Leaders as Chief Destroyers
17 Jan
I’ve had this feeling for awhile that Starbucks is losing their mojo. So imagine my surprise when I came across this post by business guru Tom Peters, voicing similar concerns. Apparently, Starbucks stock has been tanking and founder Howard Schultz has fired CEO Jim Donald and re-taken control of the floundering giant.
Peter’s writes, “Simple, as I see it. There is an Enemy of inestimable power—moreover, power growing by the day. Incidentally, the same Remorseless Enemy that brought McDonald’s to the brink a decade ago. Namely, itself-themselves. I “like,” in a fashion, “the Starbucks case.” The company does not have an external enemy worth talking about, or to blame the decline on. And its stock is surging South. Ergo, its enemy must, necessarily, be Starbucks. And if a company that is unchallenged in conventional terms is in a pickle, that bodes poorly for all of us. In fact, it’s downright scary.”
This has gotten me to thinking about organizations and those people at the top responsible for it all: leaders. What can we do in the face of such horror? The whole “being our own worst enemy” is a bit cliche. Yet so stunningly true that we can’t ignore it.
Which is why I believe that a leader’s title should be “chief destroyer.”
Every day in our organization people are making decisions. This isn’t wrong. In fact, all of them make sense at the time and seem innocent enough.
However, over time, almost imperceptibly, all those decisions start adding up and things start getting weird and bogged down. The “vibe” at the office just isn’t the same. New ideas start getting shot down. Things start taking longer. People who fall in line are rewarded, while those who stir things up, are canned. Security is in, and risk taking is out.
The organization is no longer this entrepreneurial, lean, quick striking, gorilla warfare type unit… it’s more like Jabba the Hutt.
This is when the leader must get his/her “destroy” on: chopping and hacking left and right, asking the hard questions and then taking alarming risks.
Granted, some may say “This all seems a bit over the top.”
However, I would argue that in this crazy/hyper paced world, where you can be “in” one second and “out” the next, it may actually be the most “sane” thing you can do.
Also, if your organization is going to die, why not go out in a blaze of controversy and courage. As opposed to a 5 year slow, painful, wheezing death by mediocrity and the status quo.
Organizations and compaines that hang around a long time are the ones with the courage to say “This just isn’t working anymore” and set out to find out what does. It does take a “Chief Destroyer” – someone willing to take the risk to to move against the status quo. The ones that are truly successful start asking the “what’s next” questions even before the problems arise. It takes real courage and insight to shake things up when to everyone’s perception, “..but it’s working.”
What a powerful article and so true also. We need more leaders to become Chief Destroyers
Wow, Brett I think you are tapping into a very basic fear that grips many men: leaving the comfort zone of what is working. Especially in this day and age, the average person is seeking that “formula” which will take them to the top; and like any good scientist, once the formula is found, usually through much pain and risk, you stick with it until the bitter end! It’s a beautiful principle that this world, made up of people = thoughts and perceptions, is continuously morphing. Ultimately rendering specific formulas useful, and yet revealing their limited nature. “Chief Destroyer” – I love it!
There’s this legal theory called “TRASHING”, which carried to its end, cans all thoughts including those that are good. Although this “ism” like most is destructive by it’s nature, it seems such a mindset, approached a bit more conservatively, is the key to true success for individuals and corporations alike.
Hey B, good post. I would say that if a company such as Starbucks did nothing but take risks they would have never made it as big as they have become. In the Corps and in the DOD we have this thing called ORM “operational Risk Managment” now basically what you are doing is taking the risk and weighing it against the reward. IF the reward is great enough or a must then you take the risk, if little or no reward is available, you pull out and live to fight another day. I say all this to say, you must have a balance between the risks you take and the safe choices you take. The greatest leaders in the world have all been those that had balance. Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, probably one of the greatest tactitions of all time, was often out manned and out gunned in northern Africa during the great war. But his ability to correctly choose to run or fight is exactly what made him as successful as he was.
Great point and great “seeing beneath the surface”…..once again, I’m going to give my opinion based on experience…..I have owned three companies…..two failures, one success. The previous failures can be summed up as my seeing myself as the leader, and doing all I could to fulfill that role. The success was simpler…..I became a steward to my people, insuring that they had the tools to be successful. Jesus said, “to be first, you must be last”, or “to be greatest, you much be the least”…..I took it to heart, and became a servant to my employees. I provide direction and stability, as determined by their needs, in conjunction with my company’s purpose. I discipline only when necessary, and care nothing about image. I exist to serve those that serve our customers. By doing so, I kill the monster that most employers have inside them, which is “I have to show that I am the boss” attitude. I couldnt care less about that. I guide by His wisdom, and lead by example. Each failure I experience can be traced to me going outside those lines.