Latest / The Smart Cookies podcast / In politics and in the workplace, WHY do we keep electing BAD LEADERS? With Dr. Martin Gutmann

Transcript

In politics and in the workplace, WHY do we keep electing BAD LEADERS? With Dr. Martin Gutmann · The Smart Cookies podcast

0:04
Martin Gutmann is an author, historian, and professor
0:07
of management interested in the intersection
0:09
of leadership management and technology. He's
0:12
also the author of the bestselling book, The
0:14
Unseen Leader, How History Can Help Us Rethink
0:17
Leadership. Martin, welcome to the show. Thank
0:20
you so much. It's a pleasure to be here. Instead
0:23
of approaching this from a more sort of theoretical
0:27
angle, at least right now, I thought it would
0:30
be best to start digging into the central premise
0:33
of your book by illustrating it with an example
0:36
from history, which is what you do so well. So
0:40
why don't we do just that? Can you perhaps give
0:44
us an account of a bad yet celebrated leader,
0:46
as well as an unseen yet highly effective one?
0:58
my book is that we have a tendency to celebrate
1:01
the wrong historical leaders. By wrong, I mean,
1:04
we tend to celebrate people who might not have
1:08
been as influential as we believe in hindsight,
1:12
in the sense that they might not have been responsible
1:16
for a great success or for the outcome of an
1:19
event that we later attribute to them. And I
1:22
think there's kind of two types here of these,
1:26
you know, wrong leaders that we celebrate. And
1:31
maybe I can give an example of each one, and
1:33
then we can explore it a bit farther. And this
1:37
isn't so much a historical example, but one from
1:40
my childhood. So I used to watch a lot of Simpsons,
1:45
and so do my kids now, so I'm kind of rediscovering
1:49
it. And there's a great episode where Homer,
1:52
as you might remember, his job, which he is very
1:57
unqualified for, is as the, you know, safety
2:01
manager of a nuclear power plant. And he's sitting
2:05
there at his, you know, in his control center,
2:07
eating a donut, spills it onto the control panel,
2:11
and the reactor starts to melt down. Massive
2:14
emergency. You know, there's going to be a catastrophe.
2:18
He doesn't remember what button to push to avert
2:23
this disaster. Sounds like me on most of my jobs.
2:27
Could be. But I imagine if this were your job,
2:31
you would take it a bit more seriously, right?
2:34
Anyway, so he does kind of a children's rhyme
2:38
to select which button to push. As it happens,
2:42
he pushes the correct button and averts a nuclear
2:45
disaster and is celebrated as a hero. Now, this
2:50
is a crisis that he caused himself. and by sheer
2:54
luck manages to extract himself from. And I would
2:58
suggest that we celebrate a lot of such people
3:01
in history, right? So a concrete example, if
3:05
we look at the great period of polar exploration
3:08
at the turn of the last century, you know, Ernest
3:12
Shackleton is one of these figures who's still
3:15
to this day just celebrated in so many leadership
3:19
case studies, LinkedIn posts. bestselling books,
3:22
et cetera. Why? Well, because he's a bit of a
3:26
Homer Simpson's character. He launched four expeditions
3:30
to the Antarctic. All of them resulted in failure,
3:35
catastrophe, near death or death, right? But
3:39
they were spectacular. And he, some, especially
3:41
during the famous endurance expedition that launched
3:43
in 1914. He manages to extract his crew after
3:48
he fumbles into this disaster himself. It's an
3:50
amazing story. But really, it's kind of his fault
3:55
that it became this dramatic story in the first
3:57
place. And that's where I think we have to differentiate
3:59
between a good story and good leadership. If
4:03
you want to do a Hollywood movie, Shackleton's
4:06
your guy because there's so much drama. But if
4:10
you're looking for a good leader, a competent
4:13
leader... He's not your guy. So I contrast that
4:16
with the Norwegian Roald Amundsen, who successfully
4:22
claimed all four of the great goals of polar
4:26
exploration, the North and the South Pole, the
4:28
Northeast and the Northwest Passage in the same
4:31
period, all with relatively little drama. When
4:35
you read his memoirs, they're not nearly as exciting
4:39
as the books about Shackleton and the other British
4:42
explorers. you know, he was able to circumvent
4:46
a lot of the drama that these other guys suffered
4:50
through good planning, good decisions, the right
4:53
crew selection, the right equipment selection,
4:55
et cetera. So if you want a Hollywood movie or
4:59
a bestselling book, Shackleton's your guy. If
5:02
you want to learn about leadership and how to
5:04
manage in complexity, Amundsen's your guy. No,
5:07
so that's the one. type, I would say, the very
5:11
loud, heroic people who very often are just kind
5:16
of extracting themselves from a disaster or a
5:19
near disaster that they themselves created. And
5:22
then there's another type of, I would say, incorrectly
5:26
celebrated leader. And those are the people who
5:29
just happen to be in charge when something happens
5:33
that we later attribute to them. But if we look
5:36
more carefully, we find they actually had very
5:39
little to do with. And this is often the case
5:42
of political figures. If something happens in
5:45
a country or also within companies, if something
5:49
happens, we look to the person in charge and
5:52
say, wow, they must have really done a good job.
5:54
And sometimes that's true, but sometimes it's
5:57
not. And a good example here, if I may, is Thomas
6:02
Jefferson, the American president who... Was
6:08
a very influential founding father. Widely celebrated,
6:10
right? Absolutely. And I think not incorrectly,
6:14
right? I mean, he's very influential, also problematic,
6:17
but influential for sure in the founding of the
6:21
United States. Now, he is often rated as one
6:27
of the best presidents, right? He's consistently
6:30
at the top of this list. Why? Well, because during
6:36
his presidency, In 1803, the United States was
6:41
able to purchase the territory of Louisiana,
6:43
2 million square kilometers, for $15 million
6:50
from France. The U .S., as we know it, this continental
6:55
power, was achieved during his presidency without
6:59
firing a single shot. a bargain deal, right?
7:05
That wasn't a lot of money then. It was, you
7:08
know, as far as land transactions go, I can't
7:10
think of one that was, you know, a better deal,
7:12
right? Jefferson, he needs to be celebrated for
7:16
that. But let's look at the details, right? He
7:19
sends an envoy to France, to Napoleon, to negotiate
7:24
for the purchase of the city of Louisiana. Yeah,
7:28
Louisiana only. And he says you can pay up to
7:32
$10 million. Just for the city? Just for the
7:35
city. And it's probably a small backwater place
7:37
at that time, right? I mean, it's at the mouth
7:39
of where the Mississippi hits the Gulf. So it's
7:44
a significant city, but not comparable to the
7:48
territory itself. Now, when his envoy arrives
7:51
in Paris, Napoleon has already decided, I'd like
7:55
to sell the U .S. the entire territory. They
8:00
propose this to Jefferson's envoys, and they
8:03
say, wow, that's the deal of a lifetime. We'll
8:07
take it. They go back to the U .S. Everyone is
8:10
amazingly enthusiastic about this, except Jefferson.
8:15
He said, well, can we really purchase territory
8:18
like this? Is that within the constitutional
8:21
powers of the president? We have to look into
8:23
this. But Napoleon needs this to happen soon.
8:25
And essentially, his cabinet tells him, look,
8:27
man. you got to sign the paperwork here because
8:29
this deal is too good to pass up. So he does.
8:35
Great. But is it really fair to credit him with
8:40
the Louisiana purchase? No, it's not. He signed
8:44
the paperwork in the end, but it was not his
8:46
idea. And if there was anybody who, let's say,
8:49
put the brakes on, it was him. And I think that
8:54
we can, if we look at companies, Any kind of
8:59
leadership situation, sports teams, I think we
9:02
have to do the situation justice and dig into
9:06
the granular detail. Just because somebody was
9:08
in charge, it could well mean that they made
9:13
the decisions that led to this successful outcome.
9:17
But it could also mean that they didn't. It just
9:19
happened because of the efforts of others. Or
9:22
as in the case of Jefferson, they might even
9:24
have kind of put the brakes on the whole thing,
9:26
but in the end... ascended to it anyway. You
9:29
already mentioned the power that a good story
9:32
has on us. It's sort of an old adage now that
9:35
humans are basically storytelling animals, right?
9:38
So most of the time we will be prepared to gloss
9:41
over many potential objections if they get in
9:44
the way of a good story or an ideology that we
9:47
believe in. But surely a good leader would know
9:50
that, right? And then they would also know that
9:52
they have to embed themselves into some sort
9:55
of a shiny narrative, that they have to play
9:58
this dirty little game. I would say some do and
10:05
some don't. But you are, of course, correct that
10:09
if you want to be recognized, it's not simply
10:14
enough to... lay the groundwork behind the scenes,
10:19
make the right decisions, promote the right people.
10:22
You have to also advocate. You have to tell the
10:26
story of how you did this and how that had the
10:30
impact that you believed it would. If you don't,
10:34
some historians will probably figure out in the
10:37
end exactly who did what and for what reasons,
10:40
but the general public might not. leadership
10:47
today as well there's some great studies that
10:49
show for example that in in meetings in corporate
10:53
meetings the people who speak the most are considered
10:56
by the others to have the most leadership potential
10:58
regardless of what they say right so so you you
11:03
can have like the idea you know that really kind
11:07
of facilitates this amazing new strategy or business
11:11
decision, et cetera. But when people walk out
11:13
of there, it's the guy and often it is a guy
11:15
who spoke the most, you know, where people are
11:19
going to say, wow, he really, he really rocked
11:21
this meeting. He's the guy we should put in charge.
11:23
So, you know, I would say for aspiring leaders,
11:26
there's really two things you need to do. You
11:30
need to wear two hats, right? One is you need
11:33
to be a good leader. You need to, you know, affect.
11:38
the change within your team or organization that
11:41
you want to see. But you also have to learn how
11:44
to talk about yourself and talk about it. If
11:45
you can't sell it, in most organizations, you
11:49
will be overlooked. There are, of course, exceptions
11:51
where people are aware and more nuanced in how
11:56
they evaluate people. But in many organizations,
11:58
if you can't sell yourself, you will be overlooked.
12:02
Wow. In a way, that is a little bit counterintuitive.
12:05
I would have thought that maybe That the people
12:08
who only speak when they have something incredibly
12:11
poignant to say, that, you know, they would create
12:15
this sort of image. You know, wow, this person
12:19
is really smart. But you're telling me it's actually
12:22
the other way around. We're more impressed by
12:23
people who like to talk than by the actual content
12:27
of what they're saying. Yeah. I mean, we're speaking
12:32
in general terms here. Of course, it depends
12:34
on who is in the room. But yeah, very typically,
12:37
it's the people who speak the most, who we see
12:39
as having the most potential. Yeah, there you
12:43
go. That's a podcast host. You're predestined.
12:48
Yes, I'm going to press the right button. Absolutely.
12:51
Okay, what is the action fallacy? So the action
12:57
fallacy is essentially what we've danced around
12:59
here, this idea that we tend to see leadership
13:05
potential or we tend to see leadership greatness
13:07
in people who generate a lot of noise and activity
13:11
in the most dramatic circumstances. So the more
13:14
dramatic the story is and the more a person did
13:17
to kind of get things moving, get people going,
13:21
the more we're going to evaluate them as being
13:24
a great leader. So maybe another kind of way
13:28
to illustrate this, if we imagine leadership
13:31
being the crossing of a river, we might have
13:35
one guy who just, this is a wild river, currents,
13:41
hidden rocks, really dangerous stuff. And one
13:44
guy walks up and says, I can do this, hops right
13:47
in, makes it halfway across and is, you know.
13:51
essentially drowning, kind of flailing around,
13:53
screaming, and then somehow manage us to make
13:56
the way across or perhaps back to where he started.
13:59
If we're watching that guy, we're going to say,
14:01
oh my God, that river is super dangerous. How
14:05
did he do that? That determination, that grit,
14:08
we could see him fighting. That's the guy I want
14:12
to follow. Also courage, right? The person went
14:15
in without knowing anything about the river.
14:17
And how dangerous it is. Went for it. Exactly.
14:20
Courage, determination. And then we've got a
14:23
woman who steps up, first tries to understand
14:27
the river, evaluates it, maybe tosses some rocks
14:30
in or sticks to see how the current runs, etc.
14:33
Asks some people who live near the river and
14:37
have observed it, etc. Does what you kind of
14:40
are expecting in terms of preparation before
14:42
an endeavor. and then is able to make it across
14:45
in a much more subtle way without any of this
14:48
drama, without any of the screaming, without
14:51
the near drowning, if we see her do it, we'll
14:54
probably say, I could do that. That doesn't look
14:57
that hard. And I think that's the action fallacy.
15:01
The more action, action both in the sense of
15:04
the drama of the circumstance and action in the
15:07
sense of somebody doing a lot of loud stuff.
15:10
We see leadership potential and leadership greatness
15:13
in that, not the quiet and the subtle, but ultimately
15:17
effective person. And I think there's an important
15:21
caveat to this, right? That doesn't mean that
15:25
leadership always needs to be quiet and subtle
15:28
and behind the scenes. You know, if you're at
15:33
the controls of an airplane that's, you know,
15:36
about to crash. That's probably not the time
15:38
to have a long, all -inclusive meeting and deliberate
15:43
the best strategy. I actually don't know what
15:46
you have to do if an airplane is crashing, but
15:48
I assume you've got to pull up on a joystick
15:52
and get some more thrust so that you avert the
15:55
crisis. You've got to do that. There's no time
15:57
for anything else. But most of the time... That's
16:01
not the scenario an organization or a country
16:04
or, you know, any other realm of leadership finds
16:07
itself in, right? You know, very often, you know,
16:13
it's smooth sailing, especially under a better
16:16
leader who kind of avoids a lot of these near
16:18
crashes in the first place. Yeah, when you were
16:21
describing that second scenario with the river
16:23
crossing, I was kind of going, it's not that
16:25
glamorous. It's not. Funny how that works. No,
16:31
I wanted to ask you this, by the way. In Hollywood
16:33
movies and TV shows, there's often this trope
16:36
of people realizing that the person who wants
16:39
to lead the least would actually be the best
16:42
leader. I've just seen Gladiator for the 15th
16:45
time recently. I'm a massive fan. Have you seen
16:47
it, perhaps? I have seen it, yes. I'm talking
16:49
about the first one. Quite some time ago. Yeah,
16:51
I'm talking about the first one, not the second
16:52
one. The second one is absolutely atrocious.
16:54
Please don't watch that. But the first one, there's
16:56
this emotional scene where... Emperor Marcus
16:59
Aurelius asks, you know, Russell Crowe, aka Maximus,
17:04
if he wants to be the next protector of Rome.
17:06
And Maximus, I think, replies, with all my heart,
17:09
no. And then the emperor puts kind of dramatically
17:12
his hands on him and says, that's why it has
17:15
to be you. Does this trope of a reluctant leader
17:19
have any actual validity in history? Well, I
17:27
would approach that question this way. You mentioned
17:29
before that humans are storytelling animals.
17:33
We love stories. And there is kind of one plot,
17:38
one story arc that we love above all else, and
17:41
that's the so -called hero's journey, which is
17:46
not just the plot that The Gladiator follows,
17:49
but Harry Potter, The Matrix, Star Wars, you
17:54
name it. And in this so -called hero's journey,
17:58
and this dates back long pre -Hollywood. If you
18:01
look at the kind of earliest writings of Gilgamesh,
18:03
exactly. It's all the hero's journey. So in this
18:07
favorite story of ours, the hero who's going
18:09
to emerge as a hero always starts off being reluctant
18:15
to take that step into this dangerous world.
18:18
There's the scene in The Matrix, which I did
18:21
just recently watch, where... uh lawrence fishburne
18:23
you know asks um ania which which pill he wants
18:27
to take the blue or the red you know and he's
18:28
he's very torn about that you know should i take
18:31
this step yeah right and you know i mean the
18:34
the same if we look at luke skywalker right he's
18:37
just a farmer on this desert planet he knows
18:41
about the jedi and the fighting far away but
18:43
it seems so distanced and then you know he's
18:45
kind of thrust into this world and emerge as
18:49
a hero. So yeah, that is one of our favorite
18:54
stories. And of course, there are some historical
19:00
scenarios that closely parallel this. I think
19:04
that the danger is really the other way around,
19:07
though, that we tend to celebrate or notice whose
19:17
biographies parallel that favorite stories of
19:20
ours. Again, regardless of how influential they
19:24
might or might not have been. Let's switch it
19:27
up to contemporary corporate reality of today.
19:30
At the workplace, what kind of people usually
19:34
get promoted in the year 2025, would you say?
19:40
There was a great study from the University of
19:44
Bonn in Germany. two or three years ago that
19:47
showed that toxic leaders, so those who really
19:52
have kind of dark qualities. The dark triad.
19:56
Exactly. Yeah, exactly. Tend to be promoted at
20:03
a higher rate than non -toxic personalities because
20:06
they master kind of the... art of masquerading,
20:13
the art of saying and doing exactly what they
20:16
know that the people in a position to promote
20:18
them want to hear, often at the expense of other
20:22
people, taking credit for everything and finding
20:25
a way to weasel out of any kind of blame. And
20:29
that's just one study, but there's lots of literature
20:34
and lots of studies from sociology, organizational
20:36
psychology that... get to the bottom of this
20:40
phenomenon. We can also look at it from a gender
20:43
angle, that men, for a variety of reasons, I
20:48
think, as we all know by this point, tend to
20:52
be promoted. In certain organizations, there
20:54
are notable exceptions, of course. But in general,
20:59
being a white man gives you good odds of being
21:03
promoted as opposed to people from other groups.
21:05
Yeah, you got me thinking about, I was working
21:07
for this giant, unnamed, let's not throw any
21:12
names, giant company remotely. Everybody was
21:15
remote and American company. And it was during
21:19
lockdowns, you know, and we received suddenly,
21:23
I was really at some bottom entry level position.
21:26
And we received like a video from the CEO. He
21:29
filmed himself in front of his like $20 million
21:31
sort of mansion. with a giant swimming pool.
21:35
And the message of the video was sort of like,
21:38
I feel your pain during this lockdown. You know,
21:40
we're all in the same kind of, we're in the same
21:43
boat. It's hard for me. It's hard for you. And
21:46
I'm looking around my 20 square meter toilet
21:48
of an apartment and I'm thinking, wow, that's
21:52
really something else. Am I the only one who's
21:54
feeling here? Am I going crazy? Or is that, or
21:57
is this message incredibly tasteless and kind
22:00
of like out of touch? So yeah, I'm imagining
22:03
this can't be like a singular occurrence. These
22:07
type of people are at the top. No. No, I would
22:12
say it's not. But again, I think we need to be
22:17
fair. There are a lot of organizations, especially
22:20
post -corona, that are doubling down on thinking
22:24
more broadly in terms of... who is effective
22:27
within our organization. Effective both in the
22:30
sense of getting results, but also making everybody
22:33
on the team feel appreciated, feel like they
22:37
are able to contribute collectively to a group's
22:42
success. So things are changing, at least I hope
22:46
so, but within a lot of the organizations I work
22:49
with, there definitely is an effort to address.
22:54
the loud people always getting promoted but do
22:56
you think like our society in general champions
22:58
that because um on social media there's this
23:01
often repeated i don't know study or research
23:03
paper or whatever gosh i knew uh i wish i knew
23:07
who it was from that states that among today's
23:09
ceos as well as political leaders there's a much
23:12
higher proportion of sociopath than in the general
23:15
population so it seems that our society often
23:17
you know kind of values people who are least
23:20
suited to be leaders would you agree I mean,
23:26
I haven't read that study, so that's difficult
23:28
for me to comment on. What I would say is the
23:32
following. In times of great uncertainty, great
23:40
disruption, such as the ones we're living in
23:43
now, like let's just take AI, we don't know how
23:47
it's going to affect society, politics, and work.
23:51
It doesn't look good. I mean, it already is.
23:55
Yeah, and even there's also some hopeful scenarios,
23:58
but it will have a tremendous impact on all aspects
24:01
of our life. At least that's a realistic scenario.
24:07
So there's great uncertainty around this. Now,
24:10
in times of great uncertainty, when things are
24:13
changing fast in a direction that we can't really
24:17
determine, sometimes things change fast, but
24:19
you know exactly where it's headed. That's not
24:20
what we're in now. But there's also geopolitical
24:23
tensions. war in Europe that, you know, and seen
24:28
for a long time before that, a massive land war,
24:31
right? And if we look around the globe, there's
24:35
geopolitical uncertainty, et cetera. In such
24:37
times, people prefer a leader who has simple
24:42
answers and can promise that they can fix it,
24:45
right? And I think that's true in organizations
24:50
as well, that we're easily fooled by these promises
24:56
of having a quick fix and an all -encompassing
25:00
view of what the problem is and what needs to
25:03
be done. When many of us can see that, well,
25:08
it's more complicated than this, right? But that
25:13
is a tendency that's been documented also in
25:16
history, that in such times we gravitate towards
25:18
such political leaders. I'm just reading the
25:20
book called Hitler's People by a famous historian,
25:26
Richard Evans, and he talks about how Hitler
25:30
was doing just that. He was offering a bunch
25:32
of really, really clear -cut, simplistic answers,
25:36
and everything was always offered in absolutes,
25:38
like us versus them, good versus bad. And since
25:42
it was a time of great crisis after the crash
25:45
of 29, it worked because people were getting
25:48
desperate. Yeah. Kind of scary. And I think it
25:54
is scary. And I think, you know, let's say for
25:57
the more well -meaning leaders out there, there
26:02
is a real challenge here in terms of communication,
26:06
right? Because simply saying, well, it's super
26:10
complex. We have no idea what's going to happen.
26:15
It is clearly not a way that you can talk to
26:18
people within your organization or within your
26:19
country, right? You have to provide some kind
26:22
of direction. But, you know, I personally respect
26:25
the leaders who still, you know, can communicate
26:29
the nuance and the uncertainties of the situation
26:32
rather than just promising clear cut answers
26:36
like this is what's going to happen because I'm
26:38
going to do this. tends to not work out. But
26:44
do you think we, the audience, actually even
26:46
have the capacity for that? To listen to a longer
26:49
speech or a longer discussion? Because everything
26:52
seems to be geared towards presenting whatever
26:55
you want to present in five seconds or less these
26:59
days. And it's probably getting worse and worse.
27:02
I want to hear what's your take on that. Yeah,
27:06
I mean, here we're moving away from my... Area
27:10
of expertise, let's say, and in terms of political
27:13
communication and mobilizing social media, I
27:17
don't know. I would hope that people have or
27:22
can find the bandwidth to pay attention because
27:26
these are important issues. But whether or not
27:30
the average person can and what needs to happen
27:32
for them to, that's, yeah, I don't know. It's
27:35
a good question. I mentioned Hitler. Can we learn?
27:38
Some things from the worst type of leaders as
27:42
well, like from dictators such as Hitler and
27:44
Stalin? Yes, but I think we have to be careful
27:48
in the sense that there's no one -to -one comparisons
27:53
across historical time periods. And this is something
27:59
that's often done. I remember the first George
28:03
Bush. In his dealings with Saddam Hussein, he
28:08
said this is like the Munich conference, the
28:10
famous conference where Great Britain and France
28:15
sold out parts of Eastern Europe to appease Hitler,
28:21
which obviously didn't work. I think you can
28:24
learn general lessons from that, but it's always
28:28
dangerous when we compare issues one -to -one
28:31
or compare people. one -to -one with each other.
28:35
Because one of the things that you, or that I
28:39
at least as a historian and somebody who spends
28:42
a lot of time reading not just history books,
28:45
but historical documents in the archives, is
28:47
that there is so much context, so many details
28:52
that you need to appreciate before you can really
28:55
see. why people acted the way they did and what
29:00
impact that had on those around them. It's never
29:03
really straightforward or certainly not straightforward
29:06
enough that you can transpose it to half a century
29:08
later and say, because this historical figure
29:11
did that, we should do this today. That's far
29:16
too simplistic, let's say. Now, you say, can
29:21
we learn from Hitler and Stalin? I mean, first
29:22
of all, I think we have to... In the sense that
29:26
one of the things I appreciate about history
29:29
as a discipline that's taught in schools, that's
29:32
studied at universities, that's written down
29:37
in books and podcasts, et cetera, is that I think
29:39
it is simply our responsibility as humans to
29:43
understand what happened. Also in the sense of
29:47
commemorating victims, understanding their pain,
29:50
but also understanding perpetrators. understanding
29:55
the complexities of these events. I think we
29:57
have the tools to do that, and therefore we should
29:59
do that. Just as we have the tools to understand
30:04
a lot about the stars and the galaxy, even if
30:07
that has no real practical relevance to our lives
30:10
right now, I still think it's a worthy pursuit
30:13
because that's one of the things that makes us
30:15
humans, right? We are curious and we seek answers.
30:19
So we should do that in history as well. And
30:22
then on a more kind of specific level, is there
30:25
something we can learn from Hitler or Stalin
30:27
about leadership today? And I approach that very
30:33
cautiously because times are so different. I
30:36
do think there are some generalities, though,
30:38
like this idea that in times of crisis, we do
30:42
look for kind of simple, clear -cut answers.
30:44
That's definitely one. And I think another, let's
30:50
say, you know, generality. I think in Hitler,
30:56
we have a politician who is a very good political
31:02
communicator, but is a terrible administrator.
31:06
Interesting. Right. So, yeah, absolutely. I mean,
31:10
he had lots of minions who were like Josef Goebbels
31:13
and Heinrich Himmler, who were very capable administrators
31:16
and who, you know, take his ideological impulses
31:22
and turn them into brutal genocidal reality.
31:27
But when we look at just the conduct of the war,
31:33
let's say, if we compare Hitler to Churchill,
31:36
in Hitler we have somebody who has no business
31:39
deciding on military strategy. He's really an
31:43
armchair strategist. Early on, he happens to
31:46
make a couple of good calls, but we know from
31:48
the details that's not because of some kind of
31:51
nuanced understanding of the circumstances. It's
31:54
a bit like the Homer Simpson scenario there,
31:57
pushes the right button by circumstance. And
32:01
as the war progresses, he increasingly mistrusts
32:03
his generals, mistrusts the information that
32:06
they're giving him, and makes decisions that
32:09
are militarily disastrous. And in Churchill,
32:12
we have kind of the opposite, somebody who learns
32:15
over the war to never see decision -making to
32:19
his military staff, but becomes more open to
32:23
the information and the perspectives that they
32:26
provide. And Churchill, essentially, I think
32:28
the most amazing part of his war effort is he
32:33
sets himself up to be kind of at the nerve center
32:36
of an information. management system. All this
32:40
information flows to him. He has a system whereby
32:43
he can process it and then send out questions
32:46
or instructions accordingly. That's kind of how
32:49
he manages the war. And Hitler manages the war
32:51
by yelling at his generals that they should not
32:53
retreat. And that doesn't work. So, yeah, I mean,
32:59
and I think it's important to say here by looking
33:02
narrowly now at his military decisions and, you
33:06
know, even kind of You know, making light of
33:10
that compared to Churchill should not take away
33:13
anything from this perspective of, you know,
33:16
he is the architect of a genocide, the genocide
33:21
of the 20th century. One could even say Hitler.
33:23
And again, so I think commemorating that, understanding
33:25
that is a responsibility that we all have. Yeah,
33:28
I was just listening to a lecture by Stephen
33:31
Kotkin. He's a biographer of Stalin. And he said,
33:35
listen, people think that Stalin was some sort
33:37
of, funny -looking, cartoonish, incompetent kind
33:43
of apparatchik, but he was actually a really,
33:45
really capable dictator. There's a reason that
33:47
he became one and that nobody toppled him. He
33:51
actually resigned six times and they always begged
33:54
him to come back. So as far as dictators go,
33:57
he had the skill set. Not that we want to learn
33:59
how to be a good dictator, but how to recognize
34:03
these sort of things. I want to ask you this
34:06
again, politically speaking, we're living in
34:08
quite, like you said, unprecedented, straight
34:10
up bizarro times. I mean, some of the leaders
34:13
we have elected in the West seem like they've
34:16
just stepped out of a cartoon or something. So
34:18
I think it will be worth repeating the operation
34:20
from the beginning of the episode, because I
34:22
honestly think we somehow have forgotten what
34:25
a capable political leader should or could be.
34:30
So you mentioned Thomas Jefferson, sort of like
34:34
an accidentally successful leader, but could
34:36
you provide an example of an actually successful
34:40
leader that's perhaps not that well -known or
34:43
has been forgotten by history? I mean, in terms
34:46
of political leaders, we talked a bit about Churchill
34:49
already, right? And obviously he hasn't been
34:54
forgotten or overlooked. There's a lot of both
34:59
biographies, but also kind of specifically leadership
35:01
-focused books. that look at Churchill, there's
35:04
movies, and so on and so forth. What I would
35:09
say in terms of the Churchill myth is that there
35:13
we also see this action fallacy at work, that
35:16
many quicker interpretations of Churchill credit
35:22
his successful conduct of the war with his brilliant
35:26
speeches. with his kind of, you know, offensive
35:29
grit. There's all these great quotes. The darkest
35:31
hour. Where Churchill hounds his generals, you
35:33
know. The darkest hour, yeah, but also how he,
35:36
that's his kind of political rhetoric, but also
35:39
when he hounds his generals to be more aggressive,
35:41
you know, he has these great quotes like, you
35:43
know, I only care about action, not inaction.
35:48
You know, you got to keep, I'm paraphrasing here,
35:50
but like, you got to just keep attacking. That's
35:53
what you got to do. And he fired a lot of generals
35:56
early on in the war, especially in the desert
35:58
campaign, who weren't prosecuting the offensive
36:02
with the vigor that he was looking for. And I
36:07
think in a lot of these, especially the movies
36:09
on Churchill, the interpretation is because he
36:14
was so offensively minded, because he kind of
36:16
inspired the people with these amazing words,
36:18
that's why he was able to lead. not just Britain,
36:24
but kind of the coalition to a successful conclusion
36:27
of the war. And I would say that's not an entirely
36:31
correct interpretation, right? Because again,
36:34
if political rhetoric could win you a war, then
36:36
Mussolini and Hitler would have won because they
36:39
were obviously just as gifted, if not more, at
36:42
giving brilliant speeches with just the right
36:45
rhetoric to captivate the masses. So we have
36:48
to look kind of behind the scenes. What was it
36:50
that Churchill was doing that you know, enabled
36:53
Great Britain not only to survive, but successfully
36:56
prosecute the war. And there's many things. One,
37:00
we already addressed this idea that he built
37:04
kind of a new structure of decision -making and
37:09
information flow within the British government
37:11
that was able to handle this modern science -driven
37:16
war in a way that certainly the Axis powers.
37:21
We're not able to. There are good comparisons
37:24
in the US. The other thing is, Churchill recognizes
37:29
very early on that he needs to, in his own words,
37:33
drag the United States into the war. And he sets
37:36
his mind to this. And this is like a campaign.
37:40
I mean, he insistently, through telegrams, through
37:44
his envoys, through everything he can do, sets
37:48
about to influence Roosevelt and, you know, essentially
37:53
the U .S. public to join the war on the side
37:55
of the British, which, you know, after the fact,
37:58
would kind of take as being inevitable. Like,
38:00
of course, the U .S. would join the war, but
38:02
there was a strong isolationist lobby. And let's
38:06
not forget, Pearl Harbor was an attack, you know,
38:09
by the Japanese imperial forces. Why did the
38:14
U .S. also declare war on Germany then? go along
38:19
with a Europe first strategy of first defeating
38:22
and sending the bulk of their resources to the
38:25
European theater at the expense of the Pacific
38:27
when the Japanese had kind of, you know, ultimately
38:30
pushed them into the war. And I think we can
38:31
credit Churchill here with laying the foundations
38:34
for this Europe first strategy and bringing the
38:37
U .S. into the war. That's something you don't
38:40
really see unless you really look at the correspondence
38:43
with Roosevelt, what his envoys did in the U
38:46
.S., etc. And while we're at it, you mentioned
38:51
before leaders we should commemorate or celebrate.
38:56
In some ways, I don't even like those words because
39:00
I think we have to be more specific. I think
39:04
Churchill is not the single architect of a successful
39:07
Allied campaign in the Second World War, but
39:09
if we're looking for one person who kind of did
39:12
a lot or did the most, it's him. However, There
39:17
are other aspects of his political career, notably
39:20
his relationship with the colonies, with the
39:22
British Empire, that are deeply problematic,
39:25
where he spent large parts of his career making
39:28
the lives of British subjects miserable and occasionally
39:33
also using violence and military means to dictate
39:38
what he wanted. He's not a character to be celebrated,
39:45
but if we're looking at the war, he's a character
39:47
we can certainly learn from in terms of how to
39:49
prosecute one successfully. All right, here's
39:52
a hypothetical, and I'm so excited because I'm
39:54
going to get all of this advice from you now
39:55
for free. Best possible source. I'm a massive
40:00
basketball fan. And I always have, you know,
40:03
in the back of my head, I could be a basketball
40:04
coach one day. Why not? I watch a lot of basketball.
40:08
Sometimes I read biographies of basketball players.
40:10
It's a whole thing. So if I want to become an
40:14
inspiring basketball coach, and let's forget
40:18
about the science behind the game of basketball.
40:21
Let's say I study that. But I'm a first -time
40:25
coach, first -time leader. What advice would
40:27
you give me? I love basketball as well. And I
40:32
like these kind of sports analogies and comparisons.
40:37
So maybe we can talk about that more fundamentally.
40:40
First, why do we, and when I say we, I would
40:43
say, you know, the business management professionals,
40:47
why do we love the sports stories? And I think
40:51
one of the reasons is that in sports, it's so
40:56
easy to measure performance, right? Like, because
41:01
somebody wins the game. And we can tell by how
41:06
much. And individuals score a certain number
41:09
of points and get a certain number of rebounds.
41:10
Nice and easy, yes. Just how we like it. So it's
41:12
all very quantifiable. Yeah, exactly. So like
41:16
the Chicago Bulls, I would say, but maybe now
41:19
we're getting into trickier terrain, I would
41:20
say the greatest basketball team of all time
41:22
in the Jordan era. Six championships in a decade.
41:30
So what can you do as a coach to make that happen?
41:36
There's the whole strategy dimension, right?
41:39
Setting up the right place, having people pass
41:42
in the right place at the right times, etc. I
41:45
think an underlooked aspect would be choosing
41:53
leaders, choosing captains, that is, who are
41:56
not just... high performers themselves, but who
42:00
elevate the performance of everybody around them.
42:05
And so while we're on the Bulls here, you know,
42:08
Michael Jordan, when he joined the Bulls in the
42:11
early 80s, he was already an absolute rock star
42:15
from day one. I mean, people were watching him.
42:17
He was, you know, he was one of the best from
42:20
the first day he played. But the Bulls, you know,
42:23
didn't make it very far. And then Phil Jackson
42:26
joins. And one of the changes he makes in the
42:31
first season when the Bulls really take off is
42:35
he announces, he nominates or appoints a co -captain
42:41
with Michael Jordan. Ouch. Now, there are very
42:46
few teams who have two captains, right? It's
42:48
usually one guy and it's the highest scorer or
42:50
like the most, you know, the highest performer.
42:52
The superstar, yeah. a superstar exactly so first
42:56
of all to appoint uh a co -captain with jordan
42:59
uh you know that's that goes against the grain
43:01
of coaching right and who does he point he points
43:04
bill cartwright who is a player who's well past
43:08
his prime has terrible knee problems um you know
43:12
is is not really a good basketball player anymore
43:16
however cartwright is really good at relating
43:21
to everybody on the team, right? He's the guy
43:23
who kind of understands everybody, talks to you
43:25
after practice, makes you feel better, appreciates
43:28
everybody. Something which Jordan is not good
43:31
at. Jordan is good at making people work hard
43:33
and feel bad for their mistakes. And this combo
43:36
of, you know, the drive, the performance -oriented
43:38
captain with the guy who's really empathetic,
43:42
really humble, really caring, that's the magic
43:45
recipe there. That is one of... So Cartwright
43:48
was actually doing things we wouldn't see when
43:52
watching the game. Exactly. What you see when
43:54
you're watching the games is Cartwright fumbling
43:56
the passes and... And Jordan killing it. Exactly,
44:00
exactly. But if you read the kind of statements
44:05
from players at the time, when Cartwright is
44:07
appointed co -captain, the atmosphere changes
44:10
like that. There's just a new feel in the team.
44:14
And they start this winning streak. And, you
44:17
know, the rest is history, as you say. And even
44:19
Jordan, at the end of his career, said Bill made
44:22
all the difference. Wow, I didn't know that.
44:26
I thought you were going to go the other way,
44:27
that you were going to be like, okay, he needed
44:29
a Scottie Pippen to be his, you know, like they
44:31
say, the Robin to his Batman. Well, I mean, now
44:36
we're getting into the details, right? And that's
44:37
why I say there's more to it than just the co
44:40
-captain. If you appoint Bill Cartwright co -captain
44:44
in a team that has no talent, that's not going
44:49
to help them win enough games to make it to the
44:51
championship. There's Pippen, you're right, the
44:54
wingman. I think another interesting aspect that
44:56
also speaks to Phil Jackson, the coach of the
44:59
Bulls in this period, is Dennis Rodman. Dennis
45:03
Rodman. My favorite. People love him or hate
45:07
him. And if you don't know basketball, Dennis
45:09
Rodman. What a legend. He was this, if you don't
45:12
know who he is, he was this outsider. He got
45:15
into fights, not just with the opposing teams,
45:18
but with people on his own team, with the coaches.
45:22
He had this colored hair. He looked a bit like
45:25
a thug or not like your traditional basketball
45:28
player in the 90s. And, you know, he's running
45:32
afoul of everybody, the league, his coaches,
45:34
teammates, and Phil Jackson, the coach of the
45:36
Bulls, says we need him. And managed to, you
45:43
know, integrate an outsider like that who had
45:47
never been accepted for who he was, integrate
45:50
him as a core member of this Bulls team. And
45:53
I think that that speaks to. you know, the mentality
45:57
and the empathetic abilities of Phil Jackson
46:00
as a coach. So what does this tell us about Phil
46:04
Jackson as a leader? Like what did he see that
46:07
the rest of the coaches or the rest of the league
46:09
didn't see specifically in regards to these two
46:12
examples of Bill Cartwright and Dennis Rodman?
46:16
Is it empathy or is it more than that? It's definitely
46:21
more than that. And that's where... I think we
46:24
really have to be careful, right? Like you also
46:27
need the right strategy. You need to call the
46:29
right plays. You need the right kind of behavior
46:32
and training. You need to do the right drills.
46:33
You need the right high performers and you need
46:36
the right rebounders. And so there's so many
46:38
pieces, right? And I think that's true in. leadership
46:42
out there in the corporate or political world
46:44
as well, that there's never just one thing that
46:46
you need. That's a bit the danger, right? When
46:48
we look at an example, we're like, wow, what
46:50
a great communicator. If I could only communicate
46:52
like that, I would be as successful. That's probably
46:55
not true. A lot of things are required. And what's
46:58
required depends on the circumstances, right?
47:01
But yes, I would say one of the things that set
47:03
Phil Jackson apart from other very successful
47:08
coaches of the time who also were you know, master
47:12
strategists and had great players on their team,
47:15
et cetera, was his empathy, right? His ability
47:19
to make every player feel seen and appreciated
47:24
for the strengths and the weaknesses that they
47:30
had and that they brought to the table. You know,
47:32
they functioned as a team in a way that other
47:35
teams didn't. And I think that starts with good
47:38
leadership. And maybe, you know, while we're
47:42
on the subject, I said I also love kind of these
47:44
sports comparisons. I know, you know, here in
47:47
Europe, a lot of people always talk about soccer
47:49
or football. I think the danger when we extract
47:55
such wisdom to business or politics is that what
48:01
is fundamentally different about sports is that
48:04
the rules don't change. What I mean by that is,
48:10
if you show up to a basketball game, you know
48:14
you're only allowed to field five players at
48:16
a time. You know how long the quarters are. You
48:20
know how many points you get. You get three if
48:22
you shoot from outside the arc. You get two if
48:24
it's on the inside. These things are all known.
48:28
So in terms of strategy and preparation, there's
48:33
a lot more you can do, kind of specific. steps
48:37
you can take to get ready, and a lot of eventualities
48:41
you do not have to account for. There's not suddenly
48:44
going to be three balls in play. You don't have
48:46
to practice that. That's not going to happen.
48:48
It's just one ball at a time. You're not suddenly
48:52
going to be allowed to kick the ball, so you
48:54
don't have to plan for that or practice that.
48:56
And in, let's say, non -sports areas of leadership
48:59
in business or politics, there are very few rules
49:04
that are truly fixed. You can make assumptions
49:06
about stability around regulations or around
49:10
how your competition is behaving, et cetera,
49:12
but nothing is fixed and it can change overnight.
49:15
And that makes it, I think, much more daunting
49:18
than being the coach of a basketball team. Fair
49:24
enough. So would you say that one of the aspects,
49:26
fundamental aspects of being a good political
49:28
leader, let's say, would be that you know how
49:31
to quickly turn? when circumstances quickly change,
49:35
for example? Well, I wouldn't even say necessarily.
49:41
Yeah, exactly. I mean, sometimes you need to
49:43
turn quickly and then it's good if you're open
49:46
to that. But I would say more fundamentally,
49:48
good leaders in politics and in business, I think,
49:52
don't have too many, let's say, fixed perspectives,
49:58
right? They have a certain level of pragmatism.
50:01
And they have a certain also open analytical
50:03
ability, right? Like if certain variables have
50:07
always been the same, it doesn't mean they're
50:11
always going to be. And you need to recognize
50:13
when something really is changing, that means
50:16
that what you have done up to this point will
50:20
no longer work because it only worked as long
50:22
as there was only one ball on the court. You
50:25
know, now that there are suddenly three balls,
50:27
you know, you got to do something different.
50:31
And so I think good leaders have a certain flexibility
50:35
in thinking and are not, let's say, beholden
50:40
to very specific circumstances that then when
50:45
they change means that all of their tools, all
50:47
their strategies are suddenly out of place. I
50:50
hope you'll allow me just a slight tiny little
50:52
pushback. A lot of the... top leaders that are
50:56
business leaders that are celebrated today ceos
50:59
people such as elon musk and mark zuckerberg
51:01
and now sam altman they don't strike me as particularly
51:05
empathetic people and not even necessarily really
51:09
good communicators and yet they are at the forefront
51:12
of the tech industry the biggest industries in
51:16
the world well i i would say here I would defer
51:22
to the historian's perspective and say that the
51:26
jury is very much still out on Mark Zuckerberg
51:30
and on Elon Musk and on many others. I don't
51:33
think we will really know how successful they
51:38
are or were until years, potentially decades
51:42
down the line. Sure, we can see the stock performance
51:47
now, but I would say I care less about just that
51:51
metric than overall their contribution to society,
51:56
to the world. Are they creating good or are they
52:00
creating, let's say, stumbling blocks or harm
52:03
in the world? I think that's something that will
52:06
become much clearer later down the road. That's
52:12
difficult if you're trying to assess the landscape
52:14
as it is today, but at the end of the day, I'm
52:17
a historian and I think it's easier if we take
52:22
the time later on to assess what really happened,
52:27
what is the actual impact of their organizations
52:30
on the employees, on the immediate, on the customers,
52:36
but also on society and the world at large. And
52:41
that's why I think there are CEOs who have been,
52:45
you know, re -evaluated, rightfully so. So Jack
52:50
Welsh, for example, you know, kind of a celebrated
52:53
CEO of General Electric in the US at the time,
52:58
was widely applauded as kind of a great CEO,
53:03
heroic. He, you know, the stocks. rose to unprecedented
53:09
level and, you know, the shareholders were very
53:11
happy, etc. In hindsight, we now kind of know
53:18
that he played a significant role in, let's say,
53:23
the turn to a more destructive form of capitalism,
53:27
of deindustrialization in the US. And, you know,
53:33
there are... not as many people who celebrate
53:36
him as the CEO to emulate today as there were
53:40
during his lifetime. Yeah, that's perhaps what
53:43
I was referring. Maybe I wasn't clear enough.
53:45
Like maybe what Elon Musk is doing is really
53:47
good for the shareholders of Tesla, but maybe
53:51
not that great for the world. Yeah. And, you
53:54
know, maybe to move away from... those examples
53:59
and look at one where we have more details. Again,
54:02
hindsight usually gives us access to better information.
54:07
What is visible publicly now in the midst of
54:11
events makes it hard to make, let's say, an honest
54:17
interpretation. That becomes easier over time
54:19
as documents and video and everything else becomes
54:23
available. Was not particularly empathetic, who
54:30
had this kind of great drive and, you know, was
54:33
was rude to a lot of people. Not everybody. Some
54:35
people loved working with him, you know, but
54:37
he was he was, you know, not not we talked about
54:40
empathy before. He was not, you know, a pillar
54:42
of empathy. What we see, though, in the critical
54:45
years of Apple is that he has subordinates directly
54:49
below him who are masters at that. Right. And
54:53
who, you know. I wouldn't say clean up, but are
54:57
able to smooth out a lot of his style of leadership.
55:02
And that combination ends up being quite effective.
55:05
So I don't think Apple would have been successful
55:07
without him. I mean, he's the visionary, right?
55:09
But there's really, we have to see it as a leadership
55:13
team that as a combined unit is able to both
55:21
make people work very hard. towards a very ambitious
55:27
goal that very few people could even imagine
55:29
on their own, right? But also do on some level
55:33
feel accepted and appreciated. Okay, last narcissistic
55:37
swing back to my career as a basketball coach.
55:40
So if we could like put it in some sort of bullet
55:43
point list, I need to be competent if I'm starting
55:47
out as a coach or any kind of leader. I need
55:49
to be a good communicator. I need to have some
55:52
empathy. Is there anything else that I forgot
55:54
about? Well, let's see. I mean, yeah, you need
55:57
to understand the game of basketball really well.
56:01
And this is actually also true in a lot of business
56:07
realms. There's a great book by Amanda Goodall,
56:10
who's a leadership scholar in the UK, that shows
56:13
that these kind of leaders with strong domain
56:18
expertise tend to perform better in leadership
56:23
roles. than uh you know outsiders so doctors
56:28
make the best hospital administrators um right
56:32
better than some kind of you know former consultant
56:35
who who comes in and shakes things up but doesn't
56:38
doesn't really understand medicine and she also
56:40
speaks of sports that you know the best coaches
56:41
were not necessarily the best players themselves
56:44
but were were are intimately familiar with the
56:47
game and i think that makes that makes sense
56:50
right because again Context is so important,
56:54
right? And if you don't really understand all
56:58
the drivers, all the little details behind the
57:03
scenes that are not visible to the spectator,
57:07
then it's very hard to make good decisions and
57:10
kind of pull the right levers. So yeah, you need
57:13
to be very competent in the realm of basketball.
57:17
You need to be a good communicator. You need
57:19
to be empathetic and humble. And then I think,
57:23
you know, there's, I think we can think of leadership
57:28
really as having this, you know, toolkit. You
57:34
need to carry a toolkit around with you. And
57:36
depending on the circumstances, you need to pull
57:38
out a different tool, right? So I think there
57:41
are times when the right thing to do is to, you
57:47
know, kind of... change things up to signal that
57:52
we're starting anew. But there are other times
57:54
where staying the course despite the fact that
57:58
everybody thinks it's not going to work is the
58:00
right decision, right? So it's really hard to
58:03
get into these general truths, I think, around
58:07
leadership. So maybe being adaptable, being able
58:11
to select the right tools to use in the right
58:14
moments is another one I would put on there.
58:18
And then maybe what I would also say is, this
58:21
maybe goes back to the competent bit, I think
58:25
being willing and able to practice the fundamentals
58:32
is key. Maybe we can circle back here, move from
58:38
basketball back to polar exploration again, where
58:41
we started. At the end of the day, your basketball
58:44
team, you have to be able to box out better than
58:49
your opponents. So you can rebound better than
58:51
your opponents, right? You have to be really
58:54
good at dribbling, right? And even though these
58:57
are professional athletes, these are things you
58:58
just got to practice relentlessly with them,
59:03
right? Even if it's boring, even if it's not
59:05
the most exciting thing to do. And that's something
59:07
we see in the great coach as well. And now if
59:09
we transition to polar exploration, you know,
59:12
Amundsen, this very successful Norwegian explorer,
59:15
He selected men for his teams who could ski,
59:21
who were expert skiers. And even so, they spent
59:24
a long time practicing skiing together because
59:27
that afforded them really good mobility. He also
59:30
adopted dog sledding from the Inuit. not, let's
59:37
say, a European way of moving across the ice.
59:41
And they spend a lot of time practicing that
59:43
as well, kind of optimizing the sledges and the
59:46
harness system for the dogs, et cetera. You know,
59:49
a lot of the members of the British expeditions
59:51
don't know how to ski, right? And the few skis
59:55
they have have not been... Again, respect for
59:58
their courage. Exactly, exactly. But I think
1:00:01
the parallel there is to like, you know, if we
1:00:04
want to stick to basketballs, If you want to
1:00:06
be a good basketball team, like the basics, dribbling,
1:00:09
shooting, rebounding, boxing out, make sure everybody
1:00:12
can do this really, really well. And if they
1:00:16
can, it's not going to stand out. But if they
1:00:18
can't, it will. Again, like not the most glamorous
1:00:23
stuff out there. But yeah, I suppose life is
1:00:27
not like a Netflix show. I heard you say that
1:00:30
kind of leadership. courses or leadership kind
1:00:35
of learning industry, I don't even know what
1:00:37
to call it, is a $50 billion industry these days.
1:00:41
Does that mean that anyone can be taught how
1:00:45
to be an effective leader? I believe so, yes.
1:00:48
And there's hope for me as a basketball coach?
1:00:51
I think there are certain characteristics, let's
1:00:53
say, that might predispose you to being better
1:00:58
in leadership roles. If you already are... Self
1:01:03
-aware, able to reflect on your behavior if you
1:01:06
have a certain amount of empathy. So a lot of
1:01:09
leadership scholars talk about having a balance
1:01:10
between confidence and humility. You need to
1:01:14
have the confidence to be able to stick to your
1:01:18
guns when you've run the analysis, you've taken
1:01:22
account of everything. We just got to hold out
1:01:25
here for a little bit longer, even if people
1:01:28
are doubting. But you also have to balance that
1:01:30
with humility. self -aware, understanding that
1:01:34
you're not the center of the universe, you don't
1:01:36
know everything, got to be open to input from
1:01:39
others, willing to admit mistakes, etc. So I
1:01:42
think some people come into it with a better
1:01:45
balance between confidence and humility than
1:01:48
others. But yes, it is something you can learn
1:01:53
and there are a lot of successful... leadership
1:01:55
training programs in corporations out there that
1:01:58
look at this broad leadership toolkit, be it
1:02:01
communication or, you know, kind of working on
1:02:05
your analytical thinking skills or your scenario
1:02:08
planning, thinking about different types of futures
1:02:10
and what to do depending on where your organization
1:02:13
finds itself. And what I would say, though, is
1:02:20
that the danger with leadership is that It's
1:02:25
really an aspirational topic. It's a loaded topic
1:02:29
in the sense that, you know, if you're an accountant,
1:02:33
you probably want to be good at your job, right?
1:02:36
You don't want to be incompetent. But there are
1:02:38
very few accountants that I know of, at least,
1:02:41
who kind of say to themselves in the world, like,
1:02:43
I want to be remembered. I want on my tombstone
1:02:46
to say that I was the best accountant ever. It
1:02:51
doesn't have that same aspiration to, but leadership.
1:02:55
I mean, we all, or many of us, dream of being
1:03:00
great leaders, of being remembered for, you know,
1:03:02
when everybody was confused and doubting, we
1:03:06
charted the right course and we rallied people
1:03:09
behind us. So there's a lot of aspiration and
1:03:12
kind of glory to this. But that means that as
1:03:14
an industry, you know, it's also susceptible
1:03:17
to, let's say, guruism and simplified recipes.
1:03:21
And that's why I think in this conversation,
1:03:24
hopefully notice that I try to be very hesitant
1:03:27
to nail it down into three things. There are
1:03:31
not three things. I'm trying to force you as
1:03:34
much as I can, but you're not providing me. If
1:03:37
anybody tells you, if you do these three things,
1:03:40
you'll be a great leader. That's simply not going
1:03:46
to be true. Of course, we can speak of three
1:03:48
important things, but... It's always more complicated.
1:03:52
So that's a bit of the danger around leadership
1:03:54
as well, that because so many people aspire to
1:03:56
it, you know, there is, it can easily drift into
1:04:01
oversimplification and this kind of formulaic
1:04:05
approach to learning. Martin, thank you so much.
1:04:08
Next time you'll see me, it's probably going
1:04:10
to be on the screen when I'm leading the Los
1:04:12
Angeles Lakers, thanking you for helping me get
1:04:15
there. I would love that. You know, 20, 36, whatever.
1:04:20
I would love that. And, you know, maybe to circle
1:04:23
back, right? I pitched the Chicago Bulls under
1:04:27
Phil Jackson as the most successful basketball
1:04:30
team ever, right? Six championships in a decade.
1:04:34
There is one team that came close, right? The
1:04:39
Lakers, as you just mentioned, in the early 2000s.
1:04:45
Who was their coach, you ask? Yeah. You know
1:04:47
the answer, right? Phil Jackson. Same guy. All
1:04:51
right. Martin, do you have any social media where
1:04:54
people can follow your work? I'm on LinkedIn.
1:04:57
Very happy for people to connect with me there.
1:05:00
And the book can be purchased in all fine bookstores
1:05:03
everywhere. I certainly hope so. Yes, I think
1:05:06
so. Otherwise, get in touch with me. You mentioned
1:05:11
pushback before. I love pushback. It's the start
1:05:13
of a lot of great discussions. So to the listeners
1:05:15
out there, feel free to push back. Awesome. Thanks
1:05:18
again. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for
1:05:20
listening. Please subscribe to the podcast on
1:05:22
YouTube, follow and rate on Spotify and Apple
1:05:25
Podcasts marketing tutorials. Insist, it's really
1:05:27
important that I hassle you about that. So I'm
1:05:29
doing it. Also, if you'd like to, please support
1:05:32
me on Patreon. This is a one person podcast.
1:05:35
I know I say this every time, but I do everything
1:05:37
by my little old self. There's no team behind
1:05:39
me. It's very, very sad, I know. But you can
1:05:43
help by hopping on Patreon and finding the smart.
1:05:46
cookies podcast on there and then last but certainly
1:05:48
not least i have to thank my existing patrons
1:05:51
without you there would be no smart cookies which
1:05:54
makes you the real actual producers of this show
1:05:58
so eternal thanks to thank you so much your support
1:06:21
means the world to me