The Blame Game School of Leaders

I don't usually watch the Apprentice but tonight I thought I happened to flick onto the TV and lo and behold, the Apprentice is on and the usual clowns are in the Board Room trying to explain why they flunked it. The contestants are in the process of blaming each other in order to avoid Donald Trump using the famous catch phrase "Your Fired" when it comes to them.

Anyway, its quite funny to watch the so called "Leader" of the failed group struggling to explain why he or she should not be fired. In tonight's series, the girl who was the project manager of the loosing team used the famous line "It's not fair, I feel all the responsability is being unfairly placed on me." This is a really great line, especially from someone who claims to have "Leadership" potential. - The entire show is after all about finding someone with the capabilities of leading.

Anyway, viewing this sorry spectacle reminded me of my previous blog posting about how Ogilvy despised toadies who suck up to their bosses because they are usually the same people who bully subordinates. Having watched this segment of the Apprentice, my belief in this Ogilvyism has been confirmed.

It's a tragedy that these days we are all pre-sold the notion that life is simply about climbing to the top. And why not. The man at the top often has a bigger salary, more perks, a prettier mistress and so on. Being at the top, as a former Dy GM of MediaCorp TV12 Air Time Sales would say, "Is fun and should be about minimising responsability." And as this former high flyer at MediaCorp used to say, "If I work as hard as my subordinates, they'd have very little incentive to climb to the top - I mean why be the boss when the boss has as bad a life as you?"

Unfortunately that philosophy seems to prevail throughout most of corporate and institutional world. People develop the philosophy that the key to success is to - "Suck up to the top and FUCK the LITTLE MAN in the process." It's a pitty that such people do get beyond first base from time to time because it detracts from the bigger picture which more often than not shows the fact that those who have no thought for those beneth them don't get very far.

This should not detract from the fact that "Top Down" approaches usually beat "Bottom Up" approaches when getting things done. The reason for this, is because the guys at the top are less concerned with getting up the ladder and getting things done. Those bellow have their little turf concerns and that becomes part of the problem. Get through to the top man and before you know it, he'll open doors for you and you can move. On the other hand, you start at the bottom and you'll be stuck in the little turf wars that so often thrills low-level bureaucrats.

So, what's wrong with the toady philosophy on life if the top-down approach to getting things done trumps the bottom up approach? This is a multi-leveled question but the basic premise of why the toady philosophy fails is the fact that toadys don't make it to the top. 

There is a saying that "Bullshit can get you to the top but it can't keep you there" often holds. Staying at the top requires some form of ability and how is that ability measured? The answer lies in the way the decisions of the top man affect the people below him. A top man, more often than not has raised to the top with the support of the people below him. - Why? People at the top are often isloated from the ground realities and don't have the ability to get the things they want done without the support of the men on the bottom.

Ironically, this is most true in organisations like the army. Generals, who often hold life and death power over their subordinates, are particularly aware of the importance of taking care of their men. Why? The reason for this is because no soldier will ever follow a leader who did not command their respect. You cannot sell the vision of "Giving your life for others" if you do not show people the ability to take care of the people below you. 

People on the lower rung of the social lader have an incredible knack of knowing who will and won't take care of them. They also have an ability to do amazing things for those will take care of them and the fantastic inability for those who don't care for them. My Artillery Specialist Course Commander, 1st Warrent Officer (The Staff Sergeant) Heng Soon Teck reminded us before we went to our unit "Take care of your men and they will fly for you."

True enough, those of us who took care of their men found people who were willing to fly for them. I was unfortunately not one of them but my friends, Yeo Hai Chai and Ng Lee Heng (aka Bear/Bryan) did and even to this day, both have life long friends in their men.

This fact goes beyond the army. In business, men like Li Ka Shing and Bill Gates have become legends, not so much in the fact that they have become very rich but in the fact that they have made others well to do. Both believed it was important to "Take care of their Men." Good business leaders don't spend their time "Sucking Up" to their supperiors, they take care of their subordinates, and get the job done (which inevitably makes their supperiors look good)

Even in the context of Singapore politics, the leaders who make it to the top are those who are willing to take care of their men, even if it times they come into conflict with the authorities. Vivian Balakrishnan, Tharman Shanamutgaratman - were radical leaders until the government bought them over. Government stooges who suck-up to the top and don't care about the bottom - don't get very far beyond the front desk of the Immirgation and Naturalisation Services.

This is not a condemnation of "Sucking Up" per se. It pays to have a good relationship with the people ontop. Why be antagonistic when you can have a good relationship? Sometimes it pays to stroke the bosses ego. My Battery Sergeant Major was insecure - she once made us book in two-hours early to tell us that; "I may be a woman but I'm still your supperior and if you don't greet me, I'll wack you upside down." - Knowing she is sensitive about small little things like this, it would have been unnecessarily antagonistic not to pay her compliments. Since the army, I've done reasonablly well by keeping on the right side of people like Ambassador Kurdi. They remember small things like Christmas and in the case of the Saudi's Eid greetings.

However, there's a difference between sucking up and managing your boss. Bosses recognise those who manage them and those who "Suck Up." Those who "Suck Up" usually do so as a means of hidding inability. A boss will not want to promote a "Yes Man" - inevitably a "Yes Man" only tells you things you want to hear not what you need to hear. 

Which leads me back to the Apprentice. Those who get booted off the show are the leaders who, when given the task are so desparate to save their presence on the show that they will blame everyone for the project, except themselves. The guy who wins the show is usually the guy who listens and works with his team and he's usually the guy who takes responsability for the failures as well as the glory for the project.

We all make mistakes. I'm contantly f***ing up quite a few things in life. But as has been said - The point is not how you ended up there but what you do about it that counts. People who take responsability for their own actions are usually the very people who can do something about their mistakes and learn from them.

We, as average Joes actually have a moral obligation to ensure that those leaders who have no interest in our welfare fail as much as we have an obligation to ensure that those who do care for us succeed. Its how we go back to the "Buck Stops Here" School of Leadership and away from the "Blame Game" School of Leadership.