|
Tyrants are not
effective in the long term
by Margot Cairnes
"It's like Stalinism," John
complained. "We're asked to commit to stretch targets
which can only go twang, but if you don't sign on or you
fail they find someone more flexible and talented to
take your place. But when you look at the people getting
the top jobs they are 'yes men', sycophants, the guys
who grease up the boss."
John had a point. Everywhere I looked
in his organisation I saw capable, willing people too
frightened to disagree with their bosses, who seemed to
be doing a lot of demanding and very little listening.
People seemed tired, stressed and already bordering on
twang, yet the demands were to meet ever-higher targets
in ever-decreasing timeframes. More disturbingly, the
parts of the organisation that had been operating this
way for the longest were the lowest performers, yet
their leaders were being promoted over others who had
out-performed them in results but not in boss-pleasing.
People only discussed their worries in private, fearing
that public debate could be career limiting.
My mind went back to another
organisation at an earlier time. I remember being asked
to interview the senior managers of what was then one of
Australia's leading organisations. I found people
scared. Their fear centred on the leader's first
lieutenant, a man who, if contradicted or opposed at a
meeting, would threaten to kill his opponent and then
set out to destroy their career. Because of the strength
of this killer's political position and the fear he
generated, people started to hide any information that
might embarrass or upset him. Only good news got to the
top, was discussed and dealt with. Despite this
organisation's noted financial success and (at the time)
soaring share price, I decided that it wasn't the kind
of place I wanted to work. It was of little surprise to
me, then, when some ten years later I read that the
company had dropped more than half its value apparently
overnight and was plagued with an ongoing outpouring of
bad news.
When people in any corporation feel
unsafe to raise the problems and tell the truth it is
only a matter of time before that company has serious
problems. Raising problems early allows them to be
solved before they become massive, often insoluble,
disasters. Fear can be the result of direct threats, or
can be generated more subtly through implied threats, as
in John's case above. Either way, fear is a recipe for
long-term disaster.
The problem is it appears to work in
the short term. The first reason for this is that if
people are too scared to put forward bad news, all that
is seen is the good. This can be achieved by clever
massaging of the numbers to hide losses, capitalising
expenses, and delaying writeoffs. The second reason is
that frightened people will put in longer hours, make
big sacrifices, and do whatever they can to make the
boss happy, for as long as it takes to get another job,
or until they succumb to stress-induced illness and
retirement.
Frightened, stressed people who are putting large
amounts of time into hiding unpleasant truths and
watching their political backsides are prone to making
big mistakes and poor decisions. They are usually less
than terrific at customer relations, and avoid the risk
of creativity except in their financial accounting. Add
to this the ongoing loss of those with the talent and
ethics to seek more-satisfying work elsewhere, and high
long-term cost is inevitable.
Normally, by the time the bad news has
filtered through to the market, the guys who created the
fearful environment in the first place have moved on and
some other poor sap comes in to turn the situation
around. In politics, the Stalins and Hitlers are usually
killed, in business they just move on - in either arena
they cause long-term havoc.
Copyright
ã Margot
Cairnes
Previous
Next
|
