Senior managers and executives — organizational leaders — have two primary responsibilities. They must clearly define objectives for the people they lead, and they must ensure that those people have the resources needed to achieve those objectives. To carry out these responsibilities appropriately, organizational leaders must respect the humanity of all stakeholders, including the people of the organization (often called employees), the people the organization serves (often called customers), and the people who supply goods and services to the organization (often called suppliers). They all have personal lives. They all deserve respect as people.
And that's where trouble sometimes appears. Leaders who adopt the just-make-it-happen stance can sometimes fail to respect the humanity of the people they're leading. Consequently, their subordinates work killing hours, often breaking rules to "make it happen." Customers then must accept inferior products, delivered late, while suppliers lose money trying to please their unpleaseable customer.
Why does this happen?
In many organizations we gauge the strength of leaders according to the gap between the goals the leaders expect employees to achieve, and what those people believe they can achieve. When people achieve something few believed was possible, we tend to credit the leader. One exemplar of strong leader, among many others, is Mohandas K. Ghandi, who provided the people of India a means of achieving a goal most thought impossible.
Here are three mechanisms that incline organizational leaders to adopt the just-make-it-happen stance.
- Pathological ambition
- In striving to be When people achieve something few
believed was possible, we tend to
credit the leader, not the peopleregarded as strong leaders, some managers and executives arrange for large gaps between the objectives they set, and what people generally believe is readily achievable. They set goals that are extremely aggressive relative to the time and resources available. They hope that when the objectives are ultimately met, everyone will recognize the "strength" of their "leadership."
- Pressure from above
- Even managers and executives report to somebody — higher-level executives, the Board of Directors, or shareholders. When they feel pressure to fulfill commitments they've made, or commitments forced upon them, they sometimes choose not to resist that pressure. Transmitting that pressure onto their organizations can seem much safer and easier.
- Some organizational leaders don't realize that they've set unrealistic or unrealizable objectives. Equally naïve peers might support them in their ignorance. When their subordinates tell them that the goals are unachievable or extremely risky, they regard the messengers as weak or lazy or worse. Attempts to educate such leaders are unlikely to succeed.
Surely there are more mechanisms than these three.
If you're being led by a just-make-it-happen kind of leader, I hope this exploration has opened some doors to understanding. If you are yourself a just-make-it-happen kind of leader, perhaps you can listen to the people you lead, and then examine your approach to leadership. Top Next Issue
Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Workplace Politics:
- Managing Pressure: The Unexpected
- When projects falter, we expect demands for status and explanations. What's puzzling is how often this
happens to projects that aren't in trouble. Here's Part II of a catalog of strategies for managing
- The Politics of the Critical Path: I
- The Critical Path of a project or activity is the sequence of dependent tasks that determine the earliest
completion date of the effort. If you're responsible for one of these tasks, you live in a unique political
- The End-to-End Cost of Meetings: I
- By now, most of us realize how expensive meetings are. Um, well, maybe not. Here's a look at some of
the most-often overlooked costs of meetings.
- Grace Under Fire: II
- When we debate at work, things sometimes turn unpleasant. Out of control, one party might maneuver the
other into losing control. If we have better tools for recognizing these tactics, we're better able
to maintain self-control. Here's Part II of such a toolkit.
- Holding Back: II
- Members of high-performing teams rarely hold back effort. But truly high performance is rare in teams.
Here is Part II of our exploration of mechanisms that account for team members' holding back effort
they could contribute.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming July 8: Multi-Expert Consensus
- Some working groups consist of experts from many fields. When they must reach a decision by consensus, members have several options. Defining those options in advance can help the group reach a decision with all its relationships intact. Available here and by RSS on July 8.
- And on July 15: Disjoint Concept Vocabularies
- In disputes or in problem solving sessions, when we can't seem to come to agreement, we often attribute the difficulty to miscommunication, histories of disagreements, hidden agendas, or "personality clashes." Sometimes the cause is much simpler. Sometimes the concept vocabularies of the parties don't overlap. Available here and by RSS on July 15.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.
- Bullet Points: Mastery or Madness?
Decision-makers in modern organizations commonly demand briefings in the form of bullet points or a series of series of bullet points. But this form of presentation has limited value for complex decisions. We need something more. We actually need to think. Briefers who combine the bullet-point format with a variety of persuasion techniques can mislead decision-makers, guiding them into making poor decisions. Read more about this program.
Beware any resource that speaks of "winning" at workplace politics or "defeating" it. You can benefit or not, but there is no score-keeping, and it isn't a game.