Reflections on Character and Leadership

On the Couch with Manfred Kets de Vries

Manfred F. R. Kets de Vries

• Publisher: Jossey-Bass
• Year: 2010
• Print ISBN:
  9780470742426
• Edition: 1
• eBook ISBN:
  9780470687659
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Leadership
• Index: Business

Reflections on Character and Leadership is the first of the three books in the Manfred kets de Vries on the Couch series.

Here, Kets de Vries looks at entrepreneurship, the pathology of leadership, and the personality of the leader. The reader will visit the disturbed inner worlds of leaders like Alexander the Great, Shaka Zulu and Robert Maxwell, discover how to distinguish between a cold fish and a live volcano, and identify impostors, despots, organizational fools and global leaders.

The book highlights the basic principles of the clinical paradigm—the process of putting organizations and the individuals who lead them on the psychoanalyst's couch. It includes studies of personality archetypes and the effects they have on organizational life and culture—and the effects that organizations have on them. Referring frequently to key management concepts, Kets de Vries looks not only at what happens when things go wrong, but also at how to create the psychological and organizational space to make sure that things go right.

About the series:

The series offers an overview of Kets de Vries's work spanning four decades, a period in which he has established himself as the leading figure in the clinical study of organizational leadership.

The books in this series contain a representative selection of Kets de Vries' writings about leadership from a wide variety of published sources and cover character and leadership in a global context, career development and leadership in organizations. The original essays were all written or published between 1976 and 2008. Updated where appropriate and revised by the author, they present a digest of the work of one of the most influential management thinkers of the present day.

PART I

LEADERS, FOOLS, AND IMPOSTERS

INTRODUCTION

In using the characterological approach, the therapist, coach, consultant or other change agent tries to identify a set of interrelated themes—the focus is on patterns that tend to fall together. Certain themes—like certain organizational types—occur frequently in combination. Some people might consider this a negative form of labeling but you can also look at it as a way of being helpful, of defining the treatment of choice for a person. A less stereotypical way of simplifying a complex world is to engage in a thematic analysis, looking at the central themes that permeate a person’s inner theater. Thematic analysis is less constricted—no attempt is made to identify a finite number of character types.

Of course, the identification of character is rarely a clear -cut task. When I enter an organization, I try to keep an open mind. I always have to fight against premature closure. In order to deal with the flow of information that floods me when I enter an organizational system, I have to create a certain amount of transitional space so that I can ‘play’ with the data I am given. I make a great effort to use myself as an instrument.

Many of the stories I heard from executives seemed to me, to borrow Churchill’s famous phrase, like puzzles inside a riddle wrapped in an enigma. I found many confusing, and my confusion made me curious. I wanted to delve deeper to make some sense of the material being presented to me. And it made me realize the extent of my ignorance and the difficulty of understanding certain situations. I had to learn to live with my ignorance, to tolerate ambiguity, and to turn a deaf ear to the sirens of premature closure. This is part and parcel of the clinical process: the client will, in various ways, contribute the kind of material that provides insight into the discontinuities that make for his or her specific behavior. My encounters with leaders brought home to me the infinite ways in which human beings deal with stressful situations, the unique nature of our adaptive capacities, and the danger of getting stuck in vicious circles. Mental health comes down to the ability to choose, to avoid being caught in a repetitive cycle. Mental health means helping the person having more choices.

Let’s face it, in the developed world we could describe about 20% of the population as perfectly all right—nice family, age-appropriate frustration while they were growing up, parents who are kind and supportive, etc.—fantastic. And there are 20% who are unlucky, growing up with violence, abuse, alcoholism, and worse. Some manage to get out of it, because they have a relative, teacher, neighbor, family member—someone who cares about the child, a lucky break that builds up resilience. And then there are the ‘ neurotic’ rest of us, somewhere in the middle.

I am fortunate, in that my observations are based on firsthand encounters I have had over the years with numerous individuals, as part of my psychoanalytic practice and clinical organizational interventions. For example, I met a number of executives whose behavior struck me as mechanical. I became intrigued by the robotic way they dealt with their environment and the inappropriateness of their reactions to stressful situations. When did this behavior begin? What led up to it? Do certain types of organizations contribute to it? My investigations were furthered by research into a clinical phenomenon sometimes called alexithymia—people who seemed to be emotionally illiterate. Then there were the people who appeared to create havoc in their organizations, with their off-the-wall approaches to problem solving and disregard for conventions and other people. How should they be managed so that all that energy would be recognized for what it was, a potentially invaluable resource for creating original solutions and innovation rather than chaos?

I once had a difficult encounter when I could make neither head nor tail of an individual ’s behavior and actions. Eventually I realized that this person had the personality make-up of an impostor. During the period I was in contact with him, I was almost seduced myself by his fantasies and impositions—I was aware of a strong wish to collude with them, to loosen my grip on reality, and to believe his stories, in spite of all the evidence that he was an impostor. This encounter led me to reflect on his manipulative behavior and in turn to investigate more general questions of what makes impostors who they are, and what makes people feel imposturous, a very prevalent condition among the best and the brightest.

At a certain stage in the ‘Challenge of Leadership’ program that I run at INSEAD for top executives, each participant is obliged to take the ‘hot seat’ and present themselves to the others, telling their own story in their own words. It is a challenge to present your life in a structured way, identifying some of the signifying moments that made you the person you are. It is a fantastically cathartic thing to tell your own story with up to 22 people listening to you, but it’s risky and it needs a very skilled facilitator to manage it. Because everyone wants to do this, the end result is a group of people who all have a stake in each other’s personal development; they have in a way touched each other and created a very rich kind of information network. Vicarious listening can be very powerful. And what everyone realizes as a result of this process is, ‘ My God, I’ m not alone.’ I hear this over and over again, the calling card of the neurotic impostor—which is quite different from the real impostor. All those successful, senior people have a mass of insecurities welling up inside them. They are so hard on themselves, putting themselves down, lowering their self-esteem and beating themselves up all the time—must do better, must get better results. I say that everyone is normal until you know them better—but we all have some issues we have to deal with. And it comes out in the end; it’s there for everyone to see.

PLAYING THE ORGANIZATIONAL FOOL

On many occasions I have been asked to present certain painful issues, which have dragged on for years, to the power holders in an organization. These issues have often been put on the back burner for far too long, where they are conveniently forgotten by executives afraid to bear unwelcome news. This is where it ’s useful to know how to play the wise fool (the morosophe) and extend people’s capacity for reality-testing.

The fool I’ m talking about is the age-old figure who acts as a foil for the leader—and every leader needs one. Down through the ages, fools played a traditional role, stabilizing the perspective of kings, emperors, and other rulers. For example, there is the wise Fool in Shakespeare’s King Lear, the guardian of reality for Lear and audience. The fool customarily shows the leader his reflection and reminds him of the transience of power. He uses antics and humor to prevent foolish action and groupthink. Humor humbles. It creates insights. That makes it a very powerful instrument for change. Let me illustrate this with a story: a couple goes to a fair where there’s a large fortune-telling machine. The husband puts in a coin and receives a card telling him his age and what kind of person he is. He reads it out to his wife, smiling smugly: ‘ You’ re brilliant and charming. Women fall all over you. ’ His wife grabs the card from him and turns it over. ‘Oh dear, ’ she says, ‘They got your age wrong, too.’

Leaders in all organizations need someone like this who is willing to speak out and tell the leader how it is. That’s precisely the role of the fool. To be effective, organizations need people with a healthy disrespect for the boss, people who feel free to express emotions and opinions openly, who can engage in give and take. If a leader wants honest feedback, he should ask himself whether he’s created an organization that has room for a fool. Very often, it is a wife or husband who plays this role. Some companies have tried to institutionalize the role, with limited success. Nevertheless, I sometimes see a wise fool operating within an organization.

Typically, it is an older executive, someone who is out of the succession race and no competition for anyone, asking questions that take people by surprise. For example, I was recently in an investment bank and met one particular man who was clearly protected by the chairman, yet for whom I could see no real role. What was so important about him? I realized later that he was the organizational fool. He asked unusual, sometimes disturbing questions, and the chairman tolerated this and encouraged him because it was useful. This man could get away with asking awkward questions because he was no threat to anybody. Nevertheless, he had a very useful function. Once in every seven meetings perhaps he would make an observation that really struck home.

The organizational fool is very much the role I play with my clients. I can say silly or provocative things, try to get people to look at things from different angles, because it’s easier for someone from the outside to do it. Happiness is looking in a mirror and feeling comfortable and at ease in what you see. I am the man with the mirror.

CHAPTER 1

THE ENTREPRENEURIAL PERSONALITY

Entrepreneurship is the last refuge of the trouble-making individual.

—Natalie Clifford Barney

INTRODUCTION

Attitudes toward entrepreneurship have undergone major changes since the Industrial Revolution. Social awareness has replaced individualism as a virtue, and this has had an impact upon the development of entrepreneurship. The coveted individualism of the entrepreneur lost some of its glamor when it started to include exploitation and irresponsibility. Although the era of the Carnegies, the Krupps, and the Rockefellers has passed into history, this doesn’t mean that entrepreneurs are a thing of the past, as just a cursory look at the developments in Russia, India, or China shows. But whatever the era, entrepreneurship is a fascinating phenomenon. People have always been curious about the personality make-up and motivations of the entrepreneur.

So what distinguishes entrepreneurs from other business people? Although it would be difficult to define entrepreneurs as a group, they do have some characteristics in common. Entrepreneurs are achievement-oriented; they like to take responsibility for decisions, and dislike repetitive, routine work. Creative entrepreneurs possess high levels of energy and a great degree of perseverance and imagination, which, combined with a willingness to take moderate, calculated risks, enables them to transform what often begins as a very simple, ill-defined idea into something concrete. Entrepreneurs also have the ability to instill highly contagious enthusiasm in an organization. They convey a strong sense of purpose and, by doing so, convince others that they are where the action is. Whatever it is—seductiveness, gamesmanship, or charisma—entrepreneurs somehow know how to create an organization and give it momentum.

Why Study Entrepreneurs?

Studies of work behavior from a psychotherapeutic or psychoanalytical perspective have been relatively scarce. Most of the existing literature concerns itself with cases of work inhibition or compulsion. Occasionally, one finds a discussion of people in the creative professions. No attention has been paid, however, to entrepreneurs, even though they are major contributors to economic development.

The paucity of clinical material about entrepreneurship in psychoanalytic and psychotherapeutic literature suggests that entrepreneurs are unlikely to turn to psychoanalysts or psychotherapists when they encounter personal difficulties. They are not usually given to the kind of self-reflection and inner orientation called for by the clinical profession. And only in extreme situations (given the amount of time that needs to be invested in it) will they choose psychoanalysis as a form of therapy. Although most of my research on entrepreneurship has been of the more traditional management type (Kets de Vries, 1970, 1977, 1985), I was in fact fortunate enough to have an entrepreneur come to me for psychoanalytic treatment. This gave me the opportunity to study the inner world of one particular entrepreneur in great depth.

In presenting a clinical case study of an executive, I follow a tradition started by a number of other researchers interested in the nature of managerial work. In their search for rich description, these students of executive behavior realized (for pragmatic considerations) that they had to limit their sample size if they really wanted to understand managerial behavior (Carlson, 1951; Stewart, 1967; Mintzberg, 1973; Kotter, 1982; Noel, 1984, 1991). What differentiates my observations from the work of others is that the subject of analysis in others’ studies has been the general manager, not the entrepreneur.

Some of my observations are also based on extensive studies of entrepreneurs operating in a wide range of industries all over the world, including Russia and Asia. My usual entry into their companies was as an expert in strategic human resource management with a special interest in entrepreneurship and family business. Sometimes senior executives asked for my help because they saw my clinical background as useful in untangling complex family and business situations. In a few cases, I played more of a coaching role to the entrepreneur. In many instances I dealt with ‘dramatic’ cases; this needs to be mentioned, as my sample may be biased.

From a clinical point of view, entrepreneurs are interesting people to study. Many have personality quirks that make them difficult to work with. For example, their bias toward action, which makes them act thoughtlessly at times, can sometimes have dire consequences for their organization. It begs the question: What should you look out for if you are considering taking an entrepreneur on board, working for one, or encouraging these people to start new ventures? What are the problems going to be? Where are the pitfalls? How are you going to avoid them? What provisions can you make to accommodate the typical entrepreneur? Do entrepreneurs have more personal problems than other people? In short, what is the anatomy of the entrepreneur? These are all questions that I explore in this chapter.

ENTREPRENEURSHIP: VIEWS FROM OTHER DISCIPLINES

An entrepreneur is usually defined as an individual who is instrumental in the conception and implementation of an enterprise. (The term is derived from the French verb entreprendre—to undertake.) In this process the entrepreneur fulfills a number of functions, which can be summarized as managing/coordinating, innovation, and risk-taking. The latter two in particular characterize the behavior of entrepreneurs. Innovation implies doing things that are out of the ordinary by finding new opportunities. Risk-taking concerns the entrepreneur’s ability to deal with uncertainty and ambiguity—his or her willingness to take economic and psychological risks. Because of the nature of their activities, entrepreneurs are major creators of employment and catalysts of change.

The absence of case material on entrepreneurship in clinical literature stands in stark contrast to the contributions on this subject from other disciplines such as economics, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and organizational theory. Research on entrepreneurship seems to be truly interdisciplinary. This is not surprising: all these different perspectives contribute to a considerable amount of confusion as to what entrepreneurship is all about—and may explain the wide diversity of factors supposedly influencing entrepreneurship.

Sociological and Anthropological Approaches

According to these disciplines a factor such as societal upheaval is considered to have considerable impact in the making of new entrepreneurs. Societal disruptions, which create structural changes in society, contribute to status incongruities, and have repercussions on family life, appear to affect the choice of non-traditional career paths (Hagen, 1962). Other studies indicate that entrepreneurs are more likely to come from ethnic, religious, or other minority groups (Weber, 1958; Sayigh, 1962; Hirschmeier, 1964 ; Kets de Vries, 1970). The experience of feeling ‘different ’ seems to have an important influence on entrepreneurs. If the family of the entrepreneur does not seem to fit into the established order of things, their offspring may have little choice but to create a new niche for themselves in society.

Several writers have described the origins of entrepreneurs in ethnic and religious minority groups. The sociologist Max Weber’s thesis of the Protestant ethic is a familiar example. It is evident that the belief in a value system different from that of society at large can lead to frictions between the family and the outside world. Members of a minority group can be subjected to discrimination, which has repercussions within the family, causing tension and stress, but also makes for new challenges. These minorities will feel less hampered by the complicated social structure of the society they live in, and be more prepared to challenge established patterns. The combination of feeling different from mainstream society, plus not having the same opportunities as the predominant group, may encourage these people to strike out on their own.

There is another prominent feature in the backgrounds of such individuals: in many cases, their fathers were self-employed, perhaps ...

Table of contents

• On the Couch with Manfred Kets de Vries
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Acknowledgements
• PREFACE
• PART I - LEADERS, FOOLS, AND IMPOSTERS
• PART II - THE PATHOLOGY OF LEADERSHIP
• PART III - TRANSFORMING LEADERSHIP
• PART IV - LEADERSHIP IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT
• CONCLUSION: CREATING HIGH-COMMITMENT ORGANIZATIONS
• REFERENCES
• INDEX