Is ruthlessness the no 1 quality of great leaders?
By
Rupert Murdoch
Rupert Murdoch, media mogul and 132nd richest man in the world, says that being Mr Nice Guy doesn’t win you anything. Business is not about being nice. In fact Rupert Murdoch rules partly by fear.
Murdoch manages people similarly to how he approaches other parts of his business. There are no grey areas and there is no middle ground. If you don’t deliver you get fired. There’s no hesitation and certainly no great nurturing atmosphere. You have to perform.
For Rupert Murdoch, business is outright war. He frightens his own employees and terorises the opponents. He is a competitor who wants to win, regardless. He will fire people who might stop him from winning and he approaches business deals in the same manner.
Murdoch does not spend too much time thinking out his strategy and being cautious in his approach. He wants to win. And winning in his book means wiping out the competition. This does shine a bit of a spotlight on monopolies. He has managed to steer clear of monopolies regulations though so far.
As much as he wins, and often, the downside of this approach is that ruthlessness is a sledgehammer rather than the more subtle tools that might be more in tune with modern management trends. Murdoch drives straight on ignoring potential sensibilities.
Sir Alan Sugar
Let’s have a look at a British businessman. A recently elevated to a Baron, Alan Sugar is worth round about £830 million and is ranked 59th in the Sunday Times Rich List 2009. This despite the fact that he was supposed to have lost £100m during the 2008 crash.
Sugar made his fortune with the sale of Amstrad, one of his large business ventures. He is involved in a string of other businesses in IT, advertising, property and aviation. He is also fairly famous for hosting the Apprentice show as Donald Trump does in the USA.
It is said that his management style is a model for bad management. He is a bully and narrow minded and rules by fear. During his years as owner and chairman of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club he was disliked because of the way he treated the club. It was all about money and never about the game or the players.
He is also known for his sexist discrimination to women. He is accused of having an outdated attitude towards women. He opposes the 1970 law which makes it illegal to ask a woman whether she plans to start a family during a job interview. Sugar feels that if you can’t ask that question you can’t employ them.
Neither Murdoch nor Sugar seem to have a penchant for being Mr Nice Guy. They rule their flock of workers with an iron hand and in Sugar’s case even resorting to bullying tactics.
Yet both businessmen have made their mark from a wealth point of view both growing businesses from tiny beginnings and managing in Murdoch’s instance to grow an empire and for Sugar a knighted, wealthy and famous existence.
What’s your view?
Hi, Andrew Rondeau here. I have over 25 years of hands-on management experience within a diverse range of different industries including retail, manufacturing, finance and IT. I’ve managed teams of up to 1000 individuals, managing numerous $multi-million projects, mergers, acquisitions and company sales.
I guess this debate hinges on definitions of leadership and leading, and the implicit assumptions that underpin those definitions. Different schools of thought offer alternatives, leaders are born, leaders have certain taits (ruthlessness!?) leaders make sense of context and offer vision, leaders serve.
I think Keith Grint describes some interesting leadership aspects in his book Arts of Leadership and I guess ruthlessnes would come under ‘Martial Arts’ in that case, which only one ‘art’ from which a great leader draws from the others being ‘fine art’ – visionary capability, ‘performing art’ oratory, influence and persuasion, and the ‘philosophical arts’ reflection and critical thinking.
Ruthlessness also tends to be associated with ‘Tame’ and ‘Crisis’ leadership, wherebye leaders ‘see’ problems as uni-dimensional and needing simple and obvious solutions. This contrasts with ‘wicked’ leadership who see problems as multi-dimensional with complex collaborative solutions needed. Crisis leaders (ruthless) see wicked leaders as weak.
Context always needs to be taken into account. my way or the highway leadership might be needed in urgent situations, however it might be symptomatic of a bullying narcissitic socio-path in more bengin contexts.
There is a difference between ruthless and assertive. Good leaders care. Ruthless leaders only care about themselves, see Blackbeard for typology!!
.-= Reasonable Robinson´s last blog ..Spotting A Bare Faced Lie =-.
Sounds like Keiths views are spot on (I need to get his book).
I think your are right when you say “There is a difference between ruthless and assertive. Good leaders care. Ruthless leaders only care about themselves..” – even in demanding crises situations. You can be driven, demanding but still care how you achieve the results.
Andrew
Don’t forget though Andrew, that Alan Sugar’s style is seen regularly on British TV on The Apprentice. As mean as he may seem, he’s also very driven and seems to be results oriented. When you see the ineffectual candidates working for him, and the pathetic excuses people make for failing tasks, you realise why he might adopt that attitude.
I found the topic of him hiring women interesting. In the UK, I’ve come across a couple of female managers who shy away from a particular demographic – women in their mid-twenties who may have recently married, who might be at a higher likelihood of starting a family. They seem to be more aware that as new hires, these candidates are more likely to have extended periods of maternity leave.
.-= Gerard´s last blog ..An Atheist’s Approach to Death =-.
I wonder how much Alan Sugar “plays up” for the cameras – to make it entertaining – which it certainly is! He’s a very driven individual – just wish someone would teach him to smile. I think if you are going to be ruthless, you are allowed to smile now and then.
Andrew
I’d say no. And that is because I would never want to lead or manage at the expense of others only to better myself. Lots of leaders do well from the perspective of wealth but do they gain anything in life that lasts beyond their dollars and cents? Not if you ask me. I’d rather build a legacy on morals, integrity, teachings, relationships and leaving a leadership wake that demonstrates a morally grounded life with joy and passion for many areas. Money is not one of those.
That leadership style isn’t leadership at all actually. Its following money and greed. Greed is the real leader there.
.-= Mike King´s last blog ..100 Ways to Be a Better Leader =-.
I agree Mike. You can go a long way being a leader using the approach and skills you outline. Gaining respect is of utmost importance.
Andrew
I agree to a point that Mr Nice Guy is not cut out to be a great leader. You need to make tough ruthless decisions at times if you are going to be successful. These decsions can sometimes come at a cost to others but this is a consequence you must be prepared to accept as a leader.
Twitter: andrewrondeau
James
I think there is two types of Mr Nice Guy – a weak one and a strong one.
You can still be Mr Nice Guy as long as you make tough decisions when you need to.
Andrew
Firstly let me say Im by no means an expert on leadership! I think that while many leaders are ruthless, being ruthless isnt necessarily an important skill or trait of leaders – I think its important to be able to make big decisions quickly but in my opinion that doesnt mean people have to be ruthless…
.-= Tess @ Halo 3 Costumes´s last blog ..About Us =-.
There are many types of leaders. Ruthlessness can work, but so can understanding (where neccessary). Some people will react positively to ruthlessness and it will almost force them to work hard, whereas other will not take it and leave to work someone else (meaning you could lose good employees). Management is a mixture of getting people to work hard and inspiring people as well as other factors. In my experience if people like the company and people they work for they are more likely to work hard, although others will take advantage if they can.
.-= Anders @ Family Law London´s last blog ..Gillian and Ruth train in Rome =-.