Categories
BLG Leadership Insights Leadership Videos

Alfred Hitchcock’s Leadership Style [Video]

Alfred Hitchcock, director of over 60 films, said, “When an actor comes to me and wants to discuss his character, I say, ‘It’s in the script.’ If he says, ‘But what’s my motivation?, I say, ‘Your salary.’”

His no-nonsense leadership style, while not endearing to actors, propelled Hitchcock from his position as an assistant director in an English studio to one of the biggest names in Hollywood in fewer than five years.

Hitchcock was born in England, the son of a greengrocer, and got his start in the film business by drawing sets and title cards. He quickly and passionately absorbed the processes involved in making films and started to write scripts for practice.

His dedication paid off and he was eventually allowed to direct his own full-length movies in England. His success brought him to Hollywood where he searched for bigger and better opportunities.

The rest is history. Hitchcock became a household name, synonymous with murder, intrigue, and espionage.

On the set Hitchcock was a notoriously low-key, hands-off leader who expected his crew and actors to do the job they were responsible for. According to one anecdote Doris Day eventually approached Hitchcock on the set of the The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) and wondered if she was doing a good job. He said he didn’t think she was doing a bad job and that was the end of it. He wasn’t prone to emotional flare-ups or tense dramatic moments. He simply wanted to get the job done.

In a more dramatic incident, Hitchcock called actors “cattle,” but later recanted his original statement and said, “My actor friends know I would never be capable of such a thoughtless, rude and unfeeling remark, that I would never call them cattle . . . What I probably said was that actors should be treated like cattle.”

Hitchcock believed in an authoritarian system that required his actors and crew to be autonomous while being responsive to commands.

Before Hitchcock set about making any film he would have most components planned before he began shooting. He was detail orientated, had no room for improvisations, and didn’t have kind feelings for ideas outside the boundaries he set. Each film was mapped out and rarely subjected to tinkering after it had been finalized.

Hitchcock blended a highly organized authoritative leadership structure with his laid-back, everyone-can-do-their-jobs attitude. His peculiar mix of leadership styles worked and it created tight story lines, fostered consistent productivity, and earned numerous industry accolades while letting the people he worked with flourish naturally.

Hitchcock was a champion of common sense (he once said, “The length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder”) and a creative powerhouse. His ability to get things done while still being able to express himself consistently was a true skill and one that informs his dichotomous leadership style. A leadership method that combined practicality with a sharp focus on individual imagination and ingenuity.

Picture Credit: Moneysox

Categories
BLG Leadership Insights Features

Book Review: Leading Outside the Lines

There’s always a thin line between books that have mass appeal and those that are considered serious in their academic insight. It takes a unique voice to walk along the thin border between trivia and irrelevance. Those authors that can walk this line and find this sweet spot are few and far between. In my opinion they include, among others, such writers as Edgar Schein, Peter Senge, and Jon R. Katzenbach.

Katzenbach’s work stands out because it has the ability to operate in the world of what academics call, “the mesa level,” that combines individual psychology with organizational structure. More specifically, it explores the social psychology of teams and groups. In his recent work, Leading Outside the Lines, written with Zia Kahn, Katzenbach continues this tradition of examining the meso level with good writing and sharp academic insight.

Organizational writers can roughly be separated into two groups. One group adopts the position that organizations should be structured and formal in order to become optimally productive. The other group declares that formalism kills creativity, random-interaction, and off-the-cuff action. They feel that organizations should be informal in order to boost performance. In Leading Outside the Lines Katzenbach and Kahn take a different stance. They argue that an organization should adapt both formal and informal strategies to get the best results.

Walk into Home Depot with a question and chances are you’re going to leave with an answer. It’s the “Home Depot Way” and it is what made Home Depot the most “successful building materials chain in history.” The Home Depot Way is an outcrop of what Katzenbach and Kahn believe to be the right mix of both formal and informal organizational design. Workers were given a formal structure to work within, but were encouraged to draw on their own experiences and knowledge to help customers. They were told to problem solve and help, not sell and worry about targets. The atmosphere created a dedicated, highly-social, team of home repair experts. Staffers relished the opportunity to solve problems autonomously while working within a formalized retail structure. It’s a nice example of how formal and informal strategies can motivate people to do a good job.

Balancing formal and informal methods isn’t always easy and isn’t always the obvious solution. Katzenbach and Kahn know that leaders need to push change at both the individual and organizational level and oftentimes the path isn’t clear. Leaders frequently have to ask themselves if they should stress formal or informal policies. They know that their decision could be the difference between failure and success. It’s not a simple call.

Katzenbach and Kahn offer real strategies, exercises, and compelling case-studies to help leader’s best resolve the formal-informal question. They push for autonomy while stressing peer-to-peer review and formal discussions. They embrace the problem solving abilities of informal organizational cultures and propose guidelines that can keep everyone on course. They welcome formal orders if they are leveraged with informal networks and get people talking organically.

It would have been interesting of Katzenbach and Kahn looked more at social media and its role in creating formal and informal organizational networks. In a world where many organizations are developing their own social media bases, it would be relevant to look into ways leaders can motivate performance and get things accomplished in a famously informal framework. Still, leaders who work with these problems can still learn a lot form Katzenbach and Kahn.

If you’re interested in learning the concrete steps you need to take in order to create a mixed organizational culture Katzenbach and Kahn won’t let you down. Their compelling thesis is presented clearly and backed up with illuminating case studies, stories, and interviews. It needs to be read by leaders who are endeavoring to adapt their organizations to new, ever-changing, realities.

Picture Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/23072179@N00/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Categories
BLG Leadership Insights Features

The Pivot Point: Don’t Drop The Ball

President Obama and the democrats are facing a fundamental leadership challenge: the challenge of not dropping the ball.

Leadership requires two fundamental skills: the ability to mobilize people and the ability to go the distance. All too often, leaders have a capacity to get people on their side, to rally them around an idea, but lose momentum by forgetting to focus on those key managerial activities that must be sustained to go the distance. Most importantly, these slippages come when leaders fail to realize that while they need not be constantly hands-on, they still have to make sure that they’re involved.

Here’s why leaders drop the ball:

1. They allow too much autonomy: Often leaders give others too much autonomy and walk away from the day-to-day execution. “Do it and come back and tell me when it’s done” is not a mindset that assures sustainability or definite implementation. Leaders must find a way of giving autonomy but defining parameters.

2. They talk things to death: Often too much time is spent processing. It’s one thing to have dialogue, it’s one thing to have numerous discussions. It’s quite another to over-engage and over-analyze. The danger is dropping the ball by processing things to death.

3. They overreact: Often leaders overreact to any situation that doesn’t go exactly as they had hoped. Creating change and putting things in place demands making adjustments. Making adjustments doesn’t mean throwing out the baby with the bath water. It doesn’t mean overreacting.

4. They lose focus on the coalition: Often leaders forget the very coalition mindset, the sense of collective that got people to rally around their ideas, and thus let the coalition mindset slip away. To go the distance, leaders must make sure that the collective doesn’t dissipate.

Often inexperienced leaders spend much of their time making sure that others have rallied around their cause. Those that learn quickly and those that succeed understand that getting people on their side is one thing, but keeping them there is another.

Picture Source: Flickr Commons