The 5 Temptations of a CEO

[CecilW]

... is the title of a very thought provoking business fable by an amazing author, Patrick Lencioni. (I heartily recommend ALL his books, or at least the 7 that I know about and have. )

If we men are indeed the CEOs of our families (with God as actual proprietor), then the title sounds apropos. But are his conclusions?

For your pleasure, here are his stated 5:

1. Choosing status over results
2. Choosing popularity over accountability
3. Choosing certainty over clarity
4. Choosing harmony over productive conflict, and
5. Choosing invulnerability over trust

Whaddaya think? Applicable to us fellas? Need to know more of what he meant?

This is his first book, that I know of. Come to think of it, most of his subsequent books explored one of these topics in depth.

I could post a bit more of an explanation of these from the "Self Assessment" chapter, if anyone wants it.

 

[The Duke Of Marshall]

I think it's definitely relative to us guys. In fact I had kinda sorta viewed future plans in dealing with family as I would a corporation that I was running. Glad I'm not the only one. Of those five, I am guilty of 3 & 4 at the moment. Definitely think it's something that needs to be reevaluated regularly.

 

[Tali]

Cecil,

This stuff is great, and while there is an obvious and primary application to guys and the responsibilities they have as heads of household, each one of the 5 temptations applies to the realm of the women folk as well.

While in Iraq, I had conversations by the hour with officers who were facing an unprecedented crisis of leadership that was showing up everywhere. They felt like they were nearly being consumed by the "daddy hunger" of their recruits, and wondered how their peers managed to become officers or NCOs due to their consumate lack of understanding re: leadership. Some folks have referred to it as "the orphan spirit," and I am so glad that God gives a promise of restoration in Mal 3 re: "turning the hearts" of the fathers/children. If ever we needed it, it's now.

Bottom line: if we don't become whole as men and women, (irrespective of our marital status, poly, mono or celibate,) we will not be in shape to participate in the great harvest, and Yeshua will have to raise up rocks...

I for one don't want that on my tombstone, and I know you don't, either. Am looking forward to what the Lord brings forth on this thread, and thanks for introducing us to Mr. L.

Shalom,
Ali

PS. I would be interested in the self assessment post, but perhaps you just want to confine this discussion to the guys. If so, would you please pm it to me? Grazie, brah

 

[CecilW]

I would be interested in the self assessment post, but perhaps you just want to confine this discussion to the guys.

I posted it in the general section on purpose so all could observe and discuss. Maybe I should post similar threads for the followup books as well.

The following 6 posts are direct from the book. They're broken into sections for ease of reading. Also, so I don't lose to much if my 'puter's keyboard goes hinky during entry.

 

[CecilW]

Self-Assessment: Intro

Ultimately, the best way to understand which of the Five Temptations is most tempting for you is to simply reflect on the model and decide which temptations seem to fit. A good way to do this is to ask yourself, "Which of the temptations made me feel uncomfortable?" Although this is certainly unscientific, the best self-assessment is often unstructured and qualitative.

However, some people prefer to use a diagnostic tool to provide a little structure in the search for their temptation(s). One such tool is provided here.

Some of the questions are tricky in that they do not seem to reveal weaknesses at all. However, keep in mind that this tool is designed to identify your susceptibility to a given temptation, not to dertermine that you definitely succumb to it. Ultimately, this has to be your call.

If you have a difficult time identifying your temptations, you may want to ask your direct reports to answer the questions below and compare your responses to theirs.

 

[CecilW]

Self-Assessment: Temptation 1

Choosing Status Over Results

• Do you personally consider it a professional failure when your organization fails to meet its objectives?
• Do you often wonder, What's next? What will I do to top this in my career?
• Would it bother you greatly if your company exceeded its objectives but you remained somewhat anonymous relative to your peers in the industry?

Rationale
On a professional level, organizational success and personal-professional success are one and the same. Although it is healthy for any human being to separate his or her sense of self-steem from success on the job, in the context of professional success these should not be divided. Too often CEOs justify their own performance even when the organizations they lead are failing around them.

CEOs must ultimately judge their personal-professional success by the results on the bottom line. This is not to suggest that other "human" factors are not important, or even most important on a spiritual and emotional level. However, only the CEO is ultimately responsible for the results of the company, and this must be his or her ultimate measure.

Additionally, a pronounced concern for the "next step" in a person's career is a good sign of susceptibility to Temptation Number One because it is a possible indication that success is being guaged in terms of career advancement rather than current performance. The most successful CEOs focus almost exclusively on their current jobs.

Finally, worrying about how much public recognition one receives is a sure sign of susceptibility to the first Temptation. Although human nature dictates that we hope for a just share of acknowledgement, it is a dangerous part of human nature to entertain. Certainly at one time or another all CEOs have experienced short shift when it comes to public recognition. Those who eventually get that recognition are the CEOs who aren't distracted by the occasional slighting that an unscientific press is sure to give. Interestingly enough, they experience a low degree of satisfaction from such press. After all, they take larger personal satiusfaction from achieving results.

 

[CecilW]

Self-Assessment: Temptation 2

Choosing Popularity Over Accountability

• Do you consider yourself to be a close friend of your direct reports?
• Does it bother you to the point of distraction if they are unhappy with you?
• Do you often find yourself reluctant to give negative feedback to your direct reports? Do you water down feedback to make it more palatable?
• Do you often vent to them about issues in the organization? For example, do you refer to your staff as "we" and other employees as "they"?

Rationale
It is wonderful for CEOs to care about direct reports as people, so long as they can separate the success of those relationships from their sense of self-esteem and personal happiness. This is difficult because most of us try to avoid major disagreements with close friends, and it is impossible to not be concerned about a deep rift with one of them.

If those close friends are your direct reports, the accountability within the organization can be threatened. The slightest reluctance to hold someone accountable for their behaviors and results can cause an avalanche of negative reaction from others who perceive even the slightest hint of unfairness or favoritism.

Those CEOs who are able to make close friendships with direct reports and still avoid a sense of favoritism often find it easy to use those reports as their personal "venting boards." All executives need people they can vent to about challenges they face in the organization (for example, people they are frustrated with), but CEOs must resist the desire to use direct reports for this service. It can lead to politics among the executive team, and more importantly, it can undermine the team's objective understanding of their own actions by creating an atmosphere of self-victimizing groupthink. Often this manifests itself during executive staff meetings in comments such as "When will these people stop questioning us and start understanding what we are trying to do?"

 

[CecilW]

Self-Assessment: Temptation 3

Choosing Certainty Over Clarity

• Do you pride yourself on being intellectually precise?
• Do you prefer to wait for more information rather than make a decision without all of the facts?
• Do you enjoy debating details with your direct reports during meetings?

Rationale
Certainly intellectual precision alone is not a sign of Temptation Number Three. However, when it manifests itself during staff meetings in terms of unnecessary debates over minutiae, it is a sign of real trouble.

It is no surprise that many CEOs take a great deal of pride in their analytical and intellectual acumen. Unable to realize that their success as an executive usually has less to do with intellectual skills than it does with personal and behavioral discipline, they spend too much time debating the finer points of decision making.

Those debates are problematic for two reasons. First, they eat up valuable time that can be spent discussing larger issues, which often receive just a few minutes at the end of the staff meeting agenda.

Second, and more important, they create a climate of excessive analysis and overintellectualization of tactical issues. If there is one person in an organization who cannot afford to be overly precise, it is the CEO.

 

[CecilW]

Self-Assessment: Temptation 4

Choosing Harmony Over Productive Conflict

• Do you prefer your meetings to be pleasant and enjoyable?
• Are your meetings often boring?
• Do you get uncomfortable at meetings if your direct reports argue?
• Do you often make peace or try to reconcile direct reports who are at odds with one another?

Rationale
Executives often bemoan the number of meetings they attend, and they include staff meetings with their peers at the top of that list. They often complain about meetings taking up time that is needed for "real work". This is a good sign that those meetings are not as difficult (that is, are not as productive) as they should be.

Productive executive staff meetings should be exhausting inasmuch as they are passionate, critical discussions. Pleasant meetings -- or even worse, boring ones -- are indications that there is not a proper level of overt, constructive, ideological conflict taking place.

But don't be deceived. Every meeting has conflict. Some executives just sweep that conflict under the table and let employees deeper in the organization sort it out. This doesn't happen by accident.

When executives do get into an issue, CEOs often squelch any potential for passion by making peace. This sends a message that pleasant, agreeable meetings are preferred by the CEO. After a few pleasant meetings, boredom sets in and executives start lamenting the real work that they could be doing.

 

[CecilW]

Self-Assessment: Temptation 5

Choosing Invulnerability Over Trust

• Do you have a hard time admitting when you're wrong?
• Do you fear that your direct reports want your job?
• Do you try to keep your greatest weaknesses secret from your direct reports?

Rationale
No one loves to admit being wrong, but some people hate it. Great CEOs don't lose face in the slightest when they are wrong, because they know who they are, they know why they are the CEO, and they realize that the organization's results, not the appearance of being smart, are their ultimate measure of success.

They know that the best way to get results is to put their weaknesses on the table and invite people to help them minimize those weaknesses.

CEOs who understand this concept intellectually but cannot behavioralize it sometimes make the mistake of finding symbolic moments to admit mistakes and weaknesses. This only serves to reinforce the notion that the CEO is unwilling to put real weaknesses on the table. Overcoming this temptation requires a degree of fear and pain that many CEOs are unwilling to tolerate.

 

[CecilW]

Other Titles ... by the same author:

• The Three signs of a Miserable Job
• The Three Big Questions for a Frantic Family
• Silos, Politics, and Turf Wars
• The Four Obsessions of an Extraordinary Executive
• The Five Dysfunctions of a Team
• Death By Meeting (Addresses Temptation 4. Fascinating!)

 

[CecilW]

The Challenge ...

It seems to me that the challenge would be to reframe these 5 temptations into "family" terminology in such a way that they could be clearly written and would be both applicable and true.

Anyone who would like to take a shot at it has my blessing.

A possible starting point would seem to do some simple word substitutions. Try replacing "CEO" with "husband" everywhere. "direct reports" wifh "wife(s)". "Organization" with "family".

Some interesting thoughts begin to emerge. Best hubbies concentrate on their existing marriage, not on courting another wife. Maybe submission isn't an absence of strife, but an awareness and acceptance of when to argue, and when to accept that a decision has been made by another with the authority to do so. But what is "the bottom line" in a family?

Fun stuff. Jum right in y'all!

 

[CecilW]

Ali,

This "daddy hunger" and "orphan spirit" you mentioned. ...

I've never heard those words used that way before. They are rocking my world! OOOf!

 

[Anonymous]

CecilW wrote, " Maybe submission isn't an absence of strife, but an awareness and acceptance of when to argue, and when to accept that a decision has been made by another with the authority to do so. But what is "the bottom line" in a family?"

When I read this I had a major thought (anything at 12:44 am is major), real submission is fulfilling the role that the first woman was given, that of being a helper to her husband. Instead of each having their own agendas, she gets on board with his and fully supports him in his efforts of serving God.

There is a major flaw to this idea, we as men must have our act together and actually have an agenda of service for our Lord. Imagine what a wife would be able to do in support of a man that was really doing something and going somewhere. Like leading!!!

 

[Tali]

Well said, John.

Cec, the aforementioned "daddy hunger" and "orphan spirit" is wreaking havoc throughout the military as well as the rest of our culture. I believe we see it "on steroids" operating in the Oval Office. The CNC is shrinking before our eyes and is looking more and more like the abandoned child he was. God help us, and him.