Other Main Points The Manage Anchor Dangers your Why Lead? yourself. Within. hungers.The Dangers Within We have described a handful of leadership tactics you can use to interact with the people around you, particularly those who might undermine your initiatives. Those tactics can help advance your 112 A SURVIVAL GUIDE FOR LEADERS initiatives and, just as important, ensure that you remain in a posi- tion where you can bring them to fruition. But from our own obser- vations and painful personal experiences, we know that one of the surest ways for an organization to bring you down is simply to let you precipitate your own demise. In the heat of leadership, with the adrenaline pumping, it is easy to convince yourself that you are not subject to the normal human frailties that can defeat ordinary mortals. You begin to act as if you are indestructible. But the intellectual, physical, and emotional challenges of leadership are erce. So, in addition to getting on the balcony, you need to regularly step into the inner chamber of your being and assess the tolls those challenges are taking. If you don't, your seemingly indestructible self can self-destruct. This, by the way, is an ideal outcome for your foesand even friends who oppose your initiativebecause no one has to feel responsible for your downfall. A SURVIVAL GUIDE FOR LEADERS initiatives and, just as important, ensure that you remain in a posi tion where you can bring them to fruition. But from our own obser- vations and painful personal experiences, we know that one of the surest ways for an organization to bring you down is simply to let you precipitate your own demise. In the heat of leadership, with the adrenaline pumping, it is easy to convince yourself that you are not subject to the normal human frailties that can defeat ordinary mortals. You begin to act as if you are indestructible. But the intellectual, physical, and emotional challenges of leadership are erce. So, in addition to getting on the balcony, you need to regularly step into the inner chamber of your being and assess the tolls those challenges are taking. If you don't, your seemingly indestructible self can self-destruct. This, by the way, is an ideal outcome for your foesand even friends who oppose your initiativebecause no one has to feel responsible for your downfall. Manage your hungers We all have hungers, expressions of our normal human needs. But sometimes those hungers disrupt our capacity to act wisely or pur- posefully. Whether inherited or products of our upbringing, some of these hungers may be so strong that they render us constantly vul- nerable. More typically, a stressful situation or setting can exagger- ate a normal level of need, amplifying our desires and overwhelming our usual selfdiscipline. Two of the most common and dangerous hungers are the desire for control and the desire for importance. Everyone wants to have some measure of control over his or her life. Yet some people's need for control is disproportionately high. They might have grown up in a household that was either tightly structured or unusually chaotic; in either case, the situation drove them to become masters at taming chaos not only in their own lives but also in their organizations. That need for control can be a source of vulnerability. Initially, of course, the ability to turn disorder into order may be seen as an attribute. In an organization facing turmoil, you may seem like a godsend if you are able (and desperately want) to step in and take 113 HEIFETZ AND LINSKV charge. By lowering the distress to a tolerable level, you keep the kettle from boiling over. But in your desire for o e the means for the end. Rather than ensuring 'l 24 Of 399 l in an organization remains high enough to m - , . . ; 7 u e issues, you focus on maintaining order as an end in itself. Forcing people to make the difficult trade-offs required by fundamental change threatens a Manage your hungers We all have hungers, expressions of our normal human needs. But sometimes those hungers disrupt our capacity to act wisely or pur- posefully. Whether inherited or products of our upbringing, some of these hungers may be so strong that they render us constantly vul- nerable. More typically, a stressful situation or setting can exagger- ate a normal level of need, amplifying our desires and overwhelming our usual self-discipline. Two of the most common and dangerous hungers are the desire for control and the desire for importance. Everyone wants to have some measure of control over his or her life. Yet some people's need for control is disproportionately high. They might have grown up in a household that was either tightly structured or unusually chaotic; in either case, the situation drove them to become masters at taming chaos not only in their own lives but also in their organizations. That need for control can be a source of vulnerability. Initially, of course, the ability to turn disorder into order may be seen as an attribute. In an organization facing turmoil, you may seem like a godsend if you are able (and desperately want) to step in and take 113 HEIFETZ AND LINSKV charge. By lowering the distress to a tolerable level, you keep the kettle from boiling over. But in your desire for order, you can mistake the means for the end. Rather than ensuring that the distress level in an organization remains high enough to mobilize progress on the issues, you focus on maintaining order as an end in itself. Forcing people to make the difficult trade-offs required by fundamental change threatens a return to the disorder you loathe. Your ability to bring the situation under control also suits the people in the organization, who natu rally prefer calm to chaos. Unfortunately, this desire for control makes you vulnerable to, and an agent of, the organization's wish to avoid working through contentious issues. While this may ensure your survival in the short term, ultimately you may nd yourself accused, justifiably, of failing to deal with the tough challenges when there was still time to do 50. Most people also have some need to feel important and afrmed by others. The danger here is that you will let this afrmation give you an inated view of yourself and your cause. A grandiose sense of selfimportance often leads to selfdeception. In particular, you tend to forget the creative role that doubtwhich reveals parts of reality that you wouldn't otherwise seeplays in getting your organization to improve. The absence of doubt leads you to see only that which confirms your own competence, which will virtually guarantee dis astrous missteps. Another harmful side effect of an inated sense of self-importance is that you will encourage people in the organization to become dependent on you. The higher the level of distress, the greater their hopes and expectations that you will provide deliverance. This relieves them of any responsibility for moving the organization forward. But their dependence can be detrimental not only to the group but to you personally. Dependence can quickly turn to contempt as your constituents discover your human shortcomings. Two wellknown stories from the computer industry illustrate the perils of dependencyand how to avoid them. Ken Olsen, the founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, built the company into a 120,000person operation that, at its peak, was the chief rival of IBM. 114 f'"' A SURVIVAL GUIDE FOR LEADERS A generous man, he treateu 'l 25 Of 399 ordinarily well and experimented with person - - u to increase the cre ativity, teamwork, and satisfaction of his workforce. This, in tandem with the company's success over the years, led the company's top charge. By lowering the distress to a tolerable level, you keep the kettle from boiling over. But in your desire for order, you can mistake the means for the end. Rather than ensuring that the distress level in an organization remains high enough to mobilize progress on the issues, you focus on maintaining order as an end in itself. Forcing people to make the difficult trade-offs required by fundamental change threatens a return to the disorder you loathe. Your ability to bring the situation under control also suits the people in the organization, who natu- rally prefer calm to chaos. Unfortunately, this desire for control makes you vulnerable to, and an agent of, the organization's wish to avoid working through contentious issues. While this may ensure your survival in the short term, ultimately you may nd yourself accused, justifiably, of failing to deal with the tough challenges when there was still time to do so. Most people also have some need to feel important and afrmed by others. The danger here is that you will let this afrmation give you an inated view of yourself and your cause. A grandiose sense of self-importance often leads to self-deception. In particular, you tend to forget the creative role that doubtwhich reveals parts of reality that you wouldn't otherwise seeplays in getting your organization to improve. The absence of doubt leads you to see only that which conrms your own competence, which will virtually guarantee dis- astrous missteps. Another harmful side effect of an inated sense of self-importance is that you will encourage people in the organization to become dependent on you. The higher the level of distress, the greater their hopes and expectations that you will provide deliverance. This relieves them of any responsibility for moving the organization forward. But their dependence can be detrimental not only to the group but to you personally. Dependence can quickly turn to contempt as your constituents discover your human shortcomings. Two well-known stories from the computer industry illustrate the perils of dependencyand how to avoid them. Ken Olsen, the founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, built the company into a 120,000-person operation that, at its peak, was the chief rival of IBM. founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, built the company into a 120,000person operation that, at its peak, was the chief rival of IBM. 114 A SURVIVAL GUIDE FOR LEADERS A generous man, he treated his employees extraordinarily well and experimented with personnel policies designed to increase the cre- ativity, teamwork, and satisfaction of his workforce. This, in tandem with the company's success over the years, led the company's top management to turn to him as the sole decision maker on all key issues. His decision to shun the personal computer market because of his belief that few people would ever want to own a PC, which seemed reasonable at the time, is generally viewed as the beginning of the end for the company. But that isn't the point; everyone in business makes bad decisions. The point is, Olsen had fostered such an atmosphere of dependence that his decisions were rarely chal lenged by colleaguesat least not until it was too late. Contrast that decision with Bill Gates's decision some years later to keep Microsoft out of the Internet business. It didn't take long for him to reverse his stand and launch a corporate overhaul that had Microsoft's delivery of Internet services as its centerpiece. After watching the rapidly changing computer industry and listening carefully to colleagues, Gates changed his mind with no permanent damage to his sense of pride and an enhanced reputation due to his nimble change of course. Anchor yourself To survive the turbulent seas of a change initiative, you need to nd ways to steady and stabilize yourself. First, you must establish a safe harbor where each day you can reect on the previous day's journey, repair the psychological damage you have incurred, renew your stores of emotional resources, and recalibrate your moral compass. Your haven might be a physical place, such as the kitchen table of a friend's house, or a regular routine, such as a daily walk through the neighborhood. Whatever the sanctuary, you need to use and protect it. Unfortunately, seeking such respite is often seen as a luxury, mak- ing it one of the first things to go when life gets stressful and you become pressed for time. r Second, you need a confidant, someone you can talk to a} | , what's in your heart and on your mind without fear of being jud' \"eh or betrayed. Once the undigested mess is on the table, you can begn 115 126 of 399 HEIFETZ AND LINSKV A generous man, he treated his employees extraordinarily well and experimented with personnel policies designed to increase the cre- ativity, teamwork, and satisfaction of his workforce. This, in tandem with the company's success over the years, led the company's top management to turn to him as the sole decision maker on all key issues. His decision to shun the personal computer market because of his belief that few people would ever want to own a PC, which seemed reasonable at the time, is generally viewed as the beginning of the end for the company. But that isn't the point; everyone in business makes bad decisions- The point is, Olsen had fostered such an atmosphere of dependence that his decisions were rarely chal- lenged by colleaguesat least not until it was too late. Contrast that decision with Bill Gates's decision some years later to keep Microsoft out of the Internet business. It didn't take long for him to reverse his stand and launch a corporate overhaul that had Microsoft's delivery of Internet services as its centerpiece. After watching the rapidly changing computer industry and listening carefully to colleagues, Gates changed his mind with no permanent damage to his sense of pride and an enhanced reputation due to his nimble change of course. or t e company. But t at isn't t e pomt; everyone 1n business makes bad decisions. The point is, Olsen had fostered such an atmosphere of dependence that his decisions were rarely chal- lenged by colleaguesat least not until it was too late. Contrast that decision with Bill Gates's decision some years later to keep Microsoft out of the Internet business. It didn't take long for him to reverse his stand and launch a corporate overhaul that had Microsoft's delivery of Internet services as its centerpiece. After watching the rapidly changing computer industry and listening carefully to colleagues, Gates changed his mind with no permanent damage to his sense of pride and an enhanced reputation due to his nimble change of course. Anchor yourself To survive the turbulent seas of a change initiative, you need to nd ways to steady and stabilize yourself. First, you must establish a safe harbor where each day you can reect on the previous day's journey, repair the psychological damage you have incurred, renew your stores of emotional resources, and recalibrate your moral compass. Your haven might be a physical place, such as the kitchen table of a friend's house, or a regular routine, such as a daily walk through the neighborhood. Whatever the sanctuary, you need to use and protect it. Unfortunately, seeking such respite is often seen as a luxury, mak ing it one of the first things to go when life gets stressful and you become pressed for time. Second, you need a confidant, someone you can talk to about what's in your heart and on your mind without fear of being judged or betrayed. Once the undigested mess is on the table, you can begin 115 HEIFETZ AND LINSKY to separate, with your condant's honest input, what is worthwhile from what is simply venting. The confidant, typically not a coworker, can also pump you up when you're down and pull you back to earth when you start taking praise too seriously. But don't confuse confidants with allies: Instead of supporting your current initiative, 3 condant simply supports you. A common mistake is to seek a condant among trusted allies, whose personal loyalty may evaporate when a new issue more important to them thar f.--' begins to emerge and take center stage. Leg] Perhaps most important, you need to distinguish between personal self, which can serve as an anchor in stormy weather, 3.1.- your professional role, which never will. It is easy to mix up the two. And other people only increase the confusion: Colleagues, subordi nates, and even bosses often act as if the role you play is the real you. But that is not the case, no matter how much of yourselfyour pas sions, your values, your I ly and laudably pour into your professional re 1 26 Of 399 has experienced the rude awakening that com position of authority and suddenly nd that their phone calls aren't returned as quickly as they used to be. Anchor yourself To survive the turbulent seas of a change initiative, you need to nd ways to steady and stabilize yourself. First, you must establish a safe harbor where each day you can reect on the previous day's journey, repair the psychological damage you have incurred, renew your stores of emotional resources, and recalibrate your moral compass. Your haven might be a physical place, such as the kitchen table of a friend's house, or a regular routine, such as a daily walk through the neighborhood. Whatever the sanctuary, you need to use and protect it. Unfortunately, seeking such respite is often seen as a luxury, mak- ing it one of the first things to go when life gets stressful and you become pressed for time. Second, you need a confidant, someone you can talk to about what's in your heart and on your mind without fear of being judged or betrayed. Once the undigested mess is on the table, you can begin 115 HEIFETZ AND LINSKV to separate, with your condant's honest input, what is worthwhile from what is simply venting. The confidant, typically not a coworker, can also pump you up when you're down and pull you back to earth when you start taking praise too seriously. But don't confuse confidants with allies: Instead of supporting your current initiative, a condant simply supports you. A common mistake is to seek a condant among trusted allies, whose personal loyalty may evaporate when a new issue more important to them than you begins to emerge and take center stage. Perhaps most important, you need to distinguish between your personal self, which can serve as an anchor in stormy weather, and your professional role, which never will. It is easy to mix up the two. And other people only increase the confusion: Colleagues, subordi nates, and even bosses often act as if the role you play is the real you. But that is not the case, no matter how much of yourselfyour pas- sions, your values, your talentsyou genuinely and laudably pour into your professional role. Ask anyone who has experienced the rude awakening that comes when they leave a position of authority and suddenly nd that their phone calls aren't returned as quickly as they used to be. That harsh lesson holds another important truth that is easily for- gotten: When people attack someone in a position of authority, more often than not they are attacking the role, not the person. Even when attacks on you are highly personal, you need to read them pri marily as reactions to how you, in your role, are affecting people's lives. Understanding the criticism for what it is prevents it from undermining your stability and sense of selfworth. And that's important because when you feel the sting of an attack, you are likely to become defensive and lash out at your critics, which can precipitate your downfall. We hasten to add that criticism may contain legitimate points about how you are performing your role. For example, you may have been tactless in raising an issue with your organization, or you may have turned the heat up too quickly on a change initiative. But, at its heart, the criticism is usually about the issue, not you. Through the guise of attacking you personally, people often are simply trying to 116 A SURVIVAL GUIDE FOR LEADERS neutralize the threat they - one ever attack you when ' news? People attack your p - don't like the message. When you take \"person \" attacks personally, you unwittingly con of view. Does any- cks or deliver good I dgment when they 127 Of 399 u. , ,v to separate, with your condant 's honest input, what is worthwhile from what is simply venting. The confidant, typically not a coworker, can also pump you up when you're down and pull you back to earth when you start taking praise too seriously. But don't confuse confidants with allies: Instead of supporting your current initiative, a condant simply supports you. A common mistake is to seek a condant among trusted allies, whose personal loyalty may evaporate when a new issue more important to them than you begins to emerge and take center stage. Perhaps most important, you need to distinguish between your personal self, which can serve as an anchor in stormy weather, and your professional role, which never will. It is easy to mix up the two. And other people only increase the confusion: Colleagues, subordi- nates, and even bosses often act as if the role you play is the real you. But that is not the case, no matter how much of yourselfyour pas- sions, your values, your talentsyou genuinely and laudably pour into your professional role. Ask anyone who has experienced the rude awakening that comes when they leave a position of authority and suddenly nd that their phone calls aren't returned as quickly as they used to be. That harsh lesson holds another important truth that is easily for- gotten: When people attack someone in a position of authority, more often than not they are attacking the role, not the person. Even when attacks on you are highly personal, you need to read them pri- marily as reactions to how you, in your role, are affecting people's lives. Understanding the criticism for what it is prevents it from undermining your stability and sense of self-worth. And that's important because when you feel the sting of an attack, you are likely to become defensive and lash out at your critics, which can precipitate your downfall. We hasten to add that criticism may contain legitimate points about how you are performing your role. For example, you may have been tactless in raising an issue with your organization, or you may have turned the heat up too quickly on a change initiative. But, at its heart, the criticism is usually about the issue, not you. Through the guise of attacking you personally, people often are simply trying to 116 about how you are performing your role. For example, you may have been tactless in raising an issue with your organization, or you may have turned the heat up too quickly on a change initiative. But, at its heart, the criticism is usually about the issue, not you. Through the guise of attacking you personally, people often are simply trying to 116 A SURVIVAL GUIDE FOR LEADERS neutralize the threat they perceive in your point of view. Does any- one ever attack you when you hand out big checks or deliver good news? People attack your personality, style, or judgment when they don't like the message. When you take \"personal\" attacks personally, you unwittingly con- spire in one of the common ways you can be taken out of actionyou make yourself the issue. Contrast the manner in which presidential candidates Gary Hart and Bill Clinton handled charges of philander- ing. Hart angrily counterattacked, criticizing the scruples of the reporters who had shadowed him, This defensive personal response kept the focus on his behavior. Clinton, on national television, essen- tially admitted he had strayed, acknowledging his piece of the mess. His strategic handling of the situation allowed him to return the cam paign's focus to policy issues. Though both attacks were extremely personal, only Clinton understood that they were basically attacks on positions he represented and the role he was seeking to play. Do not underestimate the difficulty of distinguishing self from role and responding coolly to what feels like a personal attack particularly when the criticism comes, as it will, from people you care about. But disciplining yourself to do so can provide you with an anchor that will keep you from running aground and give you the stability to remain calm, focused, and persistent in engaging people with the tough issues. Why Lead? We will have failed if this \"survival manual\" for avoiding the perils of leadership causes you to become cynical or callous in your leader- ship effort or to shun the challenges of leadership altogether. We haven't touched on the thrill of inspiring people to come up with creative solutions that can transform an organization for the bet f.--' We hope we have shown that the essence of leadership lies in Les] capacity to deliver disturbing news and raise difcult questions . way that moves people to take up the message rather than kill the messenger. But we haven't talked about the reasons that someone might want to take these risks. 11'] 128 of 399 HEIFETZ AND LINSKV neutralize the threat they perceive in your point of view. Does any- one ever attack you when you hand out big checks or deliver good news? People attack your personality, style, or judgment when they don't like the message. When you take \"personal\" attacks personally, you unwittingly con- spire in one of the common ways you can be taken out of actionyou make yourself the issue. Contrast the manner in which presidential candidates Gary Hart and Bill Clinton handled charges of philander- ing. Hart angrily counterattacked, criticizing the scruples of the reporters who had shadowed him. This defensive personal response kept the focus on his behavior- Clinton, on national television, essen- tially admitted he had strayed, acknowledging his piece of the mess. His strategic handling of the situation allowed him to return the cam- paign's focus to policy issues. Though both attacks were extremely personal, only Clinton understood that they were basically attacks on positions he represented and the role he was seeking to play. Do not underestimate the difficulty of distinguishing self from role and responding coolly to what feels like a personal attack particularly when the criticism comes, as it will, from people you care about. But disciplining yourself to do so can provide you with an anchor that will keep you from running aground and give you the stability to remain calm, focused, and persistent in engaging people with the tough issues. Why Lead? We will have failed if this \"survival manual\" for avoiding the perils of leadership causes you to become cynical or callous in your leader- ship effort or to shun the challenges of leadership altogether. We haven't touched on the thrill of inspiring people to come up with creative solutions that can transform an organization for the better. We hope we have shown that the essence of leadership lies in the capacity to deliver disturbing news and raise difcult questions in a way that moves people to take up the message rather than kill the messenger. But we haven't talked about the reasons that someone might want to take these risks. 117 HEIFETZ AND LINSKV Of course, many people who strive for high-authority positions are attracted to power. But in the end, that isn't enough to make the high stakes of the game worthwhile. We would argue that, when they look deep within themselves, people grapple with the chal lenges of leadership in order to make a positive difference in the lives of others. When corporate presidents and vice presidents reach their late fifties, they often look back on careers devoted to winning in the marketplace. They may have succeeded remarkably, yet some peo- ple have difculty making sense of their lives in light of what they have given up. For too many, their accomplishments seem empty. They question whether they should have been more aggressive in questioning corporate purposes or creating more ambitious visions for their companies. Our underlying assumption in this article is that you can lead and stay alivenot just register a pulse, but really be alive. But the clas- sic protective devices of a person in authority tend to insulate them from those qualities that foster an acute experience of living. Cyni- cism, often dressed up as realism, undermines creativity and daring. Arrogance, often posing as authoritative knowledge, snuffs out curiosity and the eagerness to question. Callousness, sometimes portrayed as the thick skin of experience, shuts out compassion for others. The hard truth is that it is not possible to know the rewards | joys of leadership without experiencing the pain as well. But sta; '- in the game and bearing that pain is worth it, not only for the po. tive changes you can make in the lives of others but also for the meaning it gives your own. Originally published in June 2002. Reprint R0206C (\"-1 38 Why Lead? We will have failed if this \"survival manual\" for avoiding the perils of leadership causes you to become cynical or callous in your leader- ship effort or to shun the challenges of leadership altogether. We haven't touched on the thrill of inspiring people to come up with creative solutions that can transform an organization for the better. We hope we have shown that the essence of leadership lies in the capacity to deliver disturbing news and raise difcult questions in a way that moves people to take up the message rather than kill the messenger. But we haven't talked about the reasons that someone might want to take these risks. 117 HEIFETZ AND LINSKY Of course, many people who strive for high-authority positions are attracted to power. But in the end, that isn't enough to make the high stakes of the game worthwhile. We would argue that, when they look deep within themselves, people grapple with the chal- lenges of leadership in order to make a positive difference in the lives of others. When corporate presidents and vice presidents reach their late fifties, they often look back on careers devoted to winning in the marketplace. They may have succeeded remarkably, yet some peo- ple have difficulty making sense of their lives in light of what they have given up. For too many, their accomplishments seem empty. They question whether they should have been more aggressive in questioning corporate purposes or creating more ambitious visions for their companies. Our underlying assumption in this article is that you can lead and stay alivenot just register a pulse, but really be alive. But the clas- sic protective devices of a person in authority tend to insulate them from those qualities that foster an acute experience of living. Cyni- cism, often dressed up as realism, undermines creativity and daring. Arrogance, often posing as authoritative knowledge, snuffs out curiosity and the eagerness to question. Callousness, sometimes portrayed as the thick skin of experience, shuts out compassion for others. The hard truth is that it is not possible to know the rewards {-7} joys of leadership without experiencing the pain as well. But sta; 'b' in the game and bearing that pain is worth it, not only for the po; tive changes you can make in the lives of others but also for the L meaning it gives your own