It is not often that I get to disagree with Louis Gray, who is one of
the best people to know for any reason. So it is surprising when he
writes an article and misses bits and pieces of what makes some
companies succeed brilliantly, while other companies settle, settle for
anything with a prayer to sell out quickly to the highest bidder.
The dot com boom was one of the best times to be alive, but there
was a lot of idiocy in the system at the same time. There, as always,
were people who were milking the system, claiming expertise where none
existed, coming up with phantom products or processes, phantom
marketing (sounds a lot like some “Social Networking Guru’s I have met”)
and an over whelming desire to get rich quick then get out before the
whole house of cards collapsed. What truly differentiated the companies
was a charismatic leader, driven by a vision. Louis does hit on that
but misses some of the quintessential elements of leadership that went
into making great companies. While he puts a modern spin on it, where
senior leadership is not tightly integrated into the social networks of
today, there is simply something missing from the discourse.
There’s a good reason that Steve Jobs and his direct
reports aren’t posting their every nuance to microblogging sites.
There’s a reason Sergey Brin and Larry Page only surface on rare
occasions at corporate events. These guys, and many many others like
them, have a drive to succeed and never accept second best or treat
failure as an inevitability. It is a lifelong race that has no finish
line, and they can never stop. I may not be scoring patents and writing
the best code on the planet, but I do not want to be second-best. I
want to win on virtue of being consistent, driving quality, thinking in
a way that is differentiated, and being active in a beneficial way in
as many places as I can to distribute value. If you can achieve, never
accept the opportunity to not do your best, and expect the same from
everyone. Source: Louis Gray
What Louis really means is that people like Steve Jobs, Sergey Brin and others are “Great Leaders”,
they lead by example, they inspire, they challenge, and they expect
people to deliver. Can you imagine not hitting a dead line for Steve
Jobs; it would be like missing a dead line for Bill Gates in his hay
day of the 1990’s.
The traits of excellence in leadership are deeply embedded in the
corporate culture of companies that are successful. Employees believe
in the strategic vision of the company because leadership does as well,
it is universally communicated and lived by, the strategic vision is
the reason the corporation exists. These leaders do not focus solely on
quarterly results, they want to make sure that the products they make
will be bought and sold for a very long time. Charismatic Leadership,
the willingness to do what needs to be done and enforce a culture of
creativity, responsibility, and the communication of a bigger picture
is what makes these companies successful. They do not cater to the
whims of quarterly results; they have a vision that is still being
fulfilled, regardless of how long it takes. Louis did not write about
that in his article, which needs to be mentioned and openly discussed.
The charismatic leadership, the processes involved with working on
long term strategies and willingness to take deep risks are generally
present in many of the startups I have worked with or seen that have
been successful. This is one of the reasons that taking a longer term
view of the business, working with customers, suppliers, and employees
is one of the many reasons that companies are successful. It is not
enough to simply have a vision, but the willingness to be right there
in execution and guidance. You see this trait in many small companies
that are making it.
This is also one of the reasons that it would be advisable to be
very aware about the potential of Google post Sergy, and Apple post
Steve Jobs. The follow on leaders might not feel the same way about the
company, and much like Apple in the 1990’s, leadership is what is going
to matter. Apple had to bring back Steve Jobs, or go out of business,
Apple chose wisely. The long range strategic vision is what is going to
matter to the company on turnover. The company is also going to need
senior management that understands what they are doing, why they are
doing it, and do not cater to the often fashionable “quarterly
results”. Some good ideas take a while to gestate; companies often
forget that after turn over from a charismatic leader.
We see the same decline in leadership in some of the larger
companies now, Yahoo post Jerry Yang is a company seeking anything
approaching a reason to exist. We see this in other larger companies
that have had a full leadership turn over. They become encumbered by
numbers rather than product. New ideas no longer come in the door; they
isolate themselves and eventually much like IBM choke on their own
management overhead and inability to take risk. You do not see many of
the mid tier or larger companies taking a lot of risk, you see them
selling the same tired product they sold 10 years ago with a brand new
candy coating every couple of years. You see them branching out into
safer products or services, the stop innovating, they focus on quarter
to quarter; they eventually lose their Mojo, the ability to take deep
risks.
The best startups, the best companies, all have a deeply driven
leader, willing to do exactly what everyone is doing and deeply tied to
the company ethos, culture and legend. Second rate companies just do
not get this concept; they are in business to get bought out, not to do
something wonderful. That is more the tragedy of some companies and
startups; the goal is to get bought out, shipping crappy products few
will want. You see success in systems like FriendFeed, and Jesse Stay’s Social Too. You see it TA Mcann’s Gist, and systems like Active Words.
This for me is the core reason that some companies are successful and
while others are not, but there is one other nagging point to all this
that goes beyond leadership.
Companies either inspire loyalty or they do not. If they do not
people do not believe that they own the product or service. It becomes
a job, hence the parking lot is empty at 5PM while workers are off
watching prime time TV. With two major recessions in the last 10 years,
employee loyalty is going to be very difficult to obtain for some
companies. Read Glassdoor, read Job Vent,
read the real reactions of people working in companies. Much like the
reputation economy that Louis talks about, this economy also works for
a corporation. Corporations have a very bad reputation right now by
treating employees as disposable. Once used up, it is time to go.
Companies that see employees as a “Cost Center” rather than a potential
source of awesome ideas often also fail to succeed. This is why I am
happy to agree with Louis in another section of his article here
The high target was not set to guarantee failure, but
instead, to enable success – and the culture was configured to help the
team members achieve their full potential, not to reach a lower number,
and accept mediocrity. Source: Louis Gray
Bet that employee was not only happy with the result, but also a
huge boost to self esteem and that job the employee is working on just
became one of the best jobs ever. I will bet 100 bucks on that one
Louis that for that employee, working at FamilyLink.com is the best job ever.
My favorite management saying is “Go Forth and Do Good Things”. But
it also takes a strong leader willing to let people explore, create,
and define the things that they are doing. It takes a strong leader to
have a strategic vision and stick to it, modify it as needed, and
support employees. Unfortunately, and this is not mentioned in Louis’s
article, that many of the things he admires are all leadership skills.
Good leadership skills that are hard to teach, and even harder to
ingrain into every day actions and words.
(Cross-posted @ IT ToolBox)
