Insensitivity as a positive leadership trait
 

During my long drive to visit my parents over the holiday I got a lot of solitary windshield time. As is my habit I tire of music and try to catch talk radio, NPR, etc to break up the monotony.

I caught a snippet of an interview with some highly successful business/corporate manager/CE0. He was being interviewed on what he felt were the three most desireable traits/qualities of a corporate head. His answer? Drive/dedication, intellectual curiosity and...insensitivity.

The first two are pretty much a cliche. But a discussion ensued about how business leaders inthe past 50 or so years have been far too concerned about being compassionate or sensitive or concerned about the welfare of the rank and file. He postulated that while being sensitive to others may be desireable in personal or family relationships, he found no place for it in corporatee decision making. His theory was that only when a leader could make any decision without being concerned in the least about any potential negative impact on subordinates could you be effective. Strict objectivism. He even bragged that he has never lost a minutes sleep over difficult decisions in his decades in positions of authority.

Interesting. What say you?

It is not working in my marriage. At least that is what whats her name says.

I say yes, insensitivity is a necessary trait for corporate success and has brought us to the place we live in now. Which makes me insensitive to corporations.

Would I screw a company just because it's big?

Every day.

I would say yes and no, but mostly no. I think you actually need an extremely sensitive understanding of people to build up teams, to inspire effort, etc., but then also the cold-ish, mathematical understanding to make decisions that are for the greater good despite the fact that some people get hurt.

A 100% cold, mathematical fellow won't get his foot in the door of the executive office, let alone be able to inspire/retain key staff. Likewise, a 100% people person will fail by trying to delay the suffering and hence increase its spread.

Like the Greeks said: Nothing in excess.

in my former field it was called 'triage'..
or..you cannot save them all..

insensitivity is a poor word choice IMO..


Rika

If it makes you feel any better, I've tried being sensitive and insensitive towards my wife...neither one seems to work:D

I disagree, good leaders need to be sensitive to some degree and have empathy as well. They shouldn't be a wuss either. Some amount of sensitivity breeds loyalty. Consistency is also important from my perspective.

I don't believe you can define a good leader simply by identifying three character traits, it's much more challenging than that and requires balance of many character traits.

Who was the dbag that was interviewed?

Jack Welch was very demanding (as well as intolerant of marginal performers) of his people but I believe he had some degree of sensitivity. I've heard that he knew the top 2000 employees/leaders in the company by first name and knew details of their resumes as well. I don't think he wanted all that information if he wasn't going to use it in many different ways and impacting on many different decisions.

It sounds to me (and I'm no corp, management, heavy-hitter type) like the kind of thinking that gets stuff outsourced to China where they can pay people peanuts and have them work in conditions that would be illegal in the states. Why, because that's best for the bottom line, and the guys at the top, and that's all that counts.

Sounds like the kind of thinking that will make him fat, and, if he crosses the wrong employee, shot.

Or, maybe I'm way off on that.

The worst guy that I worked under was this guy!

He talked units not bicycles.

He built bikes that his engineers didn't ride!

He bullied his sales force.

He asked for advice once and then didn't act on it.....until 6 months later when someone in management came up with the same advice.

Chuck Wilkes, if you're out there.... I still think of the way you "managed a company....And you left a mark on me. I don't emulate any of your practices.

"Objectivity" is perhaps a better way to express the concept

In my line of work it's a strict balance of sensitivity and insensitivity.

When the mission rubber-hits-the-road is when insensitivity comes to play.

Discussion: During training / garrison time I'm very sensitive to my Soldiers family life, their kids birthdays, school functions etcetera and I want them to take time to foster their families and relationships. When we go on a mission I pick the leader and team by his ability to be successful even if he's going to die and I do not care if he has kids, a wife etcetera.

This may not work in industry, but it's the utilitarian way of business in the military.

I think its just a trait that is required at the executive level.

If you try to flex to early in your progressive management career you are doomed. I seen too many young progressive type make this mistake only to get canned in the end.

You can read all of the top level executive text books you want but if you are not respected by your staff and you are not in a position that generates significant saving you will get relieved.

So if you are an Exec. and are generating revenue who cares how you treat the little guy.
If you want protection join a union.

I think the word he was looking for would be "obective" more than insensitive. By that I mean that a senior manager has to objectively evaluate every person, business unit, product, etc. that is his responsibility and get rid of it if it is no longer useful, no matter how unpleasant the parting will be. I think that's what he meant by being insensitive, that you can't let doing hard things get to you.

The more experience I have any the more I realize this is the key to successful management and business dealings in general. You have to be completely objective in evaluating an employee's performance, a business unit's ability to be profitable, every product line, customer, or business oportunity that presents itself. And then you have to be completely ruthless about following the objective truth of the situation, and if that means doing something that's hard, you have to do it. Because if you don't, the organization will not survive and prosper, and then you'll all be out of jobs.

My mentor, a CEO of a fortune 500 company from the 70's would probably call it "ruthlessness". Someone has to make the hard decisions.

And it's lonely at the top, or so he says.

I'm sure depending on situation, an appropriate action is required, so to generalize like this is vague. But makes for an interesting NPR program.

HMMM...If every corporate exec were "insensitive" or as U Boyz want to term it "objective" EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU WOULD BE UNEMPLOYED...Objectivily I can get it done some place else cheaper and the work force will be glad to be doing it and not beothching about benifits, retirment plans working conditions, hours worked or even if the manager is INSENSITIVE...Who are you kidding...insensitive really...maybe some workshop will make him more sensitive to my needs..LOL

Just a bunch of pansy azz mtherfkers...U have been listening to the whining feel good Progressives on TV for too long and have forgotten how to work for a living. And U are gona be getting your wish that you don't have to work so hard..cause soon you ain't gona be working no more.

You need to balance the welfare of individuals with the welfare of the organization. You can't do that by being insensitive.
And - how do you define "successful?" I wouldn't consider myself successful if my employees were struggling to make the payments on their mobile homes. The fact that their jobs with me afford them a reasonable standard of living is a measure of my success. Call it sensitive if you want.

+1

So, tabs, you're convinced that execs today are putting out the best product possible while attending the needs of their baby like work force? I say not.

BTW, you wouldn't or couldn't know how hard I've worked since I was 14. I've heard that said about me way more than I've said it myself.

American management is basically a fked up bunch of deaf dumb and blind mtherfking morons..For the past 50 years corporations have become more and more of a bureaucracy that does not foster creativity and suppresses indivdual iniative. It is all for the good of the corporate hierarchy. No body will take responsibility for anything..it is all decision by committee..and as such the decisions made are third rate. The indivduals who rise in that envirnoment are the guys who have learned to take it up the azz and smile, put their noses up the bosses azz and know how to knife the competition when they are not looking. Did I say they also know how to chant the Party line better than anyone else.

Anybody doubt this...ohh my take a look at GM...and the old saying.."what is good for GM is good for America." And if you should perchance try and run out some of the successfull high techs...well guess what at this point in the game most of them are still being run by the guys who founded them and the deadhead mentality hasn't seeped in yet. . A cupla of the big boyz like MSFT and INTEl are either on 2ND gen leadership or nearing it...and one can tell cause the deadhead syndrome is starting to set in on those corps...MSFT stock hasn't risen 10 cents in ten years...

BTW 1st gen leadership is where the creative process and iniative is rewarded..The 2ND gen still has the atributes of the first..but is becoming institutionalized...Each succeeding gen becomes more institutionalized.

I thought that this was the closest to my sentiments..and therefore the best post on this Thread so I quoted it...

The part that I thought was off was the Yes "insensitivity" is necessary.

Corporate institutionalization leads to an impersonalization in society, where everyone is a number and everyone forgets you had a name. Does one wonder why drug use both legal and illegal is so high in the industrial countries. Can you say ALIENATION...your indivduality doesn't count...your concerns don't count. You don't count..