Boston Business Journal
The controversy over John Bolton's confirmation as United Nations Ambassador reveals a tragic blind spot in our understanding of leadership. Politicians, boards of directors and others who appoint senior executives to public and private leadership positions too often equate bluster and bombast with true effectiveness. They fall victim to believing that crude, uninspiring and repugnant interpersonal behaviors are simply part of being tough.
They couldn't be more wrong.
The tendency among some top officials, boards of directors and even executive search firms to confuse bravado with bravura can catapult into leadership positions people for whom and with whom nobody wants to work. The "take no prisoners," fear-based leadership style may make for great storytelling -- and it may even produce some short-term results, too -- but at what expense?
How much scorched earth in the form of wasted opportunities, productivity losses, employee defections, retraining costs and outright errors must be sacrificed at the altar of one individual's hubris, insecurities or disregard for quaint notions of dignity, professionalism and manners?
Isn't it time to separate the justifiable search for leaders who are tough, firm, decisive and driven from would-be leaders who are excessively difficult and draining of an organization's morale and creative energy? True leaders understand that they are merely temporary stewards of an enterprise, a vision or a public trust.
How many of us have seen organizations wither on the vine of out-of-control egos who fail to understand that it's not about them. Of course, that is until the board of directors or others in authority finally realize that these individuals are actually the ones impeding long-term progress.
The controversy over John Bolton's confirmation as United Nations Ambassador reveals a tragic blind spot in our understanding of leadership. Politicians, boards of directors and others who appoint senior executives to public and private leadership positions too often equate bluster and bombast with true effectiveness. They fall victim to believing that crude, uninspiring and repugnant interpersonal behaviors are simply part of being tough.
They couldn't be more wrong.
The tendency among some top officials, boards of directors and even executive search firms to confuse bravado with bravura can catapult into leadership positions people for whom and with whom nobody wants to work. The "take no prisoners," fear-based leadership style may make for great storytelling -- and it may even produce some short-term results, too -- but at what expense?
How much scorched earth in the form of wasted opportunities, productivity losses, employee defections, retraining costs and outright errors must be sacrificed at the altar of one individual's hubris, insecurities or disregard for quaint notions of dignity, professionalism and manners?
Isn't it time to separate the justifiable search for leaders who are tough, firm, decisive and driven from would-be leaders who are excessively difficult and draining of an organization's morale and creative energy? True leaders understand that they are merely temporary stewards of an enterprise, a vision or a public trust.
How many of us have seen organizations wither on the vine of out-of-control egos who fail to understand that it's not about them. Of course, that is until the board of directors or others in authority finally realize that these individuals are actually the ones impeding long-term progress.