Bacharach, S.B., (2016). “Don’t Rely on the Power of Your Idea,” The Agenda Mover. Cornell University Press, pp. 1-14.
It’s often said that leaders achieve success because of their great ideas or irresistible vision. Was George Washington the only military minded man who believed in American independence? Was Martin Luther King, Jr. the first African-American to dream of race equality in America? Was Sam Walton the first man to believe in selling products at low cost? Of course not. Good ideas and vision certainly helped these leaders keep focus, but their initial idea wasn’t the sole cause of their success. These leaders succeeded because they had the pragmatic, political skills to get people to rally around their idea and work to make it a reality. Jack Dorsey, founder of Twitter and Square notes, “Everyone has an idea. But it’s really about executing the idea…and attracting other people to help you work on the idea.” This is the dilemma every leader faces. Once they have a viable idea, they need the skills to get people involved so they can turn that idea into a reality. Jeff Bezos would agree. In August, 2013 Bezos bought the Washington Post for $250 million. In his first interview after the purchase, Bezos said something that all leaders and entrepreneurs should pay close attention to:
In my experience, the way invention, innovation and change happen is [through] team effort. There’s no lone genius who figures it all out and sends down the magic formula. You study, you debate, you brainstorm and the answers start to emerge. It takes time. Nothing happens quickly in this mode. You develop theories and hypotheses, but you don’t know if readers will respond. You do as many experiments as rapidly as possible. ‘Quickly’ in my mind would be years.
Bezos maintains that there is no such thing as a lone genius who comes up with a magic formula. He says innovation only gets implemented after team effort, development, and testing. Good leaders don’t spend their days dreaming. They spend most of their time building coalitions of support around their idea. If you build a good base of support, implementation will follow.
As you know, having an idea or a vision is only the beginning. Ultimately, leadership is about execution—and to execute there are a series of steps you as a leader need to take. There is no big mystery about execution. The skills of execution are attainable and achievable. Your success as a leader will be evaluated on whether you are able to take your vision and ideas and turn them into concrete reality. You will be judged not on your creative ideas, but by your ability to make sure your ideas result in solid innovation, a new product, or better process. It isn’t the vision of a new policy, program, or product that matters, but the executed policy, program, or product. The premise of pragmatic leadership is that your accomplishments count more than your aspirations.
…Or Charisma
The 19th-century sociologist Max Weber was the first to emphasize the importance of charisma as a key leadership attribute. For Weber, charisma is a deeply rooted personality trait that enables certain individuals to command others by the sheer power of their presence. Charisma suggests a mystical bond between leader and followers, with the latter defining their aspirations and in some cases their values by those of the former. As such, charisma, for Weber, is a crucial ingredient in the mix of qualities that make for successful, productive leaders. Weber’s view is that leadership is the property of a select, charismatic few. Leadership is an elitist gift that some possess and others simply do not and cannot. As Bobby Knight, the controversial longtime coach of the University of Indiana and Texas Tech basketball teams, once told a group of business students, “The first thing you people need to know about leadership is that most of you simply do not have it in you.”
When you are in a crowd listening to a charismatic leader, what do you think? If you subscribe to Weber’s mystical, super-heroic notion of leadership, if you believe in the inspirational drama of charisma, what you’re probably thinking, “That ain’t me.” And by the cultural glorification of charisma, society tells most people, at least when it comes to leadership, “That ain’t you.” Do not listen. This voice is nothing less than license to evade responsibility. When leadership is a trait possessed by the few, who can blame the ordinary mortal when things don’t work out? You have an automatic out: “What do you expect? I’m not a leader.”
At a September 2005 congressional hearing, former Federal Emergency Management Agency director Michael Brown was grilled about his organization’s poor response in helping the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Brown’s response is the epitome of self-justification: “You want me to be this superhero!”
Brown’s defense encapsulates everything that is wrong with the cultural notion of charismatic leadership. Brown wasn’t supposed to be a superhero. Nobody expected him to be.
He just needed to move people out of the Superdome. He didn’t fail because he lacked charisma. He failed because he wasn’t an agenda mover.
Agenda movers know that in the final analysis charisma doesn’t move the trucks. The fact that some charismatic people are leaders doesn’t mean that charisma is a litmus test of leadership. Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Dwight Eisenhower, and many others demonstrate that leaders are defined by their actions and by their ability to execute a plan—not by their charismatic personalities.
Take Bill Gates. Uncharismatic as they come, he has the prototypical introspective, computer-geek personality—yet he’s one of the richest men in the world, and undoubtedly one of the most influential. Gates calls himself a “geek”—a word that doesn’t suggest all the social graces, but implies that he is packed full of curiosity. Being a nerd did not prevent Gates from pushing his idea into offices and households worldwide. While Gates isn’t the only nerd building and selling software, he is an effective leader who created a global business empire by getting things done.
Amazon’s Jeff Bezos also lacks the traditional trappings of charisma. He looks like an everyday guy, but his passion for what he calls the Six Core Values shines through. These values—an obsession with customers, ownership, a bias for action, frugality, a high hiring bar, and innovation—are the foundation of his success. Bezos built an organization with a strategic vision and a culture dedicated to execution. He may not stand out in a crowd, but can you think of a more effective leader?
John Kenneth Galbraith characterized the Eisenhower presidency (1953-1961) as ‘the bland leading the bland.’(R. Alton Lee, R.A.Eisenhower and Landrum-Griffin: A Study in Labor-Management Politics [Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 1990] p. viii.)
Yet his leadership was more than that. Likable, but hardly charismatic, Eisenhower was principled, proactive, and pragmatic. While unlikely to come up with brilliant insights, he could look at a problem, analyze it, assess available alternatives, and choose among them. Eisenhower says, “Pull the string and it will follow wherever you wish. Push it, and it will go nowhere at all.”(Richard E. Dauch, R. E., American Drive (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2012) p. 79.) He knew getting things done is about more than a sheer force of will. It’s about pulling people into groups, coalitions, and teams. During World War II Eisenhower observed, ‘In a war such as this, when high command invariably involves a president, a prime minister, six chiefs of staff, and a horde of lesser “planners,” there has got to be a lot of patience—no one person can be a Napoleon or a Caesar.’ (Stephen E. Ambrose, The Victors: Eisenhower and His Boys: The Men of World War II (New York: Simon & Schuster,1999). p. 22.)
Eisenhower knew the value of patience, and that coalitions and political sway were necessary then—and are necessary now— to accomplishing a complex mission. Getting things done within the framework of a coalition is a slow process, and Eisenhower relied on patience and humility. Eisenhower didn’t storm around and demand that everything be done his way and on his timetable.
There are very few Napoleons or Caesars in modern organizations. Leaders need to work with others and build coalitions if they want to get things done. They can’t simply sit back, mandate, and expect that their desires will be fulfilled.
Nearly half a century after Ike, Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, echoes this theme: “I believe that over time, people get remembered for what they build, and if you build something great, people don’t care about what someone says about you… they care about what you build.”
Agenda movers know that in the final analysis, charisma on its own doesn’t get a lot done. Leadership comes down to execution.
Lead with a Small “L”
Leadership on the basis of grand ideas or the cult of charisma and personality may have its place—this is leadership with a big “L”. Big ideas and big personality. It may be a perfectly fine way of initially mobilizing a group of individuals and getting a focus on an agenda, but to truly move ahead and create change, leaders need to be focused and mindful while using tactical pragmatic skills to make sure that the desired results are achieved. This leadership with a small “L” —leadership based on specific behavioral micro-skills embedded in a leader’s managerial and political competence. When thinking of great figures in history such as Abraham Lincoln, you can marvel about Lincoln’s capacity to be aware of others, focus on an agenda, and to know what behaviors would elicit the support and would ensure the continuity of his ideas. Leaders like Lincoln are mindful of their behavioral skills.
If you look at late Steve Jobs’ amazing career, one thing becomes apparent: Jobs was a man who could get things done. This was the primary leadership skill from which his success flowed. Jobs succeeded because he knew how to make things happen. He knew whom he needed to spend his time with, how to identify and categorize his priorities, and how to manage the people who would do the day-to-day work of designing great products.
Jobs’ galvanizing personality is still being dissected in the popular press. While his stage presence can teach public speakers a thing or two, and his passion can show young entrepreneurs that energy is essential to business, his leadership skills fade into the background. Jobs is viewed as the confident, passionate chief executive officer of Apple. The fact that he had to develop a very specific set of micro-skills to move agendas is overlooked. Jobs knew that innovation and creativity aren’t necessarily fueled by throwing dollars into research. Jobs knew that it wasn’t about the money. Rather, it was about having quality people and understanding that success meant executing plans and producing results.
Jobs was successful because he was proactive and pragmatic in pushing his ideas. His charisma helped shape who he was, but was not essential to his program. He understood what was possible and knew how to get it done. He understood leadership with a small “l”—and that it is encapsulated in the micro-skills of execution.
Martin Luther King, Jr. is another charismatic leader who is remembered because of his accomplishments, not his personality. While King’s popular image is propped up by moments of oratorical eloquence, these moments were relatively few. King wasn’t always preaching. Like Jobs, he spent most of his time dealing with the pragmatic day-in-day-out strategic issues involved in moving his agenda forward. For King, that meant organizing communities, knowing who his allies were, knowing where his support was weak, knowing where his support was strong, and understanding what needed to be done to sustain forward movement. He was constantly evaluating and reevaluating. One of King’s great moments, the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, at which he delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech, took immense organization. Among myriad other things, King consulted extensively with President John F. Kennedy to ensure there would be protection for the demonstrators. While his speech is rightly remembered and celebrated, the planning and hard work that took place behind the scenes are largely forgotten.
King said, “Ultimately, a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.” Leaders don’t scramble in a search for consensus—they make it. Leadership is about building a group of supporters—that is, a coalition that can help turn your innovative idea into a reality. King, like Jobs, appreciated leadership with a small “l.” For him, leadership was not a function of rhetoric, personality, or vision, but in the focused, deliberate, pragmatic steps that led to true accomplishment. What Jobs and King share with all effective leaders is an unerring sense of the practical and an appreciation of the pragmatic. Both had dreams, but both also clearly recognized that nothing would change unless they engaged in a focused campaign to make it happen. They knew that their success was dependent on their ability to move things forward. Without their practical skills of pragmatic leadership, their dreams would have never got off the ground and changed the lives of millions.
Build a Coalition
If you’re a lone ranger—that is, if you’re one of those individuals who prefer to rely solely on your own skills, knowledge, and intelligence—you lose out on vitally important resources: the skills, knowledge, and intelligence of others. To succeed, you need to harness what others have to offer. This means you need to campaign to get others in your corner, and keep them there. Your goal is to build collective support.
Even leaders in powerful positions forget this important lesson. Take Woodrow Wilson, the 28th president of the United States (1913-1921). Clearly he had leadership ability and was a visionary of the first order—but he wasn’t always successful—especially during his tenure as president of Princeton University. In 1902, Francis L. Patton retired as president of Princeton University, arguably the most elite American university of that era. The board of trustees turned to a young political scientist, Thomas Woodrow Wilson, to take over. Wilson was a popular choice and had many innovative ideas on how to make the university better in both the academic and social spheres. He successfully implemented several educational reforms, created new academic departments, directed the undergraduate study program, and developed the widely acclaimed preceptorial system, whereby students become more actively engaged in their studies by regular meetings with professors. Yet some of Wilson’s most ambitious ideas fell apart and ultimately derailed his presidency because he neglected to anticipate the resistance his ideas would face. He failed to realize that good ideas aren’t enough.
Wilson wanted to weaken the popular, elitist eating clubs and create a more egalitarian campus. He felt that abolishing these dining cliques would create a more academic, scholarly climate. While promising the Princeton community greater academic cohesion and social equality, the idea didn’t wash with M. Taylor Pyne, an alumni and wealthy trustee of the university. Pyne loathed the idea of abolishing Princeton’s exclusive eating clubs and threatened to withdraw his financial support to the school. (Arthur Padilla, Portraits in Leadership, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005, 3).
While Wilson rested on the strength and moral superiority of his ideas, Pyne got to work. His first order of business was befriending Andrew West of the graduate school. West was a known critic of Wilson, and was bristling at the president’s plan to build the new graduate school near the undergraduate campus. While Wilson dreamed of the incubation and cross-fertilization of ideas that would take place if both the undergraduate and graduate schools were located more closely, West saw the schools’ close proximity as a calamity. He wanted peace, quiet, and seclusion and didn’t want to be forced to rub shoulders with a young, restless student body.
Between them, Pyne and West had much to grumble about and a lot of political clout. The controversy divided the trustees and faculty into two factions: one that agreed with Wilson and one that opposed to his radical ideas. Ultimately, the university had no choice but to go with Pyne’s money and West’s appeals over Wilson’s ideals. Wilson was compelled to resign. His groundbreaking ideas, in isolation, were not enough to carry the day. Wilson failed to anticipate how his innovative ideas would be received by key stakeholders at the university. Wilson’s principal aim was to change the culture of the university, but he failed to recognize the broader ramifications of his plan. In the end, he was stymied by a determined and organized opposition.
As president of the United States, Wilson once again came up with a pioneering idea. In 1919, he presented to the American public his famed Fourteen Points, which introduced the notion of a League of Nations, an international body intended to prevent another world war. By all measures, the proposed League was a good idea, but Wilson failed to get his own country on board. The League eventually dissolved not for lack of noble purpose, but because Wilson was unable to move an agenda. Wilson faltered in choosing his audience and articulating his message. He failed to be pragmatic. He did not internalize the primary lesson of the agenda mover: get those whom you need on your side and keep them there.
As an agenda mover you understand that decisions can be imperfect. However diligent and methodical you may be, you’re going to have some blind spots. Agenda movers acknowledge that their decision-making is bounded, constrained by their ability, their knowledge, and their available resources. Further, they know that they see the world from their own perspective. Agenda movers are aware that their self-interest, emotions, cognitive capacity, and background can trip them up if they are not careful, and that being smart is not a guarantor of success. Regardless of how detailed the PowerPoint presentation, in a world of perpetual uncertainty, no plan is ever going to be perfect. Being aware of their own limitations, and of the uncertainty around them, and appreciating the vulnerability of any decision, especially those involving innovation and change, pragmatic leaders focus on building collective support. Building a coalition gives you an opportunity to exchange ideas with others and to fine-tune your plan, both initially and as you go forward. Having a coalition also lends legitimacy t0 your agenda. The more people on your side, the more legitimate your agenda will appear to others. Having a coalition enhances your capacity to meet challenges from your opponents, and to stand up against detractors and critics. It is harder to derail an agenda that has a firm foundation of collective support.
Consider the coalition formed by eight states, including California, New York, and Massachusetts to join forces to promote the sale and use of electric cars. The coalition members have agreed to install more electric charging stations, offer tax incentives for electric car users, and set targets for having more zero emission vehicles on their roads. By partnering together, the coalition represents 23 percent of the U.S. auto market and intends to overcome the barriers that have thus far impeded the growth of electric cars.
The coalition is not only providing a forum for its member states to exchange ideas about the best technology available, but is also communicating the importance of the issue to other stakeholders. Although time will tell if the eight governors will keep their coalition intact, a similar coalition was formed in the early 1990’s in an effort to enact more restrictive emission limits, which was a success in its own right and was later mirrored by the federal government.
When you are moving change, when you are driving innovation, when you are rolling out a new program, you are leading campaign for support. You cannot assume that the grandeur of your insight or the grace of your personality will gain you that support. If you want others to rally around your ideas, you must involve yourself in the nitty-gritty of a campaign. How you go about leading the campaign to gain the necessary support will determine whether you are a leader who can move agendas, or simply a dreamer.
To lead this campaign for innovation and change, you need to develop the core competencies of pragmatic leadership. You need the political skills required to build a coalition, and the managerial skills required to sustain forward movement.
An agenda mover understands that there are six stages in any campaign. First, you must anticipate resistance. Not every good idea will be welcomed with open arms. In fact, any idea threatens the status quo, and pragmatic leaders need to consider how people will receive their initiative. Second, an agenda mover evaluates their reaction. It is a flat-out rejection? Is it a reflexive no? Is it a “we’ll think about that later” —which could sway to yes or could lean toward no? It is receptive? Third, an agenda mover gets the buy-in. They have to find a common language to make sure that everyone is on the same page. The agenda mover has to make sure that not only their idea has credibility, but that they have the credibility to lead. Fourth, the agenda mover justifies their idea in such a way that it improves the changes of falling on receptive ears. Fifth, the agenda mover maps the political terrain. They figure who is more likely to align with them and who might be more inclined to resist. Lastly, the agenda mover establishes a collaborative coalition to put the idea in place. With a coalition of support in place, the agenda mover can get the idea off the ground and moving ahead.
©BLG
