The Great 88
2021年5月13日Register here: http://gg.gg/uky6k
The Bengal famine of 1943 was a famine in the Bengal province of British India (now Bangladesh and eastern India) during World War II.An estimated 2.1–3 million, out of a population of 60.3 million, died of starvation, malaria, and other diseases aggravated by malnutrition, population displacement, unsanitary conditions and lack of health care. The Great is a satirical, comedic drama about the rise of Catherine the Great from outsider to the longest reigning female ruler in Russia’s history.
There are but a few sacred time-honoured traditions in Toronto as revered as The Great 88.
Nothing pairs with your spiced nog and sugar cookies quite like the best songs of 2020. Gather round the crackling hearth and turn your radio machine to Indie 88 as all of your favourite Indie 88 hosts recap the highlights of the last 365 days.
It’s the Great 88, counting down your favourite songs of the year, airing Boxing Day to New Years Day on Indie 88.
This feature is presented with Fendrihan – For the Man of Distinction.
SCHEDULE
*Saturday, Dec 26 11 a.m. – 6 p.m.
*Sunday, Dec 27 11 a.m. – 6 p.m.
*Thursday, Dec 31 5 p.m. – 12 a.m.
*Friday, Jan 1 9 a.m. – 4 p.m.
*Friday, Jan 1 4 p.m. – 11 p.m.
1. The Strokes – “Bad Decisions”
2. The Killers – “Caution”
3. JJ Wilde – “The Rush”
4. The Black Keys – “Shine A Little Light”
5. Cage The Elephant – “Black Madonna”
6. Tame Impala – “Lost In Yesterday”
7. Bakar – “Hell N Back”
8. Grouplove – “Deleter”
9. Ruby Waters – “Supernatural”
10. The Killers – “My Own Soul’s Warning”
11. July Talk – “Governess Shadow”
12. Powfu – “Death Bed (Coffee For Your Head) (ft. Beabadoobee)”
13. Machine Gun Kelly – “Bloody Valentine”
14. Rezz, Grabbitz – “Someone Else”
15. KennyHoopla – “How Will I Rest In Peace If I’m Buried By A Highway?//”
16. Valley – “Nevermind”
17. The Glorious Sons – “Closer To The Sky”
18. Weezer – “Hero”
19. Glass Animals – “Your Love (Deja Vu)”
20. Born Ruffians – “I Fall In Love Every Night”
21. X Ambassadors – “Zen (ft. K.Flay & Grandson)”
22. Arkells – “Years In The Making”
23. Green Day – “Oh Yeah!”
24. Yukon Blonde – “Get Precious”
25. Juice Wrld – “Come & Go (ft. Marshmello)”
26. Twenty One Pilots – “Level Of Concern”
27. The Weeknd – “Blinding Lights”
28. Major Lazer – “Lay Your Head On Me (ft. Marcus Mumford)”
29. Neon Dreams – “Sick Of Feeling Useless”
30. The Beaches – “Lame”
31. 24kGoldn – “Mood (ft. Iann Diorr)”
32. JJ Wilde – “Best Boy”
33. The Dirty Nil – “Done With Drugs”
34. Milky Chance – “Don’t Let Me Down (feat. Jack Johnson)”
35. Bastille – “What You Gonna Do?”
36. MONOWHALES – “All Or Nothing”
37. Deadmau5 – “Pomegranate (ft. The Neptunes)”
38. Tame Impala – “Is It True”
39. Arkells – “Quitting You”
40. Jackie – “Unspun”
41. AJR – “Bang!”
42. Peach Pit – “Shampoo Bottles”
43. The Elwins – “Take Me All The Way”
44. Dayglow – “Can I Call You Tonight?”
45. Born Ruffians – “Breathe”
46. NOBRO – “Marianna”
47. Black Pumas – “Fire”
48. Dizzy – “Sunflower”
49. The Dirty Nil – “Doom Boy”
50. Billie Eilish – “My Future”
51. The Zolas – “Energy Czar”
52. Grimes – “Delete Forever”
53. Phoenix – “Identical”
54. Half Moon Run – “Favourite Boys”
55. Anyway Gang – “Eyes of Green”
56. Lovelytheband – “Loneliness For Love”
57. Machine Gun Kelly – “My Ex’s Best Friend (ft. Blackbear)”
58. Jane’s Party – “Change Her Mind”
59. The Lumineers – “Salt and the Sea”
60. Foo Fighters – “Shame Shame”
61. Bahamas – “Own Alone”
62. Glass Animals – “Tangerine”
63. Of Monsters And Men – “Visitor”
64. The Glorious Sons – “Pink Motel”
65. Billie Eilish – “Therefore I Am”
66. Sam Roberts Band – “Ascension”
67. Ashe – “Moral of the Story”
68. 24kGoldn – “City of Angels”
69. NOBRO – “Don’t Die”
70. FINNEAS – “Let’s Fall In Love For The Night”
71. Cleopatrick – “Hometown”
72. Charlotte Cardin – “Passive Aggressive”
73. Cage The Elephant – “Skin & Bones”
74. Benee – “Supalonely (ft. Gus Dapperton)”
75. Royal Blood – “Trouble’s Coming”
76. Fast Romantics – “Hallelujah, What’s It To Ya?”The Great 80’s Destination
77. Surfaces – “Sunday Best”
78. July Talk – “The News”
79. Run The Jewels – “Ooh La La (ft. Greg Nice & DJ Premier)”
80. The Strokes – “The Adults Are Talking”
81. Fleet Foxes – “Can I Believe You”
82. The OBGMs – “Not Again”
83. Pearl Jam – “Superblood Wolfmoon”
84. HAIM – “Don’t Wanna”
85. Billy Talent – “Reckless Paradise”
86. Mav Karlo – “Dig A Hole”
87. EOB – “Shangri-La”
88. I Don’t Know How But They Found Me – “Leave Me Alone”
Since when has being a difficult boss been a disqualifier for a job?” asked Nightline’s Ted Koppel after several abrasive, intimidating leaders of major corporations—Disney’s Michael Eisner, Miramax’s Harvey Weinstein, and Hewlett-Packard’s Carly Fiorina—fell from their heights of power. Picking up on what seemed to be a new trend in the workplace, the business media quickly proclaimed that the reign of such leaders was over. From now on, the Wall Street Journal predicted, “tough guys will finish last.”
But wait a minute, you might think. If they’re just plain bad for their organizations, why have so many of these leaders made it to the top in the first place? Wouldn’t the ones who’ve wreaked nothing but havoc have plateaued or been weeded out long before they could inflict too much damage? Yet many leaders who rule through intimidation have been doing just fine for a very long time. Before we proclaim their extinction, then, it’s worth taking a close look at the pros as well as the cons of their tough-minded approach. Doing so might cast light on some subtle dimensions of effective leadership, especially in organizations or industries that were once rigid or unruly, stagnant or drifting—places where it took an abrasive leader to shake things up a little and provide redirection.
Consider Ed Zander, who’s been hailed as “Motorola’s modernizer.” When Zander took over as CEO of Motorola in January 2004, the company was in steep decline. After being in the high-velocity world of Silicon Valley, Zander found himself at the helm of a company that seemed to be running, in his words, “on autopilot.” In taking on the challenge of turning Motorola around, Zander described his guiding philosophy as, “Whack yourself before somebody whacks you.” He observed, “A lot of companies have clogged arteries.” In Motorola’s case, Zander found that much of the problem was at the VP level. “I don’t know how many dozens of VPs are no longer with us,” he reported in one interview. “Some have left on their own accord, some have not.” The transformation at Motorola is far from complete, but it is off to a good start. In the third quarter of 2004, the company posted sales of $8.62 billion (a 26% increase from the third quarter of 2003). Moreover, shipments of its handsets were up 15% from the previous year.
A similar story can be told about Harvey Weinstein, also notorious for his abrasiveness. When he entered the Hollywood scene, a handful of major studios dominated the landscape. Independent picture producers limped along on the margins of power and influence. Weinstein almost single-handedly pulled the independent film industry out of the doldrums, in the process making Miramax one of the few widely recognized industry brand names. He didn’t make a lot of friends over the years, and people who have worked with him often say that they find him hard to take. At the same time, they know that his high-pressure tactics have pushed them to the apex of their professional talents. One former Miramax executive noted appreciatively, “You learned to anticipate…the direction Harvey was going or wanted to go, because most of the time he was right.” And there is no contending with Weinstein’s success: more than 240 Academy Award nominations and 60 wins.
Zander and Weinstein are examples of what I call great intimidators. They are not averse to causing a ruckus, nor are they above using a few public whippings and ceremonial hangings to get attention. And they’re in good company. A list of great intimidators would read a bit like a business leadership hall of fame: Sandy Weill, Rupert Murdoch, Andy Grove, Carly Fiorina, Larry Ellison, and Steve Jobs would be just a few of the names on it. These leaders seem to relish the chaos they create because, in their minds, it’s constructive. Time is short, the stakes are high, and the measures required are draconian.
But make no mistake—the great intimidators are not your typical bullies. If you’re just a bully, it’s all about humiliating others in an effort to make yourself feel good. Something very different is going on with the great intimidators. To be sure, they aren’t above engaging in a little bullying to get their way. With them, however, the motivating factor isn’t ego or gratuitous humiliation; it’s vision. The great intimidators see a possible path through the thicket, and they’re impatient to clear it. They chafe at impediments, even those that are human. They don’t suffer from doubt or timidity. They’ve got a disdain for constraints imposed by others.
The modus operandi of great intimidators runs counter to a lot of our most deeply entrenched preconceptions about what it means to be a good leader these days. We’ve all read the books and articles describing people who lead quietly and with great empathy and humility. But as you’ll see, the leaders I’ve been studying think and work in an entirely different way: They’re rough, loud, and in your face.
Beneath their tough exteriors and sharp edges, however, are some genuine, deep insights into human motivation and organizational behavior. Indeed, these leaders possess what I call political intelligence, a distinctive and powerful form of leader intelligence that’s been largely ignored by management theorists and practitioners. In all our recent enchantment with social intelligence and soft power, we’ve overlooked the kinds of skills leaders need to bring about transformation in cases of tremendous resistance or inertia. It’s precisely in such situations, I’d like to propose, that the political intelligence of the intimidating leader is called for. Political Intelligence at Work
What exactly is so special about political intelligence? And how does it help set the great intimidators apart from other kinds of effective leaders? To answer these questions, we need to start by looking at conventional conceptions of leader intelligence.
Over the past decade, management theorists and practitioners alike have come to appreciate the roles that different forms of human intelligence play in effective leadership. Psychologist Howard Gardner—who first articulated the theory of multiple intelligences—suggested, for example, that social intelligence is what makes some leaders so adept at getting others to follow them and at extracting maximum performance from subordinates. Gardner defined social intelligence in terms of leaders’ interpersonal skills, such as empathy and the ability to influence others on the basis of that understanding.
There’s no question that it’s important for all leaders to have these skills. Indeed, social intelligence is the sort of competency leaders rely on every day to accomplish the routine work of an organization. However, it’s not the only kind of intelligence they need. What’s more, in some settings (a rigidly hierarchical organization, for example), other forms of intelligence may be more useful. That’s when the application of political intelligence, the hallmark of great intimidators, can make the difference between paralysis and successful—if sometimes wrenching—organizational change.
In understanding the distinction between socially intelligent and politically intelligent leaders, it’s important to realize that they share certain skills. Both types of leaders are adept at sizing up other people. Both possess keen, discriminating eyes—but they notice different things. For instance, socially intelligent leaders assess people’s strengths and figure out how to leverage them, while politically intelligent leaders focus on people’s weaknesses and insecurities. Speaking of President Lyndon B. Johnson, one of history’s truly great intimidators, former press secretary Bill Moyers noted that he possessed “an animal sense of weakness in other men.”As one political scientist elaborated, Johnson “studied, analyzed, catalogued, and remembered the strengths and weaknesses, the likes and dislikes, of fellow politicians as some men do stock prices, batting averages, and musical compositions. He knew who drank Scotch and who bourbon, whose wife was sick…who was in trouble…and who owed him.”
Not only do socially intelligent and politically intelligent leaders notice different things; they also act differently on the basis of their divergent perceptions. While leaders with social intelligence use empathy and soft power to build bridges, politically intelligent leaders use intimidation and hard power to exploit the anxieties and vulnerabilities they detect. Both kinds of leaders are good judges of character. But instead of having empathy for others, the politically intelligent leader adopts a dispassionate, clinical, even instrumental view of people as resources for getting things done. This absence of empathy opens up branches of the decision tree, exposing options that other leaders might reject.
While leaders with social intelligence use empathy and soft power to build bridges, politically intelligent leaders use intimidation and hard power to exploit the anxieties and vulnerabilities they detect.
Perhaps the starkest point of contrast between these two kinds of leaders is how willing they are to use hard power. Politically intelligent leaders appreciate the power of fear and its close relation, anxiety. As Harvard University’s president, Larry Summers, once observed: “Sometimes fear does the work of reason.” He went to Harvard determined to shake up the institution—and whatever else may be said about him, he has succeeded in doing just that. Interviews with faculty, staff, and students at Harvard who’ve had close encounters with Summers reveal a common pattern in his interactions: initial confrontation, followed by skeptical and hard questioning. “Perhaps we don’t really even need a department like this at Harvard,” he is said to have told one group of faculty at a “let’s get acquainted” session.
Such questions may not make a leader popular, but they certainly wake people up. And they sometimes compel people to think more deeply about their purpose in an organization and the value they add to it. In asking them to justify their existence, for instance, Summers has forced professors and administrators at Harvard to become more thoughtful about what they do. So though it can be painful, that exercise in justification leads to greater clarity about purpose and strategy. As Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz bluntly pointed out in a television interview, “Most [university] presidents are too careful, too cautious, too frightened, too worried about tipping the boat, too worried about alienating anybody, too worried about offending anybody.” Dershowitz went on to add that Summers“ is a provocative president. I think in my 41 years at Harvard I have never seen a more exciting time, more diversity of views…and I think Harvard is a better place for it.”
Summers’s sentiments regarding the virtues of inculcating a little fear echo one of President Richard Nixon’s convictions: “People react to fear, not love—they don’t teach that in Sunday school, but it’s true.” For Nixon, leadership wasn’t about inspiring others or being liked; it was about producing tangible results. And although too much fear or anxiety may induce trepidation and paralysis, too little may result in lackluster effort and complacency.
The great intimidators force people to review how strongly they feel about an issue. Are they really willing to go to the mat for it? If so, then they had better have a strong argument. It’s then that the debate gets interesting, both for the individuals involved and for the organization. One Microsoft manager told me, “Bill Gates relishes intellectual combat. He hires the best and brightest— and most articulate—individuals because he wants the conversation to be at the highest possible level.”The Intimidator’s Tactics
When it comes to understanding how politically intelligent leaders achieve such stunning results, the devil is in the details, and the details are to be found in the effective—but sometimes extreme—tactics these leaders use to coerce their subordinates to overperform.Get up close and personal.
Many intimidators operate through direct confrontation. At times, they will even invade the personal space of the people they want to control. This mode of intimidation fits our stereotype of the hulking organizational bully.
Universal Pictures chair Stacey Snider found herself on the receiving end of this sort of treatment during an unexpected confrontation with Miramax’s Harvey Weinstein at a cocktail party. Weinstein was upset because of rumors circulating throughout Hollywood that he had started a whispering campaign to discredit Universal’s film A Beautiful Mind. At a celebratory dinner following the Golden Globes, at which A Beautiful Mind won several awards, including best drama, Weinstein cornered Snider. In a New Yorker article, Ken Auletta described their close encounter this way: “To the petite Snider, [Weinstein] was a fearsome sight—his eyes dark and glowering, his fleshy face unshaved, his belly jutting forward half a foot or so ahead of his body. He jabbed a finger at Snider’s face and screamed, ‘You’re going to go down for this!’” This was the calculated sound and fury of a skillful intimidator. Snider understood that, and she held her ground with Weinstein.
A sure sign of the extent to which truly great intimidators are putting on an act is the fact that many of them work on their tactics when alone. General George Patton used to practice his scowl in front of his mirror. He called it his “general’s face,” and he wanted it to be as terrifying and menacing a countenance as he could make it. Entrepreneur Reggie Lewis also admitted that he spent time in front of his mirror perfecting what became his trademark frown. He believed that to really excel at hardball, it helped to have a face that fit the part.
In addition to aggressive physical demeanors, intimidators routinely use the weapons of language—taunts and slurs—to provoke their victims. This behavior is designed to throw others off balance. It’s hard to think clearly and follow your own game plan when your buttons are being pushed. Clarence Thomas, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, used this tactic to browbeat his Democratic opponents on the Senate judiciary committee during his nomination hearings. When accused by Anita Hill of sexual harassment, he asked the members of the committee how they would like to be so accused.
https://diarynote.indered.space
The Bengal famine of 1943 was a famine in the Bengal province of British India (now Bangladesh and eastern India) during World War II.An estimated 2.1–3 million, out of a population of 60.3 million, died of starvation, malaria, and other diseases aggravated by malnutrition, population displacement, unsanitary conditions and lack of health care. The Great is a satirical, comedic drama about the rise of Catherine the Great from outsider to the longest reigning female ruler in Russia’s history.
There are but a few sacred time-honoured traditions in Toronto as revered as The Great 88.
Nothing pairs with your spiced nog and sugar cookies quite like the best songs of 2020. Gather round the crackling hearth and turn your radio machine to Indie 88 as all of your favourite Indie 88 hosts recap the highlights of the last 365 days.
It’s the Great 88, counting down your favourite songs of the year, airing Boxing Day to New Years Day on Indie 88.
This feature is presented with Fendrihan – For the Man of Distinction.
SCHEDULE
*Saturday, Dec 26 11 a.m. – 6 p.m.
*Sunday, Dec 27 11 a.m. – 6 p.m.
*Thursday, Dec 31 5 p.m. – 12 a.m.
*Friday, Jan 1 9 a.m. – 4 p.m.
*Friday, Jan 1 4 p.m. – 11 p.m.
1. The Strokes – “Bad Decisions”
2. The Killers – “Caution”
3. JJ Wilde – “The Rush”
4. The Black Keys – “Shine A Little Light”
5. Cage The Elephant – “Black Madonna”
6. Tame Impala – “Lost In Yesterday”
7. Bakar – “Hell N Back”
8. Grouplove – “Deleter”
9. Ruby Waters – “Supernatural”
10. The Killers – “My Own Soul’s Warning”
11. July Talk – “Governess Shadow”
12. Powfu – “Death Bed (Coffee For Your Head) (ft. Beabadoobee)”
13. Machine Gun Kelly – “Bloody Valentine”
14. Rezz, Grabbitz – “Someone Else”
15. KennyHoopla – “How Will I Rest In Peace If I’m Buried By A Highway?//”
16. Valley – “Nevermind”
17. The Glorious Sons – “Closer To The Sky”
18. Weezer – “Hero”
19. Glass Animals – “Your Love (Deja Vu)”
20. Born Ruffians – “I Fall In Love Every Night”
21. X Ambassadors – “Zen (ft. K.Flay & Grandson)”
22. Arkells – “Years In The Making”
23. Green Day – “Oh Yeah!”
24. Yukon Blonde – “Get Precious”
25. Juice Wrld – “Come & Go (ft. Marshmello)”
26. Twenty One Pilots – “Level Of Concern”
27. The Weeknd – “Blinding Lights”
28. Major Lazer – “Lay Your Head On Me (ft. Marcus Mumford)”
29. Neon Dreams – “Sick Of Feeling Useless”
30. The Beaches – “Lame”
31. 24kGoldn – “Mood (ft. Iann Diorr)”
32. JJ Wilde – “Best Boy”
33. The Dirty Nil – “Done With Drugs”
34. Milky Chance – “Don’t Let Me Down (feat. Jack Johnson)”
35. Bastille – “What You Gonna Do?”
36. MONOWHALES – “All Or Nothing”
37. Deadmau5 – “Pomegranate (ft. The Neptunes)”
38. Tame Impala – “Is It True”
39. Arkells – “Quitting You”
40. Jackie – “Unspun”
41. AJR – “Bang!”
42. Peach Pit – “Shampoo Bottles”
43. The Elwins – “Take Me All The Way”
44. Dayglow – “Can I Call You Tonight?”
45. Born Ruffians – “Breathe”
46. NOBRO – “Marianna”
47. Black Pumas – “Fire”
48. Dizzy – “Sunflower”
49. The Dirty Nil – “Doom Boy”
50. Billie Eilish – “My Future”
51. The Zolas – “Energy Czar”
52. Grimes – “Delete Forever”
53. Phoenix – “Identical”
54. Half Moon Run – “Favourite Boys”
55. Anyway Gang – “Eyes of Green”
56. Lovelytheband – “Loneliness For Love”
57. Machine Gun Kelly – “My Ex’s Best Friend (ft. Blackbear)”
58. Jane’s Party – “Change Her Mind”
59. The Lumineers – “Salt and the Sea”
60. Foo Fighters – “Shame Shame”
61. Bahamas – “Own Alone”
62. Glass Animals – “Tangerine”
63. Of Monsters And Men – “Visitor”
64. The Glorious Sons – “Pink Motel”
65. Billie Eilish – “Therefore I Am”
66. Sam Roberts Band – “Ascension”
67. Ashe – “Moral of the Story”
68. 24kGoldn – “City of Angels”
69. NOBRO – “Don’t Die”
70. FINNEAS – “Let’s Fall In Love For The Night”
71. Cleopatrick – “Hometown”
72. Charlotte Cardin – “Passive Aggressive”
73. Cage The Elephant – “Skin & Bones”
74. Benee – “Supalonely (ft. Gus Dapperton)”
75. Royal Blood – “Trouble’s Coming”
76. Fast Romantics – “Hallelujah, What’s It To Ya?”The Great 80’s Destination
77. Surfaces – “Sunday Best”
78. July Talk – “The News”
79. Run The Jewels – “Ooh La La (ft. Greg Nice & DJ Premier)”
80. The Strokes – “The Adults Are Talking”
81. Fleet Foxes – “Can I Believe You”
82. The OBGMs – “Not Again”
83. Pearl Jam – “Superblood Wolfmoon”
84. HAIM – “Don’t Wanna”
85. Billy Talent – “Reckless Paradise”
86. Mav Karlo – “Dig A Hole”
87. EOB – “Shangri-La”
88. I Don’t Know How But They Found Me – “Leave Me Alone”
Since when has being a difficult boss been a disqualifier for a job?” asked Nightline’s Ted Koppel after several abrasive, intimidating leaders of major corporations—Disney’s Michael Eisner, Miramax’s Harvey Weinstein, and Hewlett-Packard’s Carly Fiorina—fell from their heights of power. Picking up on what seemed to be a new trend in the workplace, the business media quickly proclaimed that the reign of such leaders was over. From now on, the Wall Street Journal predicted, “tough guys will finish last.”
But wait a minute, you might think. If they’re just plain bad for their organizations, why have so many of these leaders made it to the top in the first place? Wouldn’t the ones who’ve wreaked nothing but havoc have plateaued or been weeded out long before they could inflict too much damage? Yet many leaders who rule through intimidation have been doing just fine for a very long time. Before we proclaim their extinction, then, it’s worth taking a close look at the pros as well as the cons of their tough-minded approach. Doing so might cast light on some subtle dimensions of effective leadership, especially in organizations or industries that were once rigid or unruly, stagnant or drifting—places where it took an abrasive leader to shake things up a little and provide redirection.
Consider Ed Zander, who’s been hailed as “Motorola’s modernizer.” When Zander took over as CEO of Motorola in January 2004, the company was in steep decline. After being in the high-velocity world of Silicon Valley, Zander found himself at the helm of a company that seemed to be running, in his words, “on autopilot.” In taking on the challenge of turning Motorola around, Zander described his guiding philosophy as, “Whack yourself before somebody whacks you.” He observed, “A lot of companies have clogged arteries.” In Motorola’s case, Zander found that much of the problem was at the VP level. “I don’t know how many dozens of VPs are no longer with us,” he reported in one interview. “Some have left on their own accord, some have not.” The transformation at Motorola is far from complete, but it is off to a good start. In the third quarter of 2004, the company posted sales of $8.62 billion (a 26% increase from the third quarter of 2003). Moreover, shipments of its handsets were up 15% from the previous year.
A similar story can be told about Harvey Weinstein, also notorious for his abrasiveness. When he entered the Hollywood scene, a handful of major studios dominated the landscape. Independent picture producers limped along on the margins of power and influence. Weinstein almost single-handedly pulled the independent film industry out of the doldrums, in the process making Miramax one of the few widely recognized industry brand names. He didn’t make a lot of friends over the years, and people who have worked with him often say that they find him hard to take. At the same time, they know that his high-pressure tactics have pushed them to the apex of their professional talents. One former Miramax executive noted appreciatively, “You learned to anticipate…the direction Harvey was going or wanted to go, because most of the time he was right.” And there is no contending with Weinstein’s success: more than 240 Academy Award nominations and 60 wins.
Zander and Weinstein are examples of what I call great intimidators. They are not averse to causing a ruckus, nor are they above using a few public whippings and ceremonial hangings to get attention. And they’re in good company. A list of great intimidators would read a bit like a business leadership hall of fame: Sandy Weill, Rupert Murdoch, Andy Grove, Carly Fiorina, Larry Ellison, and Steve Jobs would be just a few of the names on it. These leaders seem to relish the chaos they create because, in their minds, it’s constructive. Time is short, the stakes are high, and the measures required are draconian.
But make no mistake—the great intimidators are not your typical bullies. If you’re just a bully, it’s all about humiliating others in an effort to make yourself feel good. Something very different is going on with the great intimidators. To be sure, they aren’t above engaging in a little bullying to get their way. With them, however, the motivating factor isn’t ego or gratuitous humiliation; it’s vision. The great intimidators see a possible path through the thicket, and they’re impatient to clear it. They chafe at impediments, even those that are human. They don’t suffer from doubt or timidity. They’ve got a disdain for constraints imposed by others.
The modus operandi of great intimidators runs counter to a lot of our most deeply entrenched preconceptions about what it means to be a good leader these days. We’ve all read the books and articles describing people who lead quietly and with great empathy and humility. But as you’ll see, the leaders I’ve been studying think and work in an entirely different way: They’re rough, loud, and in your face.
Beneath their tough exteriors and sharp edges, however, are some genuine, deep insights into human motivation and organizational behavior. Indeed, these leaders possess what I call political intelligence, a distinctive and powerful form of leader intelligence that’s been largely ignored by management theorists and practitioners. In all our recent enchantment with social intelligence and soft power, we’ve overlooked the kinds of skills leaders need to bring about transformation in cases of tremendous resistance or inertia. It’s precisely in such situations, I’d like to propose, that the political intelligence of the intimidating leader is called for. Political Intelligence at Work
What exactly is so special about political intelligence? And how does it help set the great intimidators apart from other kinds of effective leaders? To answer these questions, we need to start by looking at conventional conceptions of leader intelligence.
Over the past decade, management theorists and practitioners alike have come to appreciate the roles that different forms of human intelligence play in effective leadership. Psychologist Howard Gardner—who first articulated the theory of multiple intelligences—suggested, for example, that social intelligence is what makes some leaders so adept at getting others to follow them and at extracting maximum performance from subordinates. Gardner defined social intelligence in terms of leaders’ interpersonal skills, such as empathy and the ability to influence others on the basis of that understanding.
There’s no question that it’s important for all leaders to have these skills. Indeed, social intelligence is the sort of competency leaders rely on every day to accomplish the routine work of an organization. However, it’s not the only kind of intelligence they need. What’s more, in some settings (a rigidly hierarchical organization, for example), other forms of intelligence may be more useful. That’s when the application of political intelligence, the hallmark of great intimidators, can make the difference between paralysis and successful—if sometimes wrenching—organizational change.
In understanding the distinction between socially intelligent and politically intelligent leaders, it’s important to realize that they share certain skills. Both types of leaders are adept at sizing up other people. Both possess keen, discriminating eyes—but they notice different things. For instance, socially intelligent leaders assess people’s strengths and figure out how to leverage them, while politically intelligent leaders focus on people’s weaknesses and insecurities. Speaking of President Lyndon B. Johnson, one of history’s truly great intimidators, former press secretary Bill Moyers noted that he possessed “an animal sense of weakness in other men.”As one political scientist elaborated, Johnson “studied, analyzed, catalogued, and remembered the strengths and weaknesses, the likes and dislikes, of fellow politicians as some men do stock prices, batting averages, and musical compositions. He knew who drank Scotch and who bourbon, whose wife was sick…who was in trouble…and who owed him.”
Not only do socially intelligent and politically intelligent leaders notice different things; they also act differently on the basis of their divergent perceptions. While leaders with social intelligence use empathy and soft power to build bridges, politically intelligent leaders use intimidation and hard power to exploit the anxieties and vulnerabilities they detect. Both kinds of leaders are good judges of character. But instead of having empathy for others, the politically intelligent leader adopts a dispassionate, clinical, even instrumental view of people as resources for getting things done. This absence of empathy opens up branches of the decision tree, exposing options that other leaders might reject.
While leaders with social intelligence use empathy and soft power to build bridges, politically intelligent leaders use intimidation and hard power to exploit the anxieties and vulnerabilities they detect.
Perhaps the starkest point of contrast between these two kinds of leaders is how willing they are to use hard power. Politically intelligent leaders appreciate the power of fear and its close relation, anxiety. As Harvard University’s president, Larry Summers, once observed: “Sometimes fear does the work of reason.” He went to Harvard determined to shake up the institution—and whatever else may be said about him, he has succeeded in doing just that. Interviews with faculty, staff, and students at Harvard who’ve had close encounters with Summers reveal a common pattern in his interactions: initial confrontation, followed by skeptical and hard questioning. “Perhaps we don’t really even need a department like this at Harvard,” he is said to have told one group of faculty at a “let’s get acquainted” session.
Such questions may not make a leader popular, but they certainly wake people up. And they sometimes compel people to think more deeply about their purpose in an organization and the value they add to it. In asking them to justify their existence, for instance, Summers has forced professors and administrators at Harvard to become more thoughtful about what they do. So though it can be painful, that exercise in justification leads to greater clarity about purpose and strategy. As Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz bluntly pointed out in a television interview, “Most [university] presidents are too careful, too cautious, too frightened, too worried about tipping the boat, too worried about alienating anybody, too worried about offending anybody.” Dershowitz went on to add that Summers“ is a provocative president. I think in my 41 years at Harvard I have never seen a more exciting time, more diversity of views…and I think Harvard is a better place for it.”
Summers’s sentiments regarding the virtues of inculcating a little fear echo one of President Richard Nixon’s convictions: “People react to fear, not love—they don’t teach that in Sunday school, but it’s true.” For Nixon, leadership wasn’t about inspiring others or being liked; it was about producing tangible results. And although too much fear or anxiety may induce trepidation and paralysis, too little may result in lackluster effort and complacency.
The great intimidators force people to review how strongly they feel about an issue. Are they really willing to go to the mat for it? If so, then they had better have a strong argument. It’s then that the debate gets interesting, both for the individuals involved and for the organization. One Microsoft manager told me, “Bill Gates relishes intellectual combat. He hires the best and brightest— and most articulate—individuals because he wants the conversation to be at the highest possible level.”The Intimidator’s Tactics
When it comes to understanding how politically intelligent leaders achieve such stunning results, the devil is in the details, and the details are to be found in the effective—but sometimes extreme—tactics these leaders use to coerce their subordinates to overperform.Get up close and personal.
Many intimidators operate through direct confrontation. At times, they will even invade the personal space of the people they want to control. This mode of intimidation fits our stereotype of the hulking organizational bully.
Universal Pictures chair Stacey Snider found herself on the receiving end of this sort of treatment during an unexpected confrontation with Miramax’s Harvey Weinstein at a cocktail party. Weinstein was upset because of rumors circulating throughout Hollywood that he had started a whispering campaign to discredit Universal’s film A Beautiful Mind. At a celebratory dinner following the Golden Globes, at which A Beautiful Mind won several awards, including best drama, Weinstein cornered Snider. In a New Yorker article, Ken Auletta described their close encounter this way: “To the petite Snider, [Weinstein] was a fearsome sight—his eyes dark and glowering, his fleshy face unshaved, his belly jutting forward half a foot or so ahead of his body. He jabbed a finger at Snider’s face and screamed, ‘You’re going to go down for this!’” This was the calculated sound and fury of a skillful intimidator. Snider understood that, and she held her ground with Weinstein.
A sure sign of the extent to which truly great intimidators are putting on an act is the fact that many of them work on their tactics when alone. General George Patton used to practice his scowl in front of his mirror. He called it his “general’s face,” and he wanted it to be as terrifying and menacing a countenance as he could make it. Entrepreneur Reggie Lewis also admitted that he spent time in front of his mirror perfecting what became his trademark frown. He believed that to really excel at hardball, it helped to have a face that fit the part.
In addition to aggressive physical demeanors, intimidators routinely use the weapons of language—taunts and slurs—to provoke their victims. This behavior is designed to throw others off balance. It’s hard to think clearly and follow your own game plan when your buttons are being pushed. Clarence Thomas, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, used this tactic to browbeat his Democratic opponents on the Senate judiciary committee during his nomination hearings. When accused by Anita Hill of sexual harassment, he asked the members of the committee how they would like to be so accused.
https://diarynote.indered.space
コメント