is called allelopathy—from the Greek allelo and pathy, meaning “mutual harm.” The allelopathic plant regulates the reproduction, growth, density and distribution of other plant species, even the plants offspring, by killing off plants attempting to grow around them. In some cases, the growth of other plants is impaired or prevented for a radius of over ten yards. In this manner competitors, even the toxic plants own seedlings, are destroyed. One of the most common allelopathic plants is the pine tree. It’s decomposing needles contain an acid, which penetrates the soil around and under the tree, prohibiting the germination of other plants. Similarly, large cacti release toxic chemicals in the ground to prevent competitor plants from taking precious water and nutrients from the soil around it.

The Personal Affliction

Much like the alpha leader (and not unlike a cactus),

the toxic leader operates in a world of scarcity. The emotional necessity of survival is a daily, pressing issue as the toxic leader perceives he or she is in constant danger of lacking scarce, precious resources like power, recognition, affirmation and so on.

This deep and pervading sense of vulnerability leads, predictably, to the hoarding of precious resources—self-preservation breeds self-centeredness.

The Organizational Affliction

The toxic leader afflicts the organization in one, fundamental way:

operating out of their personal affliction, they in turn afflict the organization with a decidedly “leadership unfriendly” ethos of scarcity that undermines the emergence of the next generation of leaders.

Perhaps the best way to identify this affliction is to compare and contrast the toxic leader with his or her healthy counterpart, the generative leader.

Effective top leaders take an approach to organizational life called generativity. “Generativity versus stagnation” is the seventh and longest of social psychologist Erik Erikson’s eight stages of adult psychosocial development.

Erikson theorized that as healthy adults reached “middle adulthood” they experienced the innate and growing desire to transcend oneself and leave a legacy by contributing to the sustenance and success of the next generation—one must give away to grow.

Apart from this creative and productive orientation to life, the adult will stop developing and lapse into “a pervading sense of stagnation and personal impoverishment.” The will to fight against stagnation and instead choose generativity is a normal developmental tension in mid-life adults who recognize their vulnerability to self-centeredness and consciously fight against it by generously giving of their time to teach, nurture an guide the “up and coming.”

Have you seen this play out in your life, or in the life of someone you know? Check back in our next blog for the summary on “The Toxic Affliction” study.

Download this post

The Alpha Affliction In The Organization

Mark McCloskey — Mon, 15 Feb 2016 18:40:47 +0000

Continuing our discussion about The Alpha Affliction, we recall that afflicted top leaders – those lacking emotional maturity and prone to destructive narcissism- use their personal and organizational assets to afflict, rather than serve the interests of the organization. For the alpha, leadership is all about them – their vision, talent and goals. They pursue their own ambition and gratification with relentless, often ruthless drive.

Once they gain power, the alpha is not about to relinquish it or spread it around.

"My power is hard won and easily lost,” they reason.

Consequently, alphas are unusually wary of contenders to their authority, typically other strong leaders. Ever vigilant in protecting what they consider “rightfully mine,” the alpha is suspicious and distrustful of other established leaders and emerging leaders who might one day usurp their throne. Once the contenders are identified, alphas make it their business to deter, discourage or drive them off. Banishing these upstarts may be overt or subtle. It may be highly nuanced or played out with all the sophistication of a brick to the forehead.

Either way, the alpha sees to it that the organization is not a friendly place for other strong leaders.

Third, alphas create an organizational culture long on using people and short on developing people.

Many alphas have a world-class ability to attract competent but deferential and insecure people who are all too happy to do what they are told because they need the affirmation and fear the disapproval of the alpha leader—the literature calls them omegas—i.e., last to the alpha’s first. Omegas play the role of the “worker bee,” a submissive and loyal subordinate but never a true partner in leadership matters. Additionally, the alpha has built in radar to recognize potential sycophants—fawning and servile flatterers that pay homage to the power, and authority of the alpha, and gladly do their bidding.

While it makes sense to most of us that mature adults aren’t drawn to play the omega to the alpha, this doesn’t matter to the alpha. There are plenty of omegas to go around, so reasons the alpha, and sorting out the omegas from the potential alpha competitors is all part of the alpha’s playbook. For the alpha, pathology, not partnership, emotional need, not vision and shared values, is the tie that binds.

Fourth, alphas perpetuate a “zero sum game” culture.

Fifth, alphas don’t, won’t and can’t collaborate with other strong leaders.

Not surprisingly, alphas don’t “play well in the adult sandbox” with other strong and talented leaders. Given the alpha’s instincts around power and domination, and their suspicion that others are out to take away their power, they find it difficult if not impossible to work in collaborative arrangements. They insist on having their own way, have a tendency to exploit others, and exude an air of superiority. This virtually guarantees they will alienate other strong, mature leaders, and of course, that is perfectly fine with the alpha.

Summary and Impact

These five patterns combine to create a profoundly “leadership-unfriendly” organization. The alpha sees talent in others as a tool of subversion, a challenge to their authority and power, and thus dangerous to tolerate, let alone embrace and put to work for the common good.

The alpha, self-centered, self-protecting and obsessed with his own ascent, taken with her own star on the rise, preoccupied with his personal Mt. Rushmore project, and protective of her prerogatives, simply h as little time, inclination or capacity to invest in the development of new leaders.

As in the animal world, some alphas get downright hostile, and aggressively seek to eliminate anyone who might challenge their status as “king of the hill.”

Consequently, the alpha-led organization is diminished as talented and capable adults—those who don’t aspire to omega subservience—are denied what they need to develop, or are singled out for banishment. A vast pool of untapped human potential is wasted. Those who remain in this culture of scarcity face a future of limited opportunity at best.

Over time, the alpha will drain the organization’s talent pool as emerging leaders fade into the background or depart.

Learning the destructive possibilities that arise when an alpha leader rules an organization, helps us to see the possibilities of leadership that serves the best interests of an organization. When leaders are emotionally mature, their vision, talent and goals align with what is best for everyone, not just for one person. Learning to identify leadership issues, helps us move forward with unlimited possibilities.

Check back to read more insight on leadership afflictions in our upcoming blog on The Toxic Affliction.

Download this post

The Alpha Affliction

Mark McCloskey — Mon, 01 Feb 2016 18:40:23 +0000

We’ve all heard of the Alpha Male. It may not surprise you to discover that about 70% of senior business executives are alpha males. What may surprise you is what alpha males can can do to your organization, if left to their own devises.

This blog portion explores what happens when afflicted top leaders—those lacking emotional maturity and prone to destructive narcissism—use their personal and organizational assets to afflict, rather than serve the interests of the organization. Each affliction is grounded in the dark side of the human condition, and ignited and magnified by the power associated with a leadership role. This unfortunate mix is the fundamental driver of each leadership affliction, and shapes the trajectory of the leader’s “afflicting impact” on the organization.

Given the common source of these leadership afflictions, it is not uncommon for two or more of the six afflictions to overlap in the same leader, and in fact they often do.

For instance, an afflicted leader can, at one and the same time, operate as an alpha-diminisher, or a reality editing-charismatic destructive narcissist, or toxic-woodenheaded leader. I will discuss each affliction individually for the purpose of clarity and analysis.

The Alpha.

The human organizational world is full of alphas. In Alpha Male Syndrome, Kate Ludeman and Eddie Erlandson estimate that alpha males represent about seventy percent of all senior business executives. At their best—read emotionally mature constructive narcissists—alphas are hard-charging visionaries who take on significant and challenging endeavors. At their worst—which is most of the time—alphas are afflicted with a competitive and domineering orientation to life and relationships, and correspondingly, are reluctant to share power and resources, and incapable of collaboration.

The Personal Affliction

For the alpha, leadership is all about them—their vision, talent and goals. They pursue their own ambition and gratification with relentless, often ruthless drive. They manifest excessive pride, hubris and vanity, and exhibit a pervasive pattern of overt grandiosity, self-focus, and self-important behavior. Not surprisingly, alphas don’t resonate with and respond to the needs of others.

Alphas are born experts when it comes to power.

They instinctively know how to get it, use it and keep it. Lyndon Johnson biographer Robert Caro offers insight into Lyndon Johnson’s perspective on power. Johnson reflected,

"I do understand power, whatever else may be said about me. I know where to look for it, and how to use it.”

Spoken like a true alpha. Johnson, out of emotional necessity lusted for power, and when he got it, he used what power he possessed to keep what he had and to get even more. British author G. K. Chesterton once observed,

"To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.”

Alphas disagree. Johnson was utterly convinced that power was his inherent “right,” and his to use as he pleased.

Not without a touch of irony, the alpha operates with a robust transparency. Their modus operandi is no secret. Dissimulation and deception are not in their repertoire. They feel no need to conceal their motivation and leadership philosophy. They live true to one overriding operating principle: the acquisition, preservation and expansion of personal power.

The Organizational Affliction

Alphas afflict the organization by setting in motion five destructive patterns in organizational life.

First, alphas impose a competition and domination framework on organizational life.

Alphas view work relationships in terms of dominance or subordination, winning or losing. Not surprisingly, alphas are hypersensitive to threats to their authority, and live by the Chinese proverb,

"One tiger per hill.”

If the organization is perceived as a mountain range, there is plenty of room for numerous strong leaders. But the alpha doesn’t see it like this. The organization is a single hill and consequently there is room for only one at the top—them of course. From their perspective, the organization is full of competitors for the top of the hill, where all the precious resources reside—attention, admiration, status and most importantly, power. These are exceedingly scarce commodities and must be defended at all costs.

Second, alphas are unwilling to share power and resources.

The alpha employs his or her considerable personal assets—charm, competitive drive, intelligence and access to formal power—to marginalize or banish perceived competitors.

"It is my organization,” they reason. There is room at the top for me and only me. Rivals have three choices. They can fight me—bring it on. They can willingly submit to my leadership—a wise choice. Or they can leave my pack—an even better choice.”

Lyndon Johnson could not stand to have his power and authority challenged. As a boyhood friend recounts, “Johnson had to be the head and he had to make sure everyone knew it.” Another boyhood friend remembered, “He (Johnson) had a baseball, and the rest of us didn’t have one. We were all very poor. None of us had a ball but him. Lyndon wanted to pitch. He wasn’t worth a darn as a pitcher, but if we didn’t let him pitch, he’d take his ball and go home. So, yeah, we’d let him pitch.” If Johnson couldn’t play as THE alpha, he didn’t care to play.

Download this post

The Fuel Of Leadership Affliction: Part 2

Mark McCloskey — Mon, 18 Jan 2016 09:00:49 +0000

Jumping right back into the fuel of leadership affliction, we are finishing our discussion on unchecked power. No, the mere possession of power does not necessarily lead to its abuse.

While power doesn’t necessarily corrupt, it does, to Barber’s point, reveal the contours of a leader’s character. Lincoln observed,

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”

As the old proverb goes,

If you wish to know what a man is, place him in authority.”

There is no more stringent test of a person’s character than the possession of power

Power reveals the depth of our motivation.

For those in emotional deficit or prone to destructive narcissism, power draws the worst out of the leader, as it provides the leader the unfettered opportunity to gratify his or her impulses and self-centered passions at the expense of others and at times, the entire organization.

Researcher Joanne Ciulla asserts that leadership is morality and immorality magnified. As Richard Nixon famously noted,

If you wish to know what a man is, place him in authority.”

Nixon knew from firsthand experience—as did the public from the sad record of Watergate—that the exercise of top leadership puts the leader’s moral judgments on display, for better or worse. The public spotlight makes the leader’s moral strength more obvious and his or her moral weakness more glaring.

There is simply no morally neutral ground when it comes to the use of power.

Leaders employ power to contribute to the welfare and progress of the organization or to its weakening. Leaders abuse power in the service of self-interest, or they rise above self-interest and infuse the organization with moral strength to serve the greater good.

The Age-old Question: Who Should Lead? Knowing that greed, self-centeredness, and the lust for power infect the human heart, and that the will to power is typically cloaked in the purest of motives and noblest of causes, political philosopher John Locke framed what he called, “the issue of the ages.”

Researcher Joanne Ciulla asserts that leadership is morality and immorality magnified. As Richard Nixon famously noted,

The great question which in all ages, has disturbed mankind, and brought on them the greatest part of those mischiefs which have ruined cities, depopulated countries, and disordered the peace of the world, has been, not whether there be power in the world, nor whence it came, but who should have it” (italics mine).

Who should possess power? Plato believed,

Only he that does not seek power is fit to hold it.”

But, sadly, history demonstrates an alternative answer—those proud enough to believe power is their right and strong enough to secure it and expand it. First century Roman historian Tacitus gives voice to this perspective, “The gods are on the side of the stronger.” Napoleon agreed. “God is on the side of the army with the biggest guns.”

But not all concur. American historian and educator Charles Beard got it about right. He said his lifetime of study could be summed up in one sentence.

Whom the gods would destroy, they first make drunk with power.”

Summary

As I affirmed in my first blog, not every top leader is power-hungry or corrupt. Many, thankfully, are not. The critical factor that differentiates sound and constructive leaders from afflicted leaders is the leader’s motive for power and use of power once attained. Emotionally mature individuals and constructive narcissists use power to serve others and build the organization. Emotionally immature leaders and destructive narcissists seek power to bolter their self-regard and serve self-interest.

As I close the first section of this series, I think it is helpful to affirm that power does indeed tend to corrupt individuals; especially those whose pursuit of power is rooted in emotional deficit or destructive narcissism. Power delights and fascinates them. Once in the possession of power, they use what power they have to protect and expand their power. Of course, the lust for power rooted in emotional deficit will never be satisfied.

Power is an intoxicant, perverting the purest of hearts, as alcohol blurs the keenest of minds.

Which brings us back to the observation of Charles Beard, “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make drunk with power.” Understanding the fuel of leadership affliction and its relationship to power can help us realize what types of leaders we want to be in our circle of influence.

Looking ahead.

Part Two of this series explores six all-too-common top leadership afflictions. cAs we will see, each affliction is an expression of the toxic mix of emotional immaturity, destructive narcissism, and access to power.