New book review for Leading the Leaders: How to Enrich Your Style of Management and Handle People Whose Style Is Different From Yours, by Ichak Kalderon Adizes PhD, Adizes Institute, 2004:
This book is the third in a three-part series on "management" by Adizes, the first two being "The Ideal Executive: Why You Cannot Be One and What To Do About It" and "Management / Mismanagement Styles: How to Identify a Style and What To Do About It". After reading through the two follow-ups in this series, I now extend my earlier proclamation (that "The Ideal Executive" is the best on the topic of "management" I've ever read in my entire career) to include the entire series. As I mentioned in my review of the first book, its subtitle might be a bit misleading to many readers at first glance, but it doesn't actually speak to the failures of a given individual to become an "ideal" executive. After explaining the changes in industry jargon that took place over time to describe the role discussed by this series (initially called "administrator" and subsequently called "manager", "executive", and now, "leader"), the author explains that what hasn't changed is the fact that the entire managerial process is always personified in a single individual, but reality demonstrates that because *nobody* can serve an organization in this capacity, a complimentary team of people is necessary, each of whom exhibits various permutations of the "PAEI" code ("Producing", "Administrating", "Entrepreneuring", and "Integrating").
Adizes explains that this third book is not only intended to guide people in compensating for their own flaws and weaknesses after they have discovered their basic managerial style, but to help handle other managers whose style is different. In his preface, the author comments in his goals for this book that his prescriptions, while based on his experiences coaching executives around the world, are not intended to change anyone, but to enrich them. One of his personal struggles with executives in many organizations, he explains, is that people constantly ask him to help people change. While the author states at one point that he doesn't believe people can change, he also clarifies his thoughts by saying that if people can get worse they can also get better, and "better" might be all that is needed to be able to work with them. Interestingly, he compares this organizational paradigm with marriage. "We expect that in a marriage too, don't we? - until we realize that it does not and cannot happen. Making a fish into a bird is not something we should aim for - not in the time frame of one lifetime, anyway. But we can work on making people whose styles are different work better together nevertheless."
While I agree with the author that chapter 1 ("What is Management"), chapter 2 ("Management Styles"), and chapter 3 ("Mismanagement Styles") can technically be skipped if the first two books in this series have been read, some might be interested in knowing that these chapters also consume about 21% (64 of 300 pages) of total content, and the material is covered in a summarized manner that also includes new content, so I personally found it beneficial to ignore his recommendation. Chapter 1 includes sections entitled "The Functionalist View", "Why the Roles Are Incompatible", "The Myth of the Perfect Manager", "Management vs Mismanagement vs Leadership", "Management Training: The Big Fallacy", "The Workable Solution: A Complementary Team", "The Inevitability of Conflict", and "Recognizing and Hiring a Good Manager". Chapter 2 includes sections entitled "A Raison D'Etre", The (A)dministrator (pAei)", "Seeing through the Fog", "The Creative Contributor (paEi)", "The (E)ntrepreneur (PaEi)", "Getting Religion", "The (I)ntegrator (paeI)", and "The (I) Role in Leadership". Chapter 3 includes sections entitled "The Lone Ranger (P---)", "The Bureaucrat (-A--)", "The Arsonist (--E-)", "The SuperFollower (---I)", "The Common Denominator", and "The Deadwood (----)".
I had decided to read this book second rather than third, despite its positioning in this series, because as director I had been leading a half dozen "senior managers" on my team, and I was particularly interested in reading what Adizes had to say on this specific topic after my good experiences with the first book. The author doesn't really directly address the leading of other leaders apart from chapter 8 ("Management Style Comparisons"), chapter 9 ("Dealing with Other People"), and chapter 10 ("Prescriptions for Dealing with Others"), about 26% (78 of 300 pages) of total content, but at this point he provides a rapid fire of information, especially in Chapter 8, consisting of hundreds of bullet points comparing behavior, communication, decision making, implementation, team building, managing staff, and change for the (P), (A), (E), and (I), with each area of discussion opening with a quote. I found the Wilkerson's Law quote from "Malice in Blunderland" (by Thomas L Martin, Jr) particularly entertaining: "The anatomy of any community or organization includes four kinds of bones [The (PAEI) styles or roles added by me]: 'Backbones' who get behind the wheel and do the work (P), 'Knucklebones' who knock everything everyone else does (E), 'Wishbones' who will go along with an idea but want someone else to do the work (Deadwood), 'Jawbones' who do a lot of talking but not much else (I)."
Example from the "Managerial Pitfalls" section of comparing behavior:
For a (P): Unless you change your style, you will burn out.
For an (A): Controls mushroom. Unless you change your style, you will become an obstructionist.
For an (E): If you do not change your style, you will lose credibility and eventually become ineffective.
For an (I): Unless you change your style, there will be a coup d'etat against you by your subordinates.
Example from "The Value of Speech" section of comparing communication:
For a (P): Think before you speak.
For an (A): Speak first. Think more later.
For an (E): Think more - speak less.
For an (I): Speak so they know what you think.
Example from the "Evaluating Decisions" section of comparing decision making:
For a (P): Not everyone who works hard is necessarily doing the right thing.
For an (A): It is better to be approximately right than precisely wrong.
For an (E): Are you making it better or are you just making it different?
For an (I): Wrong decisions *can* be made by consensus.
Example from the "Flexibility" section of comparing implementation:
For a (P): Beating a dead horse won't revive it. Be flexible in implementation.
For an (A): Do not react in a programmed way to altered situations that call for a new approach.
For an (E): If you keep changing horses mid-race you might end up on your butt, with no horses at all.
For an (I): If you don't care what we do, or how or why we do it, just as long as we agree, that's not motivating; that's surrendering.
Example from the "Meetings" section of comparing teamwork:
For a (P): Not having meetings forces people to have meetings in the corridors.
For an (A): Fewer meetings will mean more things get done.
For an (E): In a meeting, stay with the subject being discussed. Avoid mercurial decision making - constantly moving to the next subject.
For an (I): Stop the endless meetings.
The above examples were taken from some of the ones that I had dog-eared to remind myself of the prescriptions Adizes provides for a given "PaEi" such as myself. As mentioned in my review for the first book in this series, the author specifically calls out this management style. He explains that he has come to change his mind after calling "paEi" an Entrepreneur in an earlier book he wrote 30 years prior entitled "How to Solve the Mismanagement Crisis". He now refers to "paEi" as a Creative Contributor because the Entrepreneur must be strong in the "P" role in addition to the "E" role. In his explanation, Adizes uses faculty members at business schools as an example of those often fitting the profile of Creative Contributor. "Why? Because they are *only* creative. They may even be prolific in their creativity, as measured by the number of articles they publish. And the focus of their creativity may even be (E)ntrepreneurship, or how to make money. Nevertheless, if they do not have the second characteristic I believe is necessary for an (E)ntrepreneur - the willingness to *proact*, to walk *into* the fog, to take risks, to follow a vision - they cannot be (E)ntrepreneurs. They will not succeed at making money even if they wrote the book on how to do it."
As I read through the hundreds of bullet points contained in chapter 8, I thought about the many colleagues and clients with whom I've worked throughout my career, and specific scenarios and names of individuals (sometimes including myself) came to mind for many of these. With respect to the above examples, burnout as a "P" is very real in the world of technology consulting, but what helped prevent burnout were the natural breaks between consulting engagements that provided time to take long-needed personal time off as well as ramping up on skill sets. Interestingly, I was once asked to lie during my first one-on-one meeting with a superior, to not concern myself with whether what I say is accurate or truthful as long as I just keep talking during meetings with colleagues. Natural law tells us not to lie, so I didn't take their advice, but their statements haunted me for my remaining time on that particular team, partially because I noticed others unfortunately deciding to follow this individual's philosophy, further complicating the situation. Adizes validates my "PaEi" convictions on this topic, stating that a "P" needs to think before they speak, and an "E" needs to think more and speak less. I've seen some teams endlessly discuss topics that could have been settled relatively quickly, with incorrect decisions sometimes made simply due to fatigue masquerading as consensus.
Entire books have been written on the topic of flexibility, and I could add to this catalog. The author argued in the first book in this series that a given individual cannot be a leader unless one of their roles is "I" because this is needed to enhance whatever other roles a manager excels at performing. As a "PaEi", I can relate to all the statements Adizes lists across the four roles regardless of whether I'm working in a mode that includes "I" at a given moment in time. A "product owner", for example, once remarked to me that they don't care *how* a particular aspect of software is to be built out, as long as it meets their requirements, and I pushed back, stating that they *should* care, because the manner in which software is built will often have implications with respect to scaling and other future evolution of the associated product. In working once with an Arsonist (--E-), I personally experienced someone trying to constantly change horses mid-race while my colleagues and I worked to evolve a product, a situation which also brought to mind the decision evaluation topic of someone just trying to make something different rather than better.
In-between the author's summary chapters and these concluding three chapters are the core of this book: chapter 4 ("Prescriptions for the P Style"), chapter 5 ("pAei Prescriptions"), chapter 6 ("paEi and PaEi Prescriptions"), and chapter 7 ("paeI Prescriptions"). As a "PaEi", I especially appreciate the fourth and sixth chapters. In particular, the section on communication spoke to me because of the translation table provided for what a given "P", "A", "E", or "I" says versus what they really mean when it comes to a "yes" or "no" response. "The meaning of 'yes' and 'no' depends on who is saying it. It is *not* always as straightforward as it sounds. (P)s interpret words literally. 'Yes' for them means yes, and 'no' is no. But other people understand and use those words very differently. Imagine a horizontal continuum with small vertical points. On the left it says, 'Do not know'; on the right, 'Know." Suppose you ask a type (A) the question, 'Should we change something?' If he doesn't feel he has enough information, is he going to say 'yes' or 'no'? He's going to say 'no.' So you keep trying to explain to him, and as you explain he will be moving across that horizontal line to the right, continuing to say 'no,' 'no,' 'no' - until finally he has all the information he believes he needs to give an answer. At that point, he might very well say, 'Oh, OK, yes.' "
"Now take a type (E). He doesn't have enough information to make a decision about the change either, but if he is intrigued, he will say 'yes,' because the possibilities look interesting. The more you explain, the more he will keep repeating 'yes,' 'yes,' 'yes' - but at the end, when he completely understands what is being suggested, he might say, 'Ah, that's what you mean? No!' So now, what do the words 'yes' and 'no' really mean? For a type (A), 'no' means: 'maybe; tell me more.' 'No' doesn't really mean 'no.' The fact is that ultimately the (A) may say 'yes.' For a type (E), 'yes' means 'maybe.' At the end, he may still say 'no,' so no matter how many times he repeats it, his 'yes' does not really mean 'yes' as you understand it." The author continues this discussion for several pages, elaborating a bit later. "You see, for an (E), a 'yes' actually means 'why not?' It is not a real 'yes!' But for an (A), it is very difficult to say 'yes' - it is practically like giving birth - so if he finally says 'yes', he really means it. This simple misunderstanding causes (A)s and (E)s to have difficulty communicating and getting along. In fact, the (A) often decides that the E is a liar, that his word is not to be trusted."
"The meaning of 'no' is also a source of miscommunication. An (A) may say, 'no,' 'no,' 'no,' but eventually he may say 'yes.' This means that 'no' is not 'no' - it is 'maybe.' An (E), on the other hand, has difficulty saying 'no' to opportunities, so if he finally does say 'no,' he really means it. And furthermore, an (E) gets very aggressive if you doubt his 'no' - so if you dare to challenge him you may be putting your career on the line. Now, for whom is 'yes' literally 'yes' and 'no' literally 'no'? A (P). He gets confused by (A)s and (E)s. He wants to keep everything simple - 'Is it 'yes' or is it 'no'? What's going on here?' " I agree with the author's conclusion. "In my consulting work, I train people to speak the (P) language in meetings when the time comes to make decisions: 'Yes' means 'yes,' 'no' means 'no,' and 'maybe' means 'maybe.' If we don't all speak the same language, we cannot communicate effectively." Periodically, I've worked with other executives who tend to verbalize their decisions rather than writing them down, and I agree with the author's conclusion here as well, which aligns with James 5 ("let your 'yes' be yes and your 'no' be no"). "You should even put his decision in writing (because he won't do it himself) and have it signed as soon as possible - before he changes his mind and claims that you misunderstood him."
It's arguably worth pointing out that, in my opinion, just like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) that forces a given individual into one of sixteen boxes, I don't think everyone perfectly fits a particular permutation of the "PAEI" code. As someone who is more of an ambivert than an extrovert or introvert, after all, the MBTI has no place for someone like myself. But I personally find the arguments presented by Adizes to be very compelling. As such, I think everyone who works with others needs to read this series of books. Apart from the practical takeaways, this series is also very entertaining throughout, a far cry from most business texts I've read during my career. And in many cases throughout this series, Adizes takes a step back from the business world to explore topics from other perspectives, most notably from family life, to help ensure that the reader understands his point of view. His humbleness is evident throughout, especially in his afterword. "I hope that my experiences will help you make less mistakes than I did. That you will learn from my mistakes - they were many. As a matter of fact, each prescription I give in this book is based on some mistake I have seen or personally experienced. I hope that my pain is your gain."