Kramer Roderick M
Stanford Graduate School of Buisness, California, USA.
Harv Bus Rev. 2006 Feb;84(2):88-96, 164.
After Disney's Michael Eisner, Miramax's Harvey Weinstein, and Hewlett-Packard's Carly Fiorina fell from their heights of power, the business media quickly proclaimed thatthe reign of abrasive, intimidating leaders was over. However, it's premature to proclaim their extinction. Many great intimidators have done fine for a long time and continue to thrive. Their modus operandi runs counter to a lot of preconceptions about what it takes to be a good leader. They're rough, loud, and in your face. Their tactics include invading others' personal space, staging tantrums, keeping people guessing, and possessing an indisputable command of facts. But make no mistake--great intimidators are not your typical bullies. They're driven by vision, not by sheer ego or malice. Beneath their tough exteriors and sharp edges are some genuine, deep insights into human motivation and organizational behavior. Indeed, these leaders possess political intelligence, which can make the difference between paralysis and successful--if sometimes wrenching--organizational change. Like socially intelligent leaders, politically intelligent leaders are adept at sizing up others, but they notice different things. Those with social intelligence assess people's strengths and figure out how to leverage them; those with political intelligence exploit people's weaknesses and insecurities. Despite all the obvious drawbacks of working under them, great intimidators often attract the best and brightest. And their appeal goes beyond their ability to inspire high performance. Many accomplished professionals who gravitate toward these leaders want to cultivate a little "inner intimidator" of their own. In the author's research, quite a few individuals reported having positive relationships with intimidating leaders. In fact, some described these relationships as profoundly educational and even transformational. So before we throw out all the great intimidators, the author argues, we should stop to consider what we would lose.
在迪士尼的迈克尔·艾斯纳、米拉麦克斯的哈维·韦恩斯坦以及惠普的卡莉·菲奥莉娜从权力巅峰跌落之后，商业媒体迅速宣称，行事粗暴、咄咄逼人的领导者的时代已经结束。然而，宣称他们已绝迹还为时过早。许多伟大的威慑型领导者长期以来都表现出色，并且仍在蓬勃发展。他们的行事方式与许多关于成为优秀领导者所需条件的先入之见背道而驰。他们粗犷、嗓门大，且直面他人。他们的策略包括侵犯他人的私人空间、发脾气、让人捉摸不透，以及对事实有着无可争议的掌控。但不要搞错——伟大的威慑型领导者并非典型的恶霸。他们是由愿景驱动的，而非纯粹的自我或恶意。在他们强硬的外表和尖锐的棱角之下，是对人类动机和组织行为的一些真实而深刻的见解。事实上，这些领导者具备政治智慧，这可能是导致组织陷入瘫痪与实现成功——尽管有时会很艰难——的组织变革之间的区别所在。与具有社交智慧的领导者一样，具有政治智慧的领导者善于评估他人，但他们注意到的是不同的方面。具有社交智慧的人评估人们的优势，并想出如何利用这些优势；具有政治智慧的人则利用人们的弱点和不安全感。尽管在他们手下工作有诸多明显的缺点，但伟大的威慑型领导者往往能吸引最优秀、最聪明的人才。而且他们的吸引力不仅仅在于能够激发卓越表现。许多被这些领导者吸引的有成就的专业人士都想培养一点自己的“内在威慑力”。在作者的研究中,相当多的人报告称与威慑型领导者建立了积极的关系。事实上，有些人将这些关系描述为极具启发性，甚至具有变革性。因此，作者认为，在我们摒弃所有伟大的威慑型领导者之前，应该停下来思考一下我们将会失去什么。
