| abstract | - Of the 1,435 organizations he studied, only 11 broke the gravity of “good” to become truly great. Of those 11, Collins discovered that the leaders who did it had strong ego drive and professional will—but they balanced that drive with extreme humility. He called that ability “Level 5” leadership. In their book egonomics, Marcum and Smith set out to answer the question asked of Collins shortly before Good to Great released, "Can you learn to become Level 5, in the way you work, regardless if you're a designated 'leader' or not." The book's premise inherently trusts the validity of Collins' research, and uses that platform to launch a discussion on what it takes to strike the right balance of ego drive and humility to become a “Level 5” leader or businessperson. Their book begins with the line, "Ego is the invisible line item on every company’s profit and loss statement." In following chapters, they cover the 4 early warning signs that ego is working against a leader, team or company culture, and the three "antidotes" that keep ego as an asset to business. Some of the text below is directly from the book, used with the authors' permission. 1: Being Comparative Here, Marcum and Smith make their case that being too competitive makes us less competitive. By fixating on someone else, we lose unrecoverable time that could be devoted to becoming uniquely great; we give up our potential in the name of becoming “better than” or at least “as good as” someone else. A meta-analysis of 265 studies over 56 years found there was almost no task on which competitive or individualistic efforts were more effective than collaborative efforts (Alfie Kohn, The Case Against Competition). The rare exceptions were physical tasks that required little thought and no collaboration. In addition, when we’re excessively comparative, we tend to either pit our strengths against another’s weaknesses, which may lead us to an exaggerated sense of confidence, or we compare our weaknesses to their strengths. 2: Being Defensive This chapter points out how and when we cross the line in a debate or coversation from defending an idea to being defensive. The distinction is best described by the intent of each. The motive behind defending an idea is to let the best argument win. Because nobody is all-knowing, the best decisions are the result of rigorous independent thinking followed by passionate, collaborative debate. To cover every angle of a debate before we make key decisions, we lay out our best thinking and defend it passionately. Because the intent is progress, we are equally interested in hearing opposing arguments. In fact, in the true spirit of real debate, we may even create counter arguments when others agree too quickly. That openness lets the validity of an idea win or disappear—either one being equally okay, regardless of the intensity with which we make our case. But when we cross the line from defending to being defensive—even momentarily—our idea “disappearing” isn’t an option. When we can’t “lose,” we defend our positions as if we’re defending who we are, and the debate shifts from a we-centered battle of ideas to a me-centered war of wills. That change represents the shift from defending ideas to being defensive. Research shows that while people believe they are open to feedback on ways they can improve and listen without being defensive, the people who work closely with them disagree. 3: Showcasing Brilliance At face value showcasing brilliance, or highlighting our talent, seems like something we would want to do. If we hide our talent, what good does that do the company or our career? None. But the authors argue that showcasing isn’t about making our brilliance visible. It’s making it the center of attention and unduly occupying time and energy, even momentarily. The more we want or expect people to recognize, appreciate or be dazzled by how smart we are, the less they listen, even if we do have better ideas. When we allow showcasing to occur, the casualty is collective wisdom. The authors point to studies by, among others, James Surowiecki and Scott Page, that prove collective intelligence outperforms the brightest individual in everything from bean counting contests to stock market performance to complex problem solving. The people we already have in our companies are exactly what we need. 4: Seeking Acceptance One of the most impressive "one-liners" from their book comes here, "Leadership is best reserved for those who don’t need positions of leadership to validate who they are." Being aware of what people think is a sign of great leadership. Becoming oversensitive to what people think of us keeps us from being true to ourselves. That in turn places speaking our mind behind personal promotion or public opinion. Acceptance and respect are one of the most fundamental needs we have. But when we equate acceptance or rejection of our ideas with acceptance or rejection of who we are, we “play it safe.” We tend to swim with the current and find a slightly different way of saying what’s already been said as long as acceptance is the outcome. That not only makes us a bland follower, but an uninspiring leader. Seeking acceptance may be the most subtle of the early warning signs because it’s so “nice,” and doesn’t draw attention to itself. The majority of the book then covers what the authors state are the three core principles to becoming a "Level 5" businessperson: 1) humility, 2) curiosity, 3) veracity. 1. Humility The authors argue that humility is the first principle of egonomics because of its unique ability to open minds. Until people are ready to listen and learn, the other two principles, curiosity and veracity, are rarely evident. But as crucial as an open mind is, that may not even be the most essential characteristic of humility. Humility is a means to an end, and that end is the progress of the business. Discussions and debates that facilitate true progress require we temporarily suspend what we think is best for us to consider what’s in the best interests of the business. From a business perspective, humility doesn’t lose sight of “me,” but also doesn’t let our own needs interfere with open dialogue and intense debate. With that intention of progress, we discovered a characteristic of humility we came to call “constructive discontent.” Without losing confidence in who we are or lessening the importance of what we’ve achieved, Marcum and Smith state that humility has the unique ability to create a craving to reach the next level of performance. Without an open mind, no questions are asked about what that next level might be. And even when asked—without humility—only selective replies are heard. Humility swallows excessive pride and channels individual ambition into the business success of “we” rather than a selfish, short-lived agenda of only “me.” Humility doesn’t replace “me” with “we,” but places our focus in the proper sequence, for the right reasons, and at the right time. The authors site, among other research, one Fast Company survey that asked 1,665 respondents to rate leaders in various types of organizations on their ability to lead. Of the abilities they saw in their leaders, characteristics like being passionate about work or ruthless for success rated high. Unselfishness rated dead last. In one of the author's research surveys, nearly eight out of ten people wish their organizations were more humble. The book states that as a trait, humility is the point of equilibrium between too much ego and not enough. Humility has a reputation of being the polar opposite of excessive ego. In fact, the exact opposite of excessive ego is no confidence at all. Humility provides the crucial balance between the two extremes. Humility is not the equivalent of being weak, ignored, indifferent, boring, or a pushover. If it is to be a point of equilibrium, humility must include confidence, ambition, and willpower. Without a clear understanding of what humility is, it can be seen as a trait best left to special causes and religious leaders, but not businesspeople. If humility seems to be an out-dated concept in a fiercely competitive world, it’s because humility is misunderstood, understudied, and underused—and, consequently, underestimated. As an indispensable trait of great leadership, humility must make its way past the pulpit of Sunday sermons and into cubicles and boardrooms. Humility should be our first reflex, not our regret once the moment has past. 2. Curiosity Curiosity gives us permission and courage to test what we think, feel and believe to be true, reminding us we don’t know everything about anything. The authors definition and discussion of curiosity is different than "creativity" or "innovation." Their writing is about what makes us curious, how ego affects our curiosity, and how we can implement more of it in our daily routines and conversations at work. If we lead with questions rather than answers, curiosity can strip us of an agenda, and stop us from holding so tightly to our own ideas and beliefs that we aren’t able to consider others’. The good news is most everyone is curious, so we have a head start. But the type of curiosity we have and the degree to which we’re curious is another question, and a vital answer in determining the value we create. Highly curious people are different than you might imagine; they have a unique ability to bring both openness and order to conversations, not excluding either in the way they think. Curiosity is so potent that just extending the invitation makes a difference in performance. The authors site a study with a group of business students in 1968 at the University of Michigan. The students were split into two teams and given an identical business case to solve. The instructions given to both groups were also identical, except two small words; group two was told to “be creative.” Thirty-nine percent of students in group one solved the case successfully, while 52 percent in group two solved it successfully. Creativity springs from curiosity, and something even as simple as reminding people to be curious makes a difference. 3. Veracity Veracity is the third principle of egonomics. Veracity is the English word for the Latin term veritas, which means truth. But why would truth be an "antioxidant" of ego, and why not just say the word truth if that’s what they meant? They answer that question in the book. Truth essentially refers to facts or reality; it implies accuracy and honesty. Veracity, however, differs slightly; veracity is the habitual pursuit of, and adherence to, truth. Veracity differs from truth in action, not in value. So why is veracity an “antioxidant”—who doesn’t want the truth? It’s not that people don’t want the truth, but what portion we want is occasionally a different story. What part wouldn’t we want? The part that’s hard to hear. What fraction of the truth wouldn’t we want to address? The portion that’s hard to say. There is a point and time in almost every important business discussion where we might be curiously exploring or intensely debating, and stumble upon brutal facts. Humility’s constructive discontent almost always surfaces truth difficult to hear. The authors make their case that veracity is as important to leadership and team collaboration as vision, strategy, integrity, execution or passion. Although relatively new and "undiscovered" to date in the management writing community, their work has recieved the acclaim of professors from Harvard Business School, University of Michigan, George Washington University, Thunderbird, from thought-leaders Warren Bennis, Stephen Covey, Marshall Goldsmith, David Ulrich, and in noted publications such as U.S. News and World Report and BusinessWeek. A course based on the book, which the authors have been teaching since 2001, is offered through MarcumSmith, LC. You can find more about their credentials, and their work, at www.marcumsmith.com or www.egonomicsbook.com.
|
