Great Intimidator?

Believe it or not, I found an article in Harvard Business Review that I really hate. It’s not that I have liked every article in there—the ones on supply chains really bore me. Others make points that I don’t think are terribly powerful. But I think this is the first one that I have found that takes a position about leadership with which I fundamentally disagree.

It’s called “The Great Intimidators,” by Roderick Kramer. As the teaser says,

We hear a lot of praise for emotionally intelligent, even humble leaders. But change is scary, and sometimes you need scary leaders to steer you through. Those with bold political intelligence can creatively push followers to overperform.

The article argues that “political intelligence” is valuable and characteristics of intimidating leaders can get you results. I suppose I would agree with this, but only in certain contexts, and only over the short term. So to present the characteristics as if it were a list of leadership traits to develop really bugs me.

For example, one of the characteristics of “great” intimidators is their mastery of facts—or apparent mastery, at least:

Often it doesn’t even matter all that much whether the “facts” are right. When it comes to making a good impression or anchoring an argument, the truly great intimidator seizes the advantage. Even the misleading or inaccurate factoid—when uttered with complete confidence and injected into a discussion with perfect timing and precision—can carry the day.

Is it just me, or is suggestion of “hey, if you lie at the right time, you can really win an argument” not the kind of advice one would hope to find in HBR?

Comments

[Chris Bailey]

Jamie, I was wondering how you might take that article. I remember reading it with a mixture of fascination and revulsion. I almost wanted to read it as satire. And then it dawned on me...this is a view into the world of someone who I don't truly understand and yet am surrounded by (not in my office, but within my org so close enough). So, from the angle of a very contrary view to my own, it was an interesting read.

[Kevin Holland]

Haven't read the article, but from what you've quoted, it seems to be stating the obvious. You may not like it -- you may not think it's the "right way" to do things -- but it's rather naive to suggest that the type being described is not effective.

[Jamie Notter]

Yes, but that's just it, Kevin. I know it is effective in the short term, but in the long run--as a leader of a system--I think you'll do damage to the system by standing by these principles. The author does also say that he finds these leaders more often in certain contexts, specifically highly political ones. An example he gives of the "lying" about facts was Robert MacNamara. I admit, I am happy to live my life outside of that context and not worry myself too much about what works or doesn't work there. But in thinking about mainstream organizations, would you advocate that approach to management, because it is effective? Misleading your colleagues with incorrect facts in order to "carry the day?"

[Shreedhar]

I read this article recently.

The author also describes different tactics used by intimidators with good examples.

Mirmax’s Harvey Weinstein and Stacey Snider
Clarence Thomas’s tactics
Former Maine senator – Ed Muskie
Martha Stewart
and
Apple Computer’s Steve Jobs are some of the examples.

In the conclusion, the author also says “People may not like intimidators, but they do respect the truly great ones”, tactics they use
How successful they are,
Why organizations need them
and also
At receiving end how to recognize them and deal with them.

I really liked the article, But I also wants to know what statistical methods they used to come to this conclusion.

[Sanjay Jha]

Though surprising to read it as an "established fact" (going by the study done by Roderick Kramer), it is not uncommon to see the trend in organizations. What prompts to change the "leadership" style to adopt this form is combination of factors such as tight schedule, stiff targets and tight budgets to accomplish. On top of these any organization has a very high level of competition. However, this style might yield the results few times but in long run this will erode the workforce in any organization and team play will be lost. There are many delicate situations in the organization when one counts on the loyalty of its workforce and I wonder this style will help in surviving those crucial moments. It is unto the business to approve this style to get quick results or analyze and "correct" the trend to enforce more situational, a balanced and dynamic leadership style amongst the managers.

[Jamie Notter]

Thanks for the comments! The point about this style working in the short run but not in the long run is supported by the research of Daniel Goleman (and others) in the Emotional Intelligence work.