The
Harder They Fall
Is it worth it to achieve your dreams
if you lose yourself along the way?
Kramer (2003) does not answer this question but gives us a sense of the
journey to the top and the effect that journey has on some people after they
reach the top position in their organization.
There are individuals that climb the ladder of success, reach the top,
and thrive personally and professionally for long periods of time. Unfortunately, not all people can make that
claim.
Kramer (2003) offered information
that could shed light on why some people make it to the top position only to lose
everything in uncharacteristic fashion. He
calls this phenomenon “genius-to-folly syndrome” and describes it as a “swift
and steady rise by a brilliant, hard driving, politically adept individual
followed by surprising stints of miscalculation or recklessness” (p. 60). Dr. Kramer has spent the better part of his
career studying the process of getting to the top. By all measures, these individuals are the
last people one would expect to become a victim of their own doing, but it
happens quite often. Genius-to-folly syndrome
is not isolated to business, although business has provided some very good examples
of folly at the top over the years. It
is also apparent in politics, religion, and entertainment.
Kramer (2003) does not believe that simple
mistakes or moral deficiencies are the cause.
His research concludes that the journey to the top is at the root of
genius-to-folly syndrome. “There is something
about the pursuit of power that often changes people in profound ways. Indeed, to get to the apex of their
profession, individuals are often forced to jettison certain attitudes and
behaviors—the same attitudes and behaviors they need for survival once they get
to the top” (p.60).
I found this very interesting. In other words, leaders can determine what is
necessary to reach the top and change their behavior to reach that goal but
cannot make the same adjustment once they get there. Therefore, the very thing that brought them
success causes them to fail. Given the
drive, the focus, and the intelligence Kramer attributed to the examples he provided,
I find it hard to believe these changes would be made consciously. However, that assumes that drive, focus, and
intelligence are predictors of morality which is not necessarily so. While more palatable, it is also not likely
that the changes were so insidious that they took hold subconsciously as the
pace of the race to the top is simply too fast.
If the goal of reaching the top is
important enough, a leader may feel justified in changing their moral standards
to accommodate pursuing that goal. This
is a form of relativism and it does not have to be bad, but the line can be
blurry. According to LaFollette (2007),
it is widely recognized that ethical principles can be sensitive to certain
situations. For example, do not break
the rules could be seen as an abridgement of do not break the rules unless the
rules singularly prevent the achievement of a legitimate morally acceptable
goal. Here the unabridged principle remains
intact. However, the line between reason
and rationalization can be difficult to detect.
Without reason, one might conclude that following the rules is not
important.
I believe each time we apply ethical relativism
to our moral principles, it becomes easier to do so. The next time we are faced with an ethical
dilemma, as humans, we will go back to what has worked in the past and what is
easiest to do. Reasoning through an
ethical problem is time consuming and mentally taxing. It is not always clear what we ought to do,
what is right to do, or what is good to do when it conflicts with what we want
to do, but we can be assured that what we choose to do, especially when
pursuing a goal as public and fragile as power, will not go without judgement
(Gray, 2011).
Kramer (2003) explained that the pursuit
of power generally places the individual in competition for highly coveted and rare
positions for which the competition is intense.
Many people compete for the few available positions, all of whom are imminently
qualified and highly skilled. However,
there can be only one winner for each position.
It is a winner-take-all market where a small number of people are thought
to create most of the value and for that they are rewarded handsomely. Kramer believes the intense competition in
the winner-take-all markets creates elitists with a winner-wants-all attitude. The expectations of the winners create a
sense of entitlement. Further, the level
of competition forces players in the winner-take-all markets to be aggressive risk
takers and to act on impulse to any opportunity they think will give them
advantage. “Indeed, the most ambitious
and competitive players in the winner-take-all markets often perceive that
introspection is antithetical to success.
As a result, these individuals develop a dangerous aversion to
moderation” (p. 61). In my opinion, impulsive decision-making is an equally
dangerous trait to develop.
I have seen these concepts at play,
albeit for smaller stakes, many times during my military career. Individuals who believe rising through duty positions
and the rank structure is their primary purpose as an Airman, often lose track
of what is important. Some forget what
to serve means. Their actions become
self-serving and their words insincere.
I have seen this happen at different levels of the hierarchy.
One leader is given an opportunity
over other candidates. Opportunity comes
with an office, privacy, the autonomy (within limits) to prioritize work and
make decisions that have an affect on the people within their control. Additionally, the opportunity comes with the
respect of the people that made it possible.
The perception of power has a
profound yet different effect from individual to individual. Some see the privileges associated with their
grade and position as rights or entitlements.
Some consider the people as the means for them to achieve their random
and personal end. Some take on a ‘my way
or the highway’ attitude and control every aspect of the operation. Others see the opportunity as a faith or trust
from their superiors that they are ready for increased responsibility. And they
handle their duties in a manner that tend to prove their superiors
correct. Power does, indeed, change the
behavior and attitude profoundly and negatively in some people. In others it enhances their abilities. While different in scale to Kramer’s (2003) discussion,
many of the concepts are parallel because it is human behavior being questioned. The mask of entitlement, the elitist attitude,
and above the law behavior only deceives the one that possesses them. The people will ultimately make the decision
based on their interpretation of right or wrong, not the leader’s. The fall can be unusually painful.
It seems like the deck is stacked against
reaching the top at all, much less reaching it and thriving on the challenge. Research proves that the pursuit of power can
change an individual profoundly. Even one’s
core values are subject to change. Kramer
(2003) concluded that “the process of getting to the top almost always changes
people in ways they don’t anticipate or appreciate. That lack of self-awareness seems to be part
of the human condition, and if my work with MBA students is any indication, we
shouldn’t expect it to change anytime soon” (p. 66).
So, is it possible to get to the top relatively
unscathed and remain there for the long term?
Of course, it is. There are many
examples to draw from. Many of the
things that cause people to fall from the top are moral (doing what is right versus
doing what is wrong) and will be assessed as such. Velasquez, et al. (1992) stated, “ethics is
an inquiry into right and wrong through a critical examination of the reasons
underlying practices and beliefs” (n. p.).
When asked why we made a decision or why we think the way we do, we
should be prepared to provide reasons or explanations for our answers
(LaFollette, 2007). Along with making the
right choice and being able to explain why, there are other techniques that
help neutralize the pursuit of power. I listed a some of the reasons from Kramer (2003) below.
Keep your life simple: do not get
caught up in the romance of power. Remain
close to family, they will tell you the truth.
Nurture your humility; stay objective
about success and failure - view adversity in a healthy way
Accept and better understand your
weaknesses – admit to and learn from your mistakes
Trust but verify; mindfully scrutinize
the business environment to find the truth
Sweat the small stuff: it is
important too – Leaders often stumble on the little things
Reflect more, not less: become aware
of your tendencies in certain situations in preparation for the future - Successful
leaders strive to become more reflective.
There are things that are powerful enough
to change us in ways we will not anticipate or appreciate. Of course, we will claim that it cannot
happen to us. Self-awareness is critical. Know who you are. What are your core beliefs? What makes you behave the way you do? Why do you think the way you do? What values do you have that you are willing
to trade off? Knowing the answers to these questions, is a good start to becoming self aware. Mindful reflection is another.
I learned that I have some tendencies
of the relativist, but I am primarily an absolutist. Pecorino (2000) asked the question, “How
can you hold opposing ideas at the same time” (n. p.)? I (only partly sarcastic) answer, I do not
hold opposing views on any one issue.
For each issue, I either see it from the relativist view or an absolutist
view, but not both. When there are two
opposing issues, the truth generally lies somewhere between them.
I also learned that I still have beliefs for which I
could not provide a reasonable answer if I were to be questioned. I will continue to evaluate and resolve these
issues until I can defend the positions I take and the decisions I make.
~Pete
References:
Gray, J. W. (2011, May 20). What is “Morality?” Retrieved
from https://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/what-is-morality/
Kramer, R. M. (2003). The harder they fall (cover
story). Harvard Business Review,81(10),
58-66.
LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden,
MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Pecorino, P. A. (2000). Relativism. Retrieved from http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%208%20Ethics/Relativism.htm
Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks, T.,
S. J., & Meyer, M. J. (1992, August 1). Ethical Relativism. Retrieved from
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/ethical-relativism/
No comments:
Post a Comment