Late last year I was at one of the usual round of Christmas parties I attend each year. Also as usual, I found myself talking to a new acquaintance explaining that I work as a Leadership Mentor when a third person joined the group. The conversation moved to executive remuneration and specifically CEO remuneration. During the conversation my new found colleague turned to me and said
“You'd know this — the CEO makes the difference”.
I replied “The CEO makes a difference.”
He was unconvinced and repeated his earlier assertion.
At this stage I deferred — neither of us was going to change our position. If my colleague is reading this I must say, with greatest respect, I still disagree with you.
And still, after 20 years as a consultant, I remain absolutely amazed at the predominance of this view. It is beyond the scope of this short piece to delve into a deep discussion of Wilfred Bion's Basic Assumptions, but it seems to me that the unchallengeable way in which this view of the messianic CEO is discussed in business almost indicates a very large group Basic Assumption Dependency.
Briefly, Major Wilfred Bion, whose task it was to provide therapy to thousands of soldiers returned from the Second World War, after studying the many many groups he worked with developed a description of group behaviour in which every group was, in fact, two groups — the Work Group and the Basic Assumption Group. The Work Group was the group that any observer could see. A group assigned to and attempting to complete a task. Bion suggested that in addition to this the group behaved as if some basic assumption were true — ie it was simultaneusly operating at two levels. The visible (work group level) and the invisible (basic assumption) level.
From his observations, Bion suggested that all groups acted with one of three Basic Assumptions: Dependency, Fight-Flight or Pairing. For the purposes of this piece I will only discuss the first of these — Dependency — and briefly at that.
Anything I write here will undoubtably reflect what has already be written by others, so I will simpy quote from ChangingMinds.org:
In this state, the group seeks a leader who will relieve them of all anxiety. This leader is thus invested with omnipotence and is expected to be able to solve all problems.
If this magical leader does not perform up to scratch, then the leader will be attacked and a replacement sought. Thus a cycle of leader-seeking, idealization and denigration occurs.
Does this sound familiar? The company is not performing as well as we want it to so we bring in a new CEO. If the CEO is any good, they can solve all the company's problems. If they don't solve all the problems then they are not up to scratch and everyone from the board to the business press will point out there shortcomings.
Yes, I have seen many CEOs and leaders who have almost single handedly wrecked their organisations and I have seen a very few individuals who have inspired their teams to achieve beyond their wildest dreams. But most CEOs I have met are somewhere in the middle. They lead a multi talented team — a team in which they had only a small part in putting together. Sure they can set the tone for the day to day work of the company's employees and they have the final say on the most important decisions. However, the company's success or otherwise depends first and foremost on the uniqueness of its products and services and the way they are marketed. This in turn is dependent on the company's culture. Something that is built into its DNA. The CEO can't change this. They can influence it. They can make decisions that make best use of it. They can affect the performance levels of their people to some degree. But they can't single handedly mandate and make happen large scale change.
I was reminded of this when I read this article by Greg Baum in Melbourne's The Age yesterday. For those of you from non-Cricket playing countries, I may need to tell you that the Australian Cricket Team has just suffered its first loss in a series at home since 1992/1993 (having lost the Second Test to South Africa.)
Baum notes the predictable reaction
In the aftermath, fingers of blame have been pointed in all directions: the selectors, the captain, Cricket Australia, Matthew Hayden, Andrew Symonds.
But
Captain Ricky Ponting has worn the brunt of the criticism. This is the captain's lot, but it is also a manifestation of the syndrome by which the leader of a sporting team — the captain in cricket, the coach in football — is made not only to account for his team, but personify it, so obviating the need for any more complex or subtle study. Hence, Ponting's failings are Australia's, Australia's Ponting's, all in one soundbite. (My emphasis added)
Again, does this sound familiar? The second sentence eminently qualifies Baum as a business analyst. Particularly the part I emphasised.
Buam hits the nail on the head regarding the problem with our belief in the messianic CEO. It is too simple and it obviates the need for any deeper study of the organisation.
This would not be so much a problem if the wellbeing of us all was not bound up in business. Our governments provide grants, low interest loans and incentives to business because they believe it will grow the economy. As we have seen in recent times, we all depend on a healthy economy. When the economy dips we all suffer.
How much more efficient would business be if it were not transfixed by the fantasy of a heroic CEO?
Leave a comment