Blinded by the Prize : Dan Goleman

Struck a chord with me - I've had to work with such a$$h's unfortunately...

She was a partner at a huge law firm who drove her team crazy. She micromanaged, constantly second guessing them, re-writing reports that didn't meet her standards even though they were perfectly fine. She could always find something to criticize but nothing to praise. Her steadfast focus on the negative demoralized her team. A star member quit and others were looking to move laterally in the firm.

Those who, like that high-achieving lawyer have this high-achieving super-focused style are called pace-setters - meaning they like to lead by example, setting a fast pace they assume others will imitate. Pace-setters tend to rely on a command and coerce leadership strategy where they simply give orders and expect obedience. Leaders who display just the pace-setting or commanding style or both, but not any others, create a toxic climate that dispirits those they lead. They may get short term results through personal heroics like going out and getting a deal themselves, but do so at the expense of building their organizations. "Leadership run amok" was Harvard Biz Review's title for an article about the dark side of pace-setting written by Scott Spire and his colleagues at Hay Group. Spire told me, "They are so focused on the prize, they are blinded to their impact on the people around them in the room." Spire's article offered up that hard-driving law partner as a prime example of pace-setting at its worst. Such leaders don't listen, let alone make decisions by consensus. They don't spend time getting to know the people they work with day in and out, but relate to them in their one-dimensional roles. They don't help people develop new strengths and refine their abilities but simply dismiss their need to learn as a failing. They come off as arrogant and impatient. And, they're spreading. One tracking study finds that the number of people in organizations of all kinds who are over achievers has been climbing steadily among those who are in leadership positions since the 1990's. That was a period when economic growth created an atmosphere when raise the bar at any cost heroics were lionized. The downside to this style, for example, lapses in ethics, etc were too often winked at - sound familiar Uber?

How come Google doesn't have such issues?