Such do not sink
Have any of you watched the Silicon Valley TV series on HBO? Yes, the one where the desperate gang of inglorious geeks, namely: a fat man with a royal posture and conceit, a stern skeptical Satanist, a Pakistani rag and a little backward guy named “Baska” - led by the most sociopathic of all, but the brilliant Richard from the series to the series is trying to make a revolution in the technological sphere, but over and over again they find themselves in such trouble, which is enough for the next season. Even if you didn’t watch it, you probably already understood that there are no bright characters for the series. One of them stands out especially - for its amazing plausibility (with all the comedy of the series).
Gavin Belson is the head of a large technology company, a billionaire, a philanthropist and a great speaker. But behind the beautiful speeches there is a nervous, capricious and authoritarian narcissus, who with sadistic pleasure “walks over the heads” and spends money on dubious enterprises. He does not tolerate criticism, and trusts only his coaching scam, which “feeds” his patient with pseudo-eastern methods of enlightenment. In general, Mr. Belson is an asshole in everything he does, down to the smallest detail and brain. As the head of the company, Gavin is also so-so: yes, his “Hooli” brings a huge profit, but it happens rather by inertia, thanks to good marketing and the methods by which the company cracks down on competitors. Gavin stifles creative ideas at the root, has neither technical competence, nor emotional intelligence, but remains “unsinkable” - even when investors kicked him out of the company, after some time he convinced them to return him to the chair of “Hooli”.
Do you know what is most interesting about this character? His believability. Such directors, who even spit in the eyes - all of God's dew, really exist. Recall at least Travis Kalanik, the former head of Uber: after a series of scandals involving both his personality and the company's activities in general, he had to leave his post - however, even extensive coverage of all the scandals accompanying this did not prevent him from finding a
new job . and
make money by selling your Uber stock.
In fact, there are more such “kalanik” and “belsons” than we think. I heard the details of this story from several employees of a major European company - a leader in its field. I do not pursue the goal of making a loud exposure of a particular person, it is more interesting for me to learn some lessons from this story, and therefore I will not name names and names, and I will not hint at the scope of the company’s activities.
"Jeff Bezos wanted to come to my interview, but could not"
He was taken to the position of director of concern digitalization. In fact, he headed the so-called “innovation laboratory” at the concern - that is, a startup inside a large company. He himself said that, in fact, he was offered the position of head of one of the European divisions of Amazon, and Jeff Bezos himself (the head of Amazon and
currently the richest person in the world and history) was supposed to come to his interview, but reasons could not. However, the American giant allegedly became less interested in our Mr. Director than this European company: yes, it is smaller, but it has great potential. The director’s goal was not just to digitize the company, but to create a whole digital platform ... no, a whole ecosystem in its own sphere, to which other companies could be connected! On this score, Mr. Director had his own presentation, which he ordered to one agency, and which he showed to his team several times. Employees were inspired - he knew how to talk about a bright future, and with his stories he was able to infect even the concern elders, who were talking about digital technologies in the spirit of “these are your internet”. About Mr. Director began to whisper to say: "Wi-zi-o-ner!".
Ecosystem ecosystem, but the concern had an old website. Even several sites - each unit (which had three or four) had its own. To begin with, it was necessary to create a single website for everyone, which would be modern (in the future, Mr. Director wanted to introduce modules with virtual reality into it) and beautiful. If the department had coped with its task, then one could also think of digitizing companies' processes, searching for strategies to monetize data and about this very ecosystem.
But something went wrong. Fuse employees began to disappear. The team after some months, mired in gossip and doing nothing. One employee said that the boss insulted her and her mother, and the other, who had already worked for the company for a couple of years and suddenly quit shortly after her team passed into submission to Mr. Director, hinted at harassment from the boss when leaving (there is no evidence) . After some time, the employees began to quit en masse, and they became seriously interested in the production council (the body protecting the interests of the company’s employees), whose members were suspicious of Mr. Director, as were many heads of other departments.
Well, you say, but a hard management style is typical of many managers. Gossip people in any team much. It’s bad, of course, that he pestered a woman, but even that, you might think, already, unfortunately, has long been no surprise to anyone, and indeed it may turn out to be an invention on the wave of high-profile revelations of the last year. What other leaders disliked him was a sign of normal competition for a large enterprise. It is quite possible that the leadership of the concern, having learned about all this, would have considered the same and would close its eyes to complaints. On one condition: if Mr. Director showed good results of his work. But being late with all possible deadlines for updating the site, he actually signed the verdict for himself.
He was fired a couple of months ago.
Management style "asshole" - why?
Before we examine this story in detail and try to draw any conclusions, let us first try to understand why leaders in general choose such a management style: tough, boorish, authoritarian.
I think this is a legacy of past decades. This is the image of the boss, which we know from films and books. The head of the old school sample is he: self-confident, demanding obedience, the one who said “as cut off.” And despite the fact that this management style is already outdated by 30 years, it turned out to be surprisingly tenacious.
One of the columnists of the business newspaper Vedomosti has compiled a catalog of types of bad bosses - only 9 of them. Under the type of "asshole", which I consider in this column, more or less would fit three types: "
King ", "
Sadist " and "
G ... but Unsinkable ." The Harvard Business Review conducts its
classification of types of managers according to how they keep themselves with subordinates; the type we are considering rather likes to be “surrounded by admirers” and to be “casual acquaintances” (that is, to keep a great distance) with employees: “
They are practically inaccessible for people, keep detached, arrogant, occasionally — if they really need to — they talk to employees neutral business tone. Often absent in the workplace, disappearing in higher instances. "
Honestly, I do not see much point in explaining why these behaviors are unproductive in our time, and even more so in the advanced IT field. But I must say that the image of the asshole may have its advantages - they just need to be able to use them. And a “game theory”, or “a
mathematical method for studying optimal strategies in games, ” could help us understand the model in question. Game theory is the science of which behavior of a “player,” or simply a participant in an interaction (conflict) between two or more parties, would be optimal from an economic point of view. That is, we always have a certain conflict in which each participant tries to achieve the most advantageous scenario for himself (or “Nash equilibrium” by the name of the founder of this discipline). At the same time, the course of each player somewhat changes the layout of the game, and as a result it is not always possible to speak of an absolute gain. I am not an expert in game theory, and I do not have the proper competence in this matter, and therefore I can only share some of the information that I learned in preparation for one report.
I suppose that several concepts from the game theory could help with the analysis of the behavioral type “asshole”. But when I was working on a performance, I was most impressed by the concept of “strategic moves”. Strategic moves are certain actions that change the alignment in such a way that the player who committed these actions remains in a more advantageous situation. Usually, strategic moves are illustrated by a classic example: the game Chicken game, which was common in the middle of the last century, was that two people rushed towards each other in cars, and the one who “didn’t lose” would lose the first. Dangerous game. Both players understand this. Players in such a situation can simply go towards each other - and come what may! And they can try to make a strategic move. For example, as suggested by the authors of the book "
Game Theory. The Art of Strategic Thinking in Business and Life " Avinash Dixit and Barry Nelbaff, a certain player A could, while riding, unscrew the steering wheel and stick it out of the car window, thereby letting the opponent know what to turn off can not purely physically. And thus come close to the dangerous "balancing on the edge." But before this fight could have created a reputation of such a person “who doesn’t fold”.
Chicken game. Source ofYou can't just create the necessary image - it needs authenticity. That is, even before the fight, you had to say or do things that would make others around you to make sure that you fit your behavior pattern.
They like to show game theory with examples from history and politics, so let's try to explain recent events around, say, the North Korean nuclear program from the perspective of the concept of strategic moves: at some point in the United States, a rumor appeared in the United States that in the presidential administration "are working on", to put it in political jargon, a possible blow to the DPRK. These rumors were accompanied by regular military exercises of the United States and South Korea near the Korean Peninsula. It is possible that the strike was not seriously planned, and the rumor was intentionally started. But it is quite possible that the leaders of the DPRK believed that the new president of the United States was ready to take such a step, in view of its established reputation.
If you want to get acquainted with the theory of games (and I personally recommend to do it; do not expect, of course, that you immediately reach enlightenment and understand everything, but as one of the analysis tools this is a useful thing), then there are many interesting resources on the Internet. topic. Why did I tell all this: the "asshole" behavior model can do a good service for achieving its own goals. It is possible that some managers, including Mr. Director, tried to earn a reputation for themselves, and worked carefully on authenticity. But he obviously made some unforgivable mistakes and ethically unacceptable things. There is an opinion that a startup team should be in terms of team spirit like a pirate gang, and it seems to me that some managers still imagine themselves to be real pirates.
What should not be done by the head
So, let's make a list of things that can not be done by the manager, whether it be a startup manager, a group director or a football team coach.
1. Demonstrate disrespect for subordinates
It sounds trite, but many, alas, have not yet understood this simple truth. If a subordinate does not work well, he can always be told about it without becoming personal. Moreover, the director did not hesitate to tell one employee that he does not tolerate her "either professionally or personally." And another said that her mother gave birth to her in vain. This, of course, does not climb into any gate.
2. Do not seek to have allies
Mr. Director, his actions made more and more enemies. Employees of the concern, with whom I spoke, believe that the matter may be in personal dislike for him on the part of the heads of other departments and the head of the production council. And apparently, Mr. Director sought to build good relations with the higher management, but not with those people who were on the same level with him - and it was in vain. The history knows many examples when leaders got out of the most difficult circumstances due to good personal horizontal connections. For example, Sergei Korolev, a sick and exhausted man, pulled out the equally famous designer Tupolev from the gold mine of the Gulag gold mine, having managed to justify it before the top leadership of the USSR (a matter of what seemed impossible). I remembered another example, historically and geographically more distant: the Florentine banker Cosimo Medici (15th century), who is called "the godfather of the Italian Renaissance": when another influential Florentine family organized a conspiracy against Cosimo, he was saved by friendship with warlords from others cities, loyalty of supporters of his family and the love of the townspeople, to which he treated anxiously and with attention.
3. Do not feel the situation
Mr. Director clearly lacked emotional intelligence - he did not feel the mood of his subordinates. Even when the production council took up the case, and Mr. Director found out that his employees were “digging” at him, he did not try to take the situation into his own hands and appear before his subordinates in a different light - he just went to leadership training, as if for a tick ".
4. To spoil the "chemistry" of the team
Mr. Director was one of those who could tell an employee today what would make him a project manager, and tomorrow make him another employee who held a similar position. When they came to him for the promised salary increase, he raised it by one percent, with the words that this is the maximum that an employee can find in the whole city. He had his favorites, whom he trusted, and simply avoided all contacts with others. When people began to leave the team, he explained each new departure, right up to the fifth or sixth one, with the same words: “did not grow together”, and then simply forbade discussing this topic. Absolute opacity, which completely killed the mood in the team.
5. Being an asshole and not showing the result
Perhaps Mr. Director would have gotten away with it. But he showed no results. He set himself the task of building a cool ecosystem, but even four months after the deadline for the completion of the project, the new website was not yet ready. The manual also likes to see tangible rewards. Many geniuses and visionaries had a bad temper - Einstein first comes to mind. Sergei Korolev was also forgiven a lot: and the fact that he “demanded” a lot (people, premises, financing) in a country where it’s dangerous to demand, and that he didn’t let his engineers report to his superiors, and he didn’t reveal much to the leadership of the country details of their work. But everyone knew that he was the only person capable of making the USSR a space power, and closed his eyes on his "antics".
Having made all these mistakes, Mr. Director actually created for himself all the conditions for an inglorious end to a career in the concern. However, as we know, the Belsons are not so easy to go to the bottom - so, it would be interesting to follow his further path.