Kevin Meyer

Talking Turkey on Leadership

How appropriate as we near the Thanksiving holiday that our favorite turkey, Jack Welch, gives us some pointers on leadership.  In his regular Business Week column in each of the past two issues, he looks at how leadership affected the recent U.S. presidential campaign and how the president-elect should build his teams.  He hits on some points, misses on others.

First, with regards to the campaign itself, he comes up with three "lessons":

Start with the granddad of leadership principles: a clear, consistent ­vision. If you want to galvanize followers, you simply cannot recast your message. Nor can you confuse or scare people. McCain's health-care policy, for example, had real merit. But his presentation of it was always confoundingly complex.

Meanwhile, Obama's message was simple and aspirational. He talked about the failings of George W. Bush. He talked about change and hope and health care for all. Over and over, he painted a picture of the future that excited people. He also set a perfect example for business leaders: Stick to a limited number of points, repeat them relentlessly, and turn people on.

Good one.  This is similar to the "clarity of purpose" concept that many new lean leadership models are using.  Issues may be complex, but they can be boiled down to a simple set of salient points to energize the troops.

The next leadership principle should sound familiar: execution. In their seminal book by the same name, Larry Bossidy and Ram Charan made the case that execution isn't the only thing a leader needs to get right, but without it little else matters. This election proves their point. In nearly two years of steady blocking and tackling, Obama's team made few mistakes. From the outset, his advisers were best in class, and his players were always prepared, agile, and where they needed to be. McCain's team, hobbled by a less cohesive set of advisers and less money, couldn't compete.

Of course you need to have a different kind of clarity of purpose in order to know what to execute, and Obama's team did this well also.  But here's a question: "how?"  Saying you'll execute better is easy, actually doing it is the hard part.  What methods, metrics, etc did they use?

Another, perhaps bigger, execution lesson can be taken from Obama's outmaneuvering of Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. She thought she could win the old-fashioned way, by taking the big states of New York, Ohio, California, and so on. He figured out an unexpected way to gain an edge—in the usually overlooked caucuses.

The business analog couldn't be more apt. So often, companies think they've nailed execution by doing the same old "milk run" better and better. But winning execution means doing the milk run perfectly—and finding new customers and opening new markets along the way. You can't just beat your rivals by the old rules; to grow, you have to invent a new game and beat them at that, too.

I agree with winning by finding a new way.  That's why I'm not concerned about behemoths like Wal-Mart... someone will find a better model, and if they don't adapt they'll go the way of Montgomery Ward.  But is that really "execution?"  Welch seems to confuse execution with innovation and creativity.

Finally, this election reinforces the value of friends in high places. From the start, Obama had ­support from the media, which chose to downplay controversies involving him. Meanwhile, after the primaries, McCain began to take a beating. In the end, no one could dispute that Obama's relationship with the media made a difference.

As a business leader, you can't succeed without the endorsement of your board. Every time you try to usher in change, some people will resist. That's why you need to start any leadership initiative with your "high-level friends" firmly by your side, convinced of the merits of your character and policies. But that's not enough. If you want to keep your board as an ally, don't surprise them.

Sorry, Jack, I don't buy that one.  Sure it is beneficial to have a board, or boss, that supports you.  Difficult transformations can be much easier in such an environment.  But is "easy" a key lesson of leadership?  Nope.  In fact, I would say a key leadership attribute is being able to drive transformation without top level support.  That takes true talent, and guts.  Remember what Fujio Cho said, "lead as if you have no power."

Now on to Jack's advice to Obama, and CEO's, when building teams.  He points out three "mis-steps", and don't worry, this will be quick.

Automatically reward loyalists.  No matter how long you've worked for the top job, once you get it, the impulse is to "endorse" your own early endorsers. What a shortcut to mediocrity, if not disaster.

Duh!  No kidding?  Did you learn that in biz school?

Hire people who need the work or lust for the prestige of being on your team. There's a real danger if there are other motives as well, like advancing a stalled career or resurrecting a damaged one. Such individuals are like the "independent" directors so many boards installed in the wake of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. They collect directorships like knickknacks, and they're the advisers least likely to deliver contrary messages. Why bite the hand that feeds you?

Another stroke of "brilliance."  I'm glad I have Jack around to inform me of this.

Focus all your attention on crisis hires. Most new leaders inherit a burning problem, and naturally the tendency is to fixate on finding the right person to put it out. That has to be done. But a new boss must also rapidly attend to the leadership positions that address his overarching and long-term priorities. Remember, every hire you make says: "Here's how much I care."

I'll give our friend Jack a bit more leeway on this one, as I see even great leaders sometimes make this mistake.

That's probably enough Welch for a few months.  We'll check back next turkey season to see if he's said anything new and enlightening.

You might also like