I’ve been following a debate that was prompted by a column in Entrepreneur Magazine by George Cloutier, The Turnaround Ace. The title, “Your Company Is not a Democracy: The most effective leaders are benevolent dictators who hold employees accountable,” sums up his point of view. Here are a few of the more provocative assertions:
- Let your employees respect but fear you
- Tell your employees: “Don’t think — obey”
- The only opinion that counts is that of ownership
- It’s not your job to dispense praise, affirmation, hugs and cookies to your staff
He does make some good points. Provide clear direction. Reward success. Hold people accountable. Fire poor performers.
A contrary perspective was provide in the post “Biased Justification for Poor Leadership” by Mike Henry. Mike asserts being a tyrant is not being a good leader. “Employees are declaring independence, leaving jobs and going on their own, because of tyrants just like this. If I have to wrangle cats or mow yards for a living, I’d do it to keep from working for another one of these ‘my way or the highway’ types.”
So my question for you is this. Do dictators make good marketing leaders? Do clarity of direction, speed of action, ruthless accountability and dispassionate decision-making outweigh inspiration, collaboration and employee engagement? Which style is most likely to yield positive company outcomes during difficult times? Have you worked with a dictator before? What was your experience? The company’s experience?
Mine was not pleasant! Working in an environment of fear was not productive. The “tyrant” was emotionally unstable, which created a high degree of uncertainty and a desire to get out as soon as possible. Fortunately for me, the “tyrant” was thrown out by the CEO before I had to leave. But the experience made a lasting impact on me.
How about you? What’s your story?
John Ellett is CEO of nFusion Group, LLC, a digitally-focused marketing agency based in Austin, TX. He has a passion for encouraging and supporting marketing leaders who have the courage to be change agents in their organizations.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
John, thanks for the great post, link and comment. It is tempting to think the “take-charge” “call-all-the-shots” type of directing management gets more done. In my experience, that is always a short-term judgment. Those managers get what they reward. They end up only with people who need to be told what to do.
Mike…
John, in my experience heavy-handed managers rarely excel as leaders. I’ve always attributed that style, rightly or wrongly, to overcompensating for some deeply embedded self-esteem issue. A real leader is comfortable in his or her own skin, and manage people on a individual-by-individual basis.
Cloutier’s four assertions are virtually direct lifts from Machiavelli’s “The Prince”. Does this approach work? It depends. But anyone taking this approach had better be brilliant and have absolute authority over their organization.
Effective or not, Cloutier’s advice can only be applied by the person at the very top of the organization – the CEO or owner. Anyone applying some of the more ruthless dictates of “The Prince” had better be sure that they wield the power of the prince, or risk finding themselves undercut and cast aside.
Peter, nice connection to The Prince. Given that most marketing leaders are not on the top of their organization’s pyramid, this approach may not be the most effective.
Isn’t that the truth! Encourage people not to think and they won’t.
John –
I refer to you to two books, one from our past and one more recent to answer your question. The first book is MANAGING FROM THE HEART by Hyler Bracey. As one might expect, it suggests that there are compassionate ways to lead. The second book is WHY GREAT LEADERS DON’T TAKE YES FOR AN ANSWER by Michael Roberto. It guides the reader to listen and probe into actions and presentations without a socratic method. I recently worked for a CEO that was the most amazing blend of intolerance and compassion. As long as you were on the good side of him, life was pretty sweet. In the end, he was one of the most charasmatic leaders I have ever been around. However he was also one of the worst managers I have ever been around. (and he knows it) The leadership side of him installed tenacity and determination throughout the company. If the exec staff can corral a leader for this purpose, then being a tyrant could work. But as you point out, most often it does not and it can be miserable for the company. Which ultimately equals a lack of production and results.
Thanks for sharing the books and your experience with our readers. As you mentioned, you can learn a lot from people, including what traits not to emulate!