After a longer than intended absence from this blog, I find myself addressing a subject which has long been of personal interest, and which I believe is both fundamental to and essential for any meaningful semblance of government and commercial enterprise to exist, which is that of management and its practice. Now it is important to note that my own view on whether management and leadership are synonymous is clear-cut; I do not believe this to be the case. It is my own contention, albeit one shared by a number of acknowledged management and leadership gurus, that good (and consequently, excellent) leaders will invariably possess sound understanding and command of management skills and principles, yet it is possible to be a good manager (particularly within a bureaucratic and/or rigidly hierarchical structure), yet be a middling and ineffectual leader.
Perhaps due to this bias, I personally place great stock in the need for those in leadership positions to be aware of how they are perceived as managers, and how they operate in this regard. And because we often tend to learn more from failures and negative examples, I will call attention to what I perceive as shortcomings or outright failings that I’ve observed thus far in my career. The first step towards resolution or addressing of a weakness is to recognize it for what it is, so perhaps this will prove beneficial. And for those wondering in advance, I have seen many of the behaviors recounted in what follows manifest in a single individual, and consequently, that individual (along with others demonstrating less than desirable management traits) were held in low regard by peers and subordinates, contrary to their own perceptions.
Self deception, it deserves stressing, is nearly always present in poor managers.
IS IT BETTER TO BE FEARED OR LOVED?
When one is placed in a position of authority and responsibility, whether by choice or not, the two default modes by which most people will operate is respect and fear. Those who choose the former path of respect will entrust that subordinates and those accountable to them will perform to the best of their ability because they do not wish to disappoint someone whose work, reputation, personality and/or some other attribute resonates with them. Those who follow out of respect seem to “rise to the occasion” or “bring their A-game” in order to match (or exceed) performance expectations in a very positive way.
On the other hand, those who rely on management through the negative emotion of fear, which may consist of overt or implied intimidation (i.e. “I have the power to fire you”), reliance on strict hierarchical chains of command, public dress-downs or humiliation of under-performers, etc. must understand that they are eliciting desired behaviors through forced compliance rather than voluntary compliance. In other words, they employ the “stick” rather than the “carrot” approach. While I certainly have a strong viewpoint on which approach I personally favor and default to, I will not deny that fear can be a powerful motivator and there are managers that achieve results largely based on fear. The greatest danger, in my opinion, is managers who confuse these two opposing motivational factors and do not clearly understand that which they are practicing. If you choose to employ a “management by fear” agenda, know that you are vulnerable the instant your power is perceived as waning or the fear among subordinates dissipates. Conversely, those who rely on respect to manage must understand that should that respect for some reason be shaken, unless it is restored one’s authority may very well diminish.
Another key component to management (which in turn promotes good leadership) is remaining authentic. Authenticity is a quality which can be at once elusive as well as self-evident; many people can instinctively sense when others are putting up a false front or are acting contrary to their actual nature. Thus, the admonition to “Know thyself” is critical to being able to find one’s true self, and to let this guide one’s decisions and behavior. Working both in and around an industry (Entertainment) notorious for attracting people predisposed towards creating illusions, fabrications and false projections in order to get what they want, it is still interesting to note that some of the most dysfunctional and toxic personalities drawn to show business do remain authentic in their own perverse way. These individuals see little value in conforming to what are otherwise more widely considered acceptable standards of behavior and conduct, as often enforced in other industries, and consequently pay no heed in doing so. Whether they are admired or reviled for such attitudes and behavior (which in turn is largely dependent upon their perceived success and whether they can benefit those expressing the opinion), they are authentic to their natures. Of course, dealing with those who display sociopathic or psychopathic behaviors can be difficult for others, particularly when these tendencies are readily concealed.
All other things being equal, good managers will align their own core values and the values of the organization that they serve (which ideally are not too far apart) so that the appearance of, or actual existence of, hypocrisy is minimized. It is important as a manager to communicate what is expected of an employee and how that employee will be measured and judged, failure to do so leads to confusion as well as expectations which having never been vocalized or expressed, will seldom be met.
REPUTATION TRUMPS SPIN AND WHY INTEGRITY MATTERS
Another issue for managers to be conscious of is that reputation always trumps spin. While it is certainly possible to fool some people for an indefinite period of time, fooling everyone indefinitely is highly unlikely. Managers with poor inter-personal skills or who are clearly out of their depth may convince themselves that their “secret” is safe, and may actively work to tell others of their greatness and alleged accomplishments, but this illusion cannot be maintained in the long term. I have met people who have proudly proclaimed their own greatness and confidently boasted of how well regarded they are by their subordinates (who interestingly enough, they refer to as “minions” which even when said tongue-in-cheek, reveals a lot about the manager’s character), only to find out with minimal probing that they are tone deaf to how others really see them.
While there are times, as a manager, where you may have to take actions that are not particularly liked by subordinates, if undertaken fairly and with good cause, the dislike of the action will generally not carry over to personal dislike of the individual. Those who fail to understand and appreciate this distinction are the one whose reputations, invariably, are nowhere near as “rosy” as they may perceive.
While one would normally hope that the following would not need to be said, both publicly discussed cases and my own anecdotal experiences have identified the moral and legal imperative of maintaining integrity. Furthermore, the cautionary note that must be sounded is that those who preach most vociferously about integrity, yet conduct themselves in a manner contrary to what they preach, are most assuredly devoid of integrity and ought to be duly censored for this. A more recent example that I’ve personally witnessed in recent years is observing an individual publicly stress the importance of integrity and ethical behavior, yet then proceed to misrepresent material facts, allow “errors of omission” to creep into documentation utilized for evaluation of a company’s suitability to perform certain work, and otherwise twist, distort or recast events and behavioral patterns to rationalize actions which were of personal self-interest and benefit, but far removed from objective truth or even the interests of the organization.
Having integrity requires one to possess some framework for evaluating choices in a context of “right” versus “wrong” (in which there are some absolutes) and not engaging in ethical and mental gymnastics to justify one’s favored decision or position when it does not confirm to the criteria established via that framework.
THE CARDINAL SIN OF MICRO-MANAGEMENT
Another pitfall which good managers must avoid is either the desire and/or tendency to micro-manage others. This is perhaps one of the most soul and morale killing activities that can be done, particularly when those subordinates are competent and experienced. It has been said that people less frequently quit companies than they do bosses, and micromanagement of tasks is often high on the list for why employees can no longer tolerate their direct managers. As a manager, if you feel the need to micromanage, this brings into question the competency of the person you are actively overseeing, and if this is indeed the issue, more appropriate remedies may exist. Perhaps the tasks or expectations are not clear, and further investigation and definition will solve the problem. Or, maybe the skills of the person are simply not up to the challenge, in which case the hiring process and decision-making broke down, or the job responsibilities have changed and the person’s skills have not kept pace with that change.
If as a manager, you are hiring people primarily because you do not feel threatened by them, and are loath to hire those who might one day rise to your own title and responsibilities, I would posit that the problem lies with you. The best leaders, and indeed managers, will hire people smarter and who potentially may be more accomplished than themselves precisely because they are not fearful of being replaced or overshadowed. What comes to mind for those who cannot bring themselves to embrace this approach is a timid, lazy and mindless bureaucrat more intent on job security than performing meaningful work.
NORTH VERSUS SOUTH KOREA IN A NUTSHELL
I will conclude with an incident that has stuck in my mind for years, which was a meeting that I attended with a notoriously bombastic and difficult literary manager/film producer and Jeff Berg, the chairman of the talent agency International Creative Management (ICM). During the course of the meeting, Berg posed the question, “What is the difference between North and South Korea?” His one word answer to his own question was, “Management.”
If you think about it, obvious oversimplifications aside, there still remains a lot of truth in that succinct response. Good management can lead to productivity fueled by heightened morale, collective belief in an organization’s mission and vision, and a desire on the part of individual workers to not be the weak link in the chain and to perform accordingly. Poor management kills employee morale and productivity, leads to unfocused decision-making, muddles or obscures any sense of mission/vision (if these existed to begin with), and creates a culture where employees may perform at some bare minimum level, but will not be self-motivated to push boundaries or to take unsolicited steps which might benefit the employer.
Most of us have no question as to which type of organization we’d like to belong or what kind of manager we’d like to either be or report to (or think we are), yet there is still sufficient evidence to suggest that mismanagement, rather than good management, is the order of the day within far too many businesses…













Storytelling and Commerce: When Art Meets Business
Tags: business stories, business storytelling, coherency in business, compelling marketing, consistent marketing, credibility in business, credible marketing, defining mission, developing business character, gaining influence, storytelling for business, why stories matter
Fundamentally, humans seem hard-wired to appreciate and crave stories, and smart entrepreneurs and businesses instinctively understand this predisposition and will market themselves accordingly. In an age of 24/7 news cycles, the proliferation of media channels which didn’t exist a generation ago, and economic cycles which for many require constant reinvention and self-promotion to stand out from the competition, those who incorporate storytelling practices and techniques into their business are more apt to command the attention of both internal and external stakeholders, as well as customers.
THE ELEMENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS STORY
So let’s dive deeper and define the above and provide some concrete, business-related examples to stir up some entrepreneurial juices.
CREDIBLE AND COMPELLING
Telling a story which is credible may on the surface seem odd from the point-of-view of the world of fiction, but actually, even fantasy and science-fiction must conform to rules established by the author through the conventions of the narrative. Unlike ancient Greek tragedy playwriting, the presence of deus ex machina plot devices is viewed by most as sloppy and/or lazy writing and is long out of fashion.
On the business front, maintaining credibility with customers, as well as employees and outside vendors, is critical for the fiscal health of the enterprise, and is vital whenever outside capital is being solicited. This credibility can not only pertain to the manner in which the business is presented and positioned in external facing collateral, but may extend to the behavior of key employees as well, including senior management. Once credibility is lost, whether due to incompetence, malfeasance, or simply failure to act in an appropriate and timely manner to a perceived problem, it can be extremely difficult to regain trust.
Determining what make a narrative compelling might seem like a tall order, but if one analyzes stories across various cultures and genres, it becomes very clear that at its heart, the answer is quite straightforward – the audience must be emotionally invested in the outcome of the story. If you fail to engage and hook the audience, you’ve lost them, their attention will wander, and your chance of regaining their interest will likely be compromised since they have already pre-judged your storytelling ability.
For a business to have a compelling story, it is essential that prospective customers understand the product and/or service offerings, and furthermore, that a Unique Selling Proposition (USP) exist. USP is fancy marketing speak for a succinct description of what differentiates your business from the competition, and potentially what benefits customers will derive from purchasing from you and not your competitors. It is essential that a business owner, as well as any staff who interacts with prospective customers (which if you get down to it, is actually everyone) clearly understand and be able to articulate your company’s USP.
CONSISTENT, COHERENT AND CHARACTER-DRIVEN
Consistency is another hallmark of a well-told story, and this is true in both the fiction and non-fiction realms. Most often, this is a reflection of the tone and style of the story, which in written form are conveyed in the use of language and point-of-view. In the fictional world, different genres over time have developed certain conventions, and while it is certainly possible to “break the rules” and even mix genres at times, the storyteller must be very careful in doing so, because when expectations are defied, a certain amount of risk is entailed. A similar restriction applies to non-fiction writing, such as reporting, memoirs, text books and the like. For example, fictional elements and personal opinion are never supposed to co-mingle with what is reported as “news” or represented as a “true life account.” To do so violates fundamental precepts of the form and undermines, if not outright destroys, credibility.
Our final elements for inclusion are coherence and the importance of having memorable characters populate a story. Coherence might seem to some as a “no-brainer,” but poorly conceived, written and delivered stories can be found all around us without expending much effort to look. Sometimes coherence is sacrificed due to having too many people influencing the story, and in doing so, providing inconsistent guidance which creates a disjointed narrative. From the perspective of business, this is typically communicated through branding efforts and the development of vision, mission and positioning statements which communicate the company’s raison d’être. Businesses start to run into trouble when they cannot clearly define what it is they offer, what audience they serve, or why they are even in existence in the first place.
My final point regarding the creation (or featuring) of memorable characters highlights the fact that people tend to identify with or react emotionally to people (fictional or otherwise) who they aspire to be like, or someone they would like to befriend, or who represent a natural foe or adversary, or whose own story provides them with inspiration and meaning. As a business, talking about a corporate identity can seem rather cold and impersonal, and effective marketing often seeks to humanize the business by focusing on the personalities and achievements of management and staff, or at the very least, attractive spokespeople who will resonate with the target market. Some business leaders are naturally larger than life “characters” that the media quickly respond to, since writing stories about them is far easier than more bland or retiring personalities, while others will often invent or otherwise exaggerate certain qualities in order to draw attention and create publicity. There are certainly lessons to be learned from the colorful characters found throughout history as well as the present day, even if embellishments have invariably been added to those who really once existed, or walk the world today.
WHY STORIES MATTER
Stories, whether written down, acted out by performers, or delivered orally, form the backbone of any society. Stories communicate cultural values, important myths, and often convey history from the point of view of the story’s creator or communicator. They engage our interest on a visceral level and help us to make sense of not only what our senses tell us on an individual level, but to process the messages conveyed by our environment on a larger macro level as well.
Obviously, this article cannot possibly delve into the complexities of applying time-proven storytelling techniques within a business environment, but it hopefully does make the case that creative license, if not misapplied with the intent to deceive, should be part of every business toolbox.
Author’s Note: This posting originally ran on the blog Serial Startups on May 26, 2011…