Business Leaders and Historical Military Leaders - Really?
In recent years there has been a trend to use military metaphors when dealing with business. Even the straightforward and omnipresent expression “ to hit the ground running” is reminiscent of parachutes and invasions. Advertising agencies talk of “campaigns” which in turn reminds us of Napoleon trudging through the snows of Russia circa 1812.
The extension of the military metaphor to the business world is, however, never more so than in the world of leadership training. In recent years the world of business has looked to the great men – and they were mostly men – who led the biggest and the brashest military campaigns in history. Think Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Attila the Hun, Napoleon, and even Winston Churchill. I say “even” because before the glory of the Second World War Churchill had proved a disastrous military tactician, just ask anyone who was on the beaches of Gallipoli.
Personally, although superficially attractive, I’m not sure about the use of military tactics in business. Yet, they are an easy – some might say lazy – way in which to motivate today’s business leaders. You know the type of thing: “Ivan the Terrible’s Top Ten Business Leadership Tips”, or “What the Battle of Waterloo Can Tell You About Your Business.” Not a lot I suspect. But, yet, such course themes continue to grow, conference after conference, business book after business book.
The Business Leadership and the adjacent and related Thought Leadership worlds are big business. A combination of books, the motivational lecture circuit, the easily accessible business videos, and online courses are today a multi-billion-dollar industry. Now, I am not trashing any of this. Much of it is good, some of it very good, but quite a bit of it is simply rehashing the obvious. But what I’m not convinced about is this recent fad for the war imagery, language, and mindset. War is not business, and if you approach business as a war, well I’m not sure you are going to have too many customers never mind collaborators.
Let’s take one example. It is now received business wisdom that a good CEO will also be a great orator. You have seen the videos of CEOs rallying the troops with inspirational talk. All well and good, but many excellent CEOs I’ve met are quiet thoughtful individuals who are not planning any invasions of anywhere soon. And what is more, as a historical reference it is more than a little bogus. Napoleon was by all accounts a poor public speaker. He let his actions do the talking.
The same was true of Stalin. A terrible public speaker as well as a terrible leader, it was cunning that lead him to power and kept him and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics there. This type of thing is often overlooked at the leadership conferences. Most of the great military leaders were ruthless, and we’re not talking about slashing prices in a war with competitors but more like slashing the body of anyone who got in the way. It is an effective strategy if for us not an attractive one.
A really good public speaker was, of course, Hitler, hardly a role model. Which leads me to the other characteristic we are told is needed for a truly great business leader, namely, charisma. Today, it is seen as essential. Something once reserved to Hollywood superstars and popular music acts are now deemed necessary in the boardroom. It is suggested that military leaders had charisma and that this made their men willing to follow them anywhere even to death itself. Well, again, we may need a reality check on that. Most armies of the past were conscripts or formed from those who were allowed to rape and pillage at will when on a campaign. These warriors either had the basest of motives or none at all but instead were subject to brutal military codes.
And again if it is charisma you want then look no further than the Fuhrer. No one is born charismatic and this was never truer than the angry Austrian corporal who turned up on the streets of Munich promising revenge for Versailles. At first, no one took him seriously. But on his staff, Hitler had some of the best mythmakers ever known. Without the films of Leni Riefenstahl, Albert Speer’s rallies, and Joseph Goebbels’ propaganda machine we may never have heard of Adolf Hitler. Believe me, charisma is as much a construct in business as it has been in history.
The next indispensable characteristic for the modern business leader is of course humor. This view has hardened in the last 70 or so years on account of Hollywood’s obsession with the wise-cracking leader. Such a character is never complete without a quip handy as he leads the men into battle. Like most things Hollywood, it is all nonsense of course. War is not just a deadly serious affair but also one that concentrates the mind like nothing else. Margaret Thatcher, unquestionably a leader, had famously little sense of humor and even less when she led British forces to re-take the Falkland Islands in the war of 1982.
There are some things these courses get right though. Many leaders have suffered and survived setbacks – sometimes serious ones.
Take this man.
1816: His family was forced out of their home. He had to work to support them.
1818: His mother died.
1831: Failed in business.
1832: Ran for state legislature – lost.
1832: Also lost his job – wanted to go to law school but couldn’t get in.
1833: Borrowed some money from a friend to begin a business and by the end of the year he was bankrupt. He spent the next 17 years of his life paying off this debt.
1834: Ran for state legislature again – won.
1835: Was engaged to be married, sweetheart died and his heart was broken.
1836: Had a total nervous breakdown and was in bed for six months.
1838: Sought to become speaker of the state legislature – defeated.
1840: Sought to become elector – defeated.
1843: Ran for Congress – lost.
1846: Ran for Congress again – this time he won – went to Washington and did a good job.
1848: Ran for re-election to Congress – lost.
1849 Sought the job of land officer in his home state – rejected.
1854: Ran for Senate of the United States – lost.
1856: Sought the Vice-Presidential nomination at his party’s national convention – got less than 100 votes.
1858: Ran for U.S. Senate again – again he lost.
1860: Elected president of the United States.
The man in question is of course: Abraham Lincoln.
He was a war leader but he was much more besides and had been made even more so by life.
Perhaps that should be the real focus of a leadership course?
