Mgmt623 GDB No. 1 solution

Total Marks

2

Starting Date

Monday, November 08, 2010

Closing Date

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

A president of a company said, "Sometimes a less than top IQ is an advantage because that leader doesn't see all the problems and gets on and gets it solved. But the extremely bright leader can see so many problems that he or she never gets around to solving any of them"

Give your opinion about the comment mentioned above.

.............

Helping Material for GDB-1_MGMT623_Fall 2010 

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." Albert Einstein 

There are so many examples that debunk this theory that it is hard to pick just a few. Raw intelligence is not correlated with outstanding leadership characteristics. In fact, if you drew a correlation line showing IQ on one axis and success as a leader on the other, it would not be a straight line. There is a maximum point beyond which higher IQ is actually a predictor of lower success as a leader. 

When you stop and think, the curve in Figure 1 above makes intuitive sense. At very low levels of intelligence, an individual does not have the capacity to lead others. He may be a good shipmate, but he does not have the capability to be the captain. This is because the ability to develop strategy based on external conditions is not well developed. People will not follow a leader whose visions are significantly flawed or are only vague dreams. Once a reasonable level of intelligence is present, other factors become more relevant to the level of a leader's success. However, at very high levels of intelligence, you can find leaders that are so smart they have a difficult time relating to their followers. They know the theory of sailing in minute detail, but lack the gut level ability to communicate it well to the sailors. Genius level leaders often struggle and are frustrated with the pace and level of understanding in others. This tension is evident to followers who become leery of the leader's vision and connectivity. It is the unfortunate plight of many ambitious MBA students. Once they get out into the world and get a leadership position, they are free to stun the world with their brilliant knowledge. For many of these super-intelligent students, there is a rude awakening when they find themselves leading but look around to find nobody behind them. 

The work of Daniel Goleman in developing his Emotional Intelligence theory showed that while IQ did not correlate well with leadership effectiveness, EI (Emotional Intelligence) showed a continuous positive correlation with effectiveness.1 If we look at the correlation between EI and success, it shows a different path. 

This correlation is linear because the ingredients in Emotional Intelligence create a stronger ability to lead with increasing levels. Goleman identified the parts of emotional intelligence as: 

Self Awareness 

Emotional self awareness 

Accurate self assessment 

Self confidence 

Self Management 

Self control 

Trustworthiness 

Conscientiousness 

Adaptability 

Achievement orientation 

Initiative 

Social Awareness 

Empathy 

Organizational awareness 

Service orientation 

Social Skill 

Visionary Leadership 

Influence 

Developing others 

Communications 

Change catalyst 

Conflict management 

Building bonds 

Teamwork and collaboration 

The notion that one must be highly intelligent to lead effectively is a myth. There are numerous examples that identify highly effective leaders who were only average or lower in intelligence. 

Lou Holtz has been called one of the best motivators and leaders in the history of sports. In his famous videotape Do Right2 he admits in his typical humorous style that he was very low on the intelligence scale. First he revealed that when he graduated from High School he ranked 234 out of a class of 278. 

He said, "That didn't bother me, but it did upset me when the principal said it was a rather ****** class overall." 

He recalls the guidance counselor asking him if he was going to work in the foundry or the steel mill. He told her he was going to go to Kent State University. She shot back that he didn't have the academic ability to succeed and predicted he would flunk out. 

He said, "You don't think I'm very smart do you?" 

Her response was imprinted on his mind for the rest of his life. She said, "Lou Holtz, a lot of people don't know what's going on, but you don't even suspect anything's going on." 

With less than average intelligence, he was able to rack up a winning record before retiring that would make any leader proud. He took over six college teams in his career: The College of William & Mary, North Carolina, Minnesota, Arkansas, Notre Dame, and South Carolina. He never inherited a team with a winning record. He never failed to take that team to a bowl game by the second year at the latest. It was not intelligence that brought about the change; it was the other ingredients in leadership. His philosophy of leadership was disarmingly simple. It had only three rules: 

1. Do what is right 

2. Do the best you can 

3. Treat others as you would like to be treated 

Doing right things and avoiding wrong things enhances one's self-image. This is the most basic rule for behaving in an ethical manner. Ethical leadership can be boiled down to two words: Do Right. 

Doing the best you can simply means not settling for less than the best a person is capable of doing, and that includes the leader as well. If a leader does the best he or she can and demands that much from everyone else, it really covers the motivational aspects of the job. 

Lou's final rule is simply the Golden Rule. If we hold others with the same esteem we hold ourselves, then they will recognize that and respond in kind. Imagine a world where a leader actually followed the Golden Rule at all times. Nearly all of the problems with low morale and dissatisfaction would vanish. 

I actually have trouble with the Golden Rule if we take it literally. The conundrum is that other people might not want me to treat them like I would like to be treated. That sounds convoluted, but it is basically sound. Imagine I am a kind of person who loves to churn out work. I like to get up very early in the morning and get 4 hours of work done before most people get out of bed. I heap work on myself because getting things accomplished makes me feel fulfilled. If I dump piles of work on top of other people because that's how I would like to be treated, they are not going to be pleased. 

We could modify the Golden Rule to read "Treat others like they would like to be treated," but that doesn't work either. Imagine trying to follow that rule in the real world. A leader would instantly go broke by giving workers huge sums of money, lots of vacation time, and cushy offices. No, you can't always treat people they way they want to be treated. So, how do we work with Lou Holtz's third rule? It's simple: Treat people the right way. Of course, we now have to define what that means. Much of this book deals with how to treat people the right way. 

Most of my students start out thinking it is best to treat everyone the same. That is clearly defensible from a discrimination standpoint, but is this the best policy? I think not. Here we run into a major problem. Some sailors really enjoy manning Crow's Nest and scanning the water for hazards. For them it is a special treat and an honor. Others can become deathly sick due to the extreme movement and the height. The first thing to recognize is that treating people right does not mean treating everyone the same way. 

As long as we focus on the intent of Lou Holtz's three points, they make a great philosophy of leadership. It has worked for him over several decades, and it can work for you if you choose to follow his specific formula. Regardless, Lou's rules demonstrate how a simple and logical set of rules can streamline the complex business of leadership and make it possible for the masses to access the "magic." The complexity of day-to-day leadership decisions can always be boiled into these three behaviors, so the formula can deal with complexity even though it is simple. You do not need to be brilliant to be a good leader. Leadership need not be difficult or complex to be effective. This theme will be repeated numerous times in this book. 

Another example relating to intelligence is John Chambers, CEO of Cisco. John has been hailed as the best boss in America. People who have been lucky enough to work at Cisco have had the pleasure of riding a modern corporate 

success to personal wealth. In an interview with Diane Sawyer for ABC's 20/20, John admits that he nearly flunked out of grade school because he couldn't keep up with the work.3 He had dyslexia and was slower than other students to comprehend the assignments. Most people considered him the dunce of the class, yet John went on to become a billionaire and one of the most successful corporate leaders of our time. I love how he puts the issue of leadership into simple terms during his interview: 

I basically take things as they are. Life is not very complex. I am just impatient about my vision. -John Chambers 

Note the disarming simplicity of this philosophy. Of course the philosophy is only the start. John translates his passion into the hearts and minds of his employees through countless actions and rules for himself and his key leaders that he follows religiously. John understands the value of consistency and is expert at reinforcing candor. Once he gets on a theme about his own behaviors, he never, ever, waivers from that path. Whether it means sitting in a cubicle rather than a plush office or flying coach, he models his values for all to see every day. He also models exceptional transparency on a daily basis with all his stakeholders. 

On the other side of the scale is Bill Clinton. As a 1968 Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University and graduate of Yale Law School, he demonstrated his incredible intelligence.4 Many people see him as a great leader. However, he certainly did not carve out the leadership moral high ground for our nation when he publicly forgot the meaning of the word "is" and became only the second president in the history of our nation to be impeached. His leadership could be put into question, not because of his IQ, but because he was arrogant enough to believe he could trick the American people into believing a lie. He might have even pulled it off, if it were not for the stain on a particular blue dress. The tragedy is that even when he was caught in the lie, he continued to deny it publicly and attempted to excuse the whole mess as just a temporary lapse in judgment. He modeled the opposite of candor and transparency. The Congress and the American people would not buy it. 

So the first myth, that good leadership means being highly intelligent does not seem to hold in many cases. Of course, people of extremely low intelligence do not make good leaders because they don't have the capacity. Beyond that, we should not try to paint a strong correlation between exceptional leadership and level of intelligence. A reasonably strong mind is all that is required for greatness.