Rule 23: Intimidation Chases Away Talent, Opportunity, and Creativity

Overview

SNAPSHOT

Do you manage by intimidation?

Yes: 4 percent

No: 96 percent

We discussed anger in Part II and found that it was a valuable tactic if used sparingly, carefully, in a controlled manner, and with a signature style. It follows, therefore, that management through intimidation—where the entire organization lives in permanent fear of a tyrannical boss or CEO—is not an effective management style—because it is not sparing, careful, controlled, or stylized.

Hold on! Some of the most successful corporate executives of all time ruled their organizations with an iron fist—starting with the prototypical tycoon, banker J. P. Morgan. Two of the people I studied for this book were described by former employees as executives who, respectively, implemented a "reign of terror" and "made top executives tremble." Both of these executives—who will remain nameless here—enjoyed tremendous professional success—winning awards and praise from the national media. One employee of one of these men told me the story of seeing this executive put his face about two inches away from the face of a senior subordinate who had failed to complete a project on time. The CEO yelled at this subordinate until the CEO's spit was rolling down the face of the subordinate. When the CEO was done, the subordinate, trembling, went into the bathroom and had to wash his face off. Outbursts like this were a common occurrence at this highly successful company.

So certainly you can succeed when you manage by intimidation. Many very successful people have done exactly that. But you have to play the odds—and here is why management by intimidation is not the right route for most people.