Brown Nosing and the Destruction of an Organization

Where is the line between enthusiasm and brownnosing? It is like the quality of a great painting. It is difficult to define but we all know it when we see it. A big part of the impression comes from what we think of the individual’s personality. People that are not well-liked are construed to have ulterior motives just because we don’t like them. It is fuel for the fire. But what is it that tips the balance? Is it one act or a series of smaller things?

Most people who develop the reputation, at least in my observational experience, set a pattern but it is usually one event that seals the deal. There is a common measure of what is expected in a co-worker. All jobs have some inherent unpleasant things which need to be done. That is the nature of work. People expect that. Most people want to get the job done and go home where the enjoyment is located. The brownnoser is different. An extra duty, particularly a “face time” event, where it is generally considered a pain to participate, finds the brownnoser overwhelmingly excited to be able to attend. That is one of the recognizable differentiating factors which identify the individual. Another identifying factor is the desire of those individuals to stop at any moment and tell anyone at great length how valuable the brownnoser’s efforts are and how the organization would be doomed without those efforts. Other co-workers contributions are recognized but one gets the sense of a grudging acceptance and feigned over-enthusiasm rather than real enthusiasm.

In order to make themselves part of the “in-crowd”, the brownnoser always speaks to others in a “just between us people in the know” attitude in order to give the impression that they are part of the inner circle. This usually involves dropping names of the powerful in the organization. This sucker-fish approach to riding on the coattails of power is an attempt to leverage the brownnoser into a position of more power in the organization. In Washington, DC, the saying is “The appearance of power is power”. That is because if someone thinks you are powerful, they will treat you with the proper deference, and therefore you are powerful because you get what you want. The brownnoser uses name-dropping to associate themselves with the powerful in order to appear to be part of that group.

The error in this approach with a smart boss is that the experienced intelligent boss also recognizes brown-nosing for what it is. Unfortunately, however, brownnosing often works. I remember an engineering job years ago where a peer that was universally regarded as a weak performer by his entire group of peers, with good reason, was rated number one in potential, by management, primarily on the basis of his organizing golf tournaments, which had nothing to do with his job. That is a recipe for poor morale and disgruntled employees. A number of excellent engineers left the organization because of that situation.

Communism was ultimately doomed to failure because it flew in the face of human nature. If there is no incentive to work harder, why would anyone do it? The brownnoser does the same thing to an organization. If the brownnoser succeeds preferentially, the other employees stop performing because they recognize their legitimate efforts are in vain. Their only defense is to begin brown-nosing as well and you end up with an organization consisting of two factions: the competing brownnosers and the disgruntled employees doing the minimum to maintain their jobs, similar to the ruling class and the masses in a Communist country. Unfortunately, most of us have been in an organization like that at some point. The only way to maintain your drive is to find another place to work. In fact, the most likely people to leave are the best performers because they are in the best position to get better jobs. You cannot work for long for people you don’t respect and those who unwittingly respond to the brownnoser are not respected. Therefore, to maintain the quality of an organization, managers must recognize the brownnoser and not allow their actions to reap favoritism. Only by avoiding that mistake will productivity and morale be sustained.

Leadership and the Herd Mentality

In any large population, the distribution of the people in the population will be represented by a Bell Curve. That means that ninety-five percent of the population will fall within two standard deviations of the median. By definition, two and one half percent of the population will be at the upper end, outside the two standard deviations, and two and one half percent will similarly be located at the bottom.

I am not particularly concerned over the dregs of the group because they will almost never be successful or provide any meaningful contribution. The upper two and one half percent will almost inevitably be leaders. The rest of the group will tend to follow a herd mentality. You see examples of this everywhere. In the entertainment industry, any time that a new popular show is developed, multiple clones always appear shortly thereafter. Every time a new band creates a buzz, other record labels will come up with similar acts in short order. Production of new fashion lines, toys, consumer products, computer innovations, etc. all follow the same pattern. The innovators and producers of new and imaginative products will be followed by the knock offs and the similar, if not quite as good, products. In some cases, when a product has been rushed to market, the newer product may be an improvement. The use of the herd mentality is an advantage in some circumstances. On Wall Street, the few truly inventive and innovative investors can use the fact that the herd will follow to their advantage when buying and selling stocks and commodities.

In any large organization, an analogous population distribution will exist. One of the difficulties in leadership is to recognize who the upper group is among the herd. To do so requires patience and foresight. An intrinsic quality of innovators is that they are not afraid to try new ways to do things and take risks. The taking of risks means that inevitably some attempts at improvement will be unsuccessful. To punish people for taking risks which do not work is to discourage anyone from trying to improve any process. It breeds an environment of safety in which no one does anything new in fear of making a mistake. The military is becoming such an organization. One adverse fitness report can stop your career as an officer. There are a couple of reasons for that. First, unless you are a mass murderer, no one gets a bad fitness report. Unless a weakness is so obvious so as not to be ignored, it is glossed over and a bland positive report is generated. Second, since no one gets a bad fitness report, any minor weakness actually reported stands out as a major problem because no others exist in the majority of reports. This environment discourages honest reporting and creates a herd of vanilla, bland officers who do everything by committee to share responsibility and will not take risks. I have pointed out in the past a large number of successful military leaders (Grant, Patton, Sherman, etc.) who couldn’t even get promoted to positions of leadership today because of their political incorrectness. One of the differences in the American military in World War II was that the majority of the military members were not career oriented and just wanted to win the war and go home. Therefore, they weren’t worried primarily about their careers.

Senior leaders should have the best interest of the organization in mind and not their own personal job security. A good leader can always get another job. The good leader allows their people to innovate and take risks and realizes that mistakes will happen. The good leader recognizes the difference between mistakes due to incompetence and mistakes made in good faith while trying to improve processes and does not punish the latter. The true leader encourages innovation and risk taking. Only in this way, will an environment be created which will lead to improvement and new ideas and not to a stagnant and unchanging organization.

Teamwork and Stability

One thing that has become fairly apparent over the last few years is that teamwork and stability are pretty important in the success of an organization. There are some really outstanding examples of how not to manage an organization.

When Daniel Snyder bought the Washington Redskins, he clearly was a very successful businessman but just as clearly knew nothing about how to run a sports franchise. He thought that putting together a bunch of talented individuals from different systems would produce a great team. His teams struggled mightily despite the huge payrolls. His free agent acquisitions were routine busts. When he hired a proven coach who seemed to be turning the franchise around, Marty Schottenheimer, Snyder fired him after winning his final seven or eight games to hire Steve Spurrier from the University of Florida. There must be something cursed about Schottenheimer as he was fired from San Diego after a 14-2 season. In both cases, Steve Spurrier in Washington and Norv Turner in San Diego went on to have decidedly worse records than Schottenheimer. Snyder finally hired the legendary Joe Gibbs back and allowed several poor seasons before the Redskins organization got itself back together. Only a coach the stature of Gibbs would have been allowed to do that. When Gibbs retired this year, most of the organization was retained and little free agent action has taken place. It seems that finally Snyder has finally learned that stability is important.

There is an old saying the “The enemy of good is better” or “The enemy of good is perfect”. No where is that sentiment better represented than in the New York Yankees. Joe Torre wins three world championships and makes the playoffs in every year but one of his long tenure and he is fired. The Yankees organization laments on the old days when they won all the time. In those days however, you almost needed to be an archaeologist to mark changes in personnel other than pitchers, who generally have a shorter shelf life, anyway. There was stability in the organization and you knew every year that the team would be good. Of course, it always helped to have more money than the U. S. Mint. Mickey Mantle was offered a pay CUT in 1957 because he didn’t win the Triple Crown like he did in 1956. The Steinbrenner family is very similar to Daniel Snyder, and the US government for that matter, in that they feel money is the cure to every problem. They never take into account team chemistry. The best thing that happened to the Yankees in recent history is when they failed to sign Albert Belle who was well known team poison everywhere he went. Belle went to the Orioles and they have never been good since. Look at the response Alex Rodriguez received for one of the best offensive seasons in baseball history; he was booed by fans for the team’s finish. These are the same people who celebrated cheating the Baltimore Orioles out of a playoff game on an erroneous umpire call. It is hard to have empathy for them.

In the military, it is often said that the soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and airmen don’t fight for foreign policy but instead fight for their buddies next to them. It was well known in both Viet Nam and World War II that the replacements were thought of differently than the group that originally deployed together. There was a movie about the new Captain of a US Navy vessel who had his men build a sailboat for the ship. They were all angry about having to do it but another character in the movie recognized that by making the crew mad at him, the Captain had brought them together as a crew. Players and coworkers look out for one another when they have a relationship. Good coaches and executives recognize the need for cohesion. In the movie Remember the Titans, Denzel Washington’s coach character forced his players to learn about one another. Team chemistry is important to any organization and it takes time and stability to establish it. The people who go for the quick fix will always be left behind (and broke).

Leadership, Responsibility and Behavior

There is a disconnect I see relatively often when it comes to leadership positions. Many don’t seem to understand that responsibility and authority come as a package. You cannot be held responsible for things you don’t control and you cannot control things without being held responsible for the outcomes of your decisions. The more common disconnect of the two is people being reprimanded for things they did not decide. I have written earlier posts about brown-nosing and non-confrontational leadership. Being in charge is a lonely position. Those who cannot handle the isolation need not apply. In order to be effective in those positions, there are certain core requirements. First and foremost, effective leaders demonstrate that they have the welfare of their people at heart. This does not mean a leader is always nice. A leader does reprimand. A leader does hold subordinates accountable. A leader hands out unpleasant tasks. The true leader does these things fairly while simultaneously attempting to the utmost to provide the best working environment for subordinates.

There is similarity between leadership in an organization and raising kids. The two most important factors are caring and consistency. Your subordinates and your children have no reason to behave if they feel you don’t care what happens to them. They have nothing to lose from you by misbehaving. Children want to maintain the trust and caring of their parents. Subordinates need the same support from their leaders. They need to feel like their leaders have their interests at heart. The minute they don’t feel it, they lose respect for the leader. Everyone knows there are tough jobs to do but if the jobs are handed out fairly and leadership takes the time to explain why the job is important, respect will remain in place.

Consistency is a hallmark of a well-run organization. Both children and subordinates need to know where the lines are and that there will be repercussions for crossing those lines. It is not that there MAY be, it is that there WILL be. There is a lot of security in knowing the rules. A lack of rules shows subordinates that leaders don’t care. Consistency with the rules shows fairness and forethought. Everyone hates the stress of “walking on eggshells” situations where you never know what is coming next. A consistent mean-spirited leader is better than never knowing minute to minute what is coming.

Another side of responsibility is individual. I have told my children many times that at some point in your life; you have to decide what kind of person you will be. Being a reliable and conscientious person is not a grand act. It is not one day running into the burning building to save the occupants. It is a series of small daily decisions, often made when no one else is around. It is deciding to do the right thing when the right thing is inconvenient or unpopular. It is taking the harder course of action and not allowing standards to slip. It is being willing to uncomfortably confront someone to improve their performance or correct a mistake when the easier course is to let it slide.

At the end of the day, it is not the perception of others that the good leader strives to improve. The real leader holds himself/herself up to a personal standard. You cannot fool yourself. You know, even when others don’t, that you did not do your best. You know when you blew something off. If you did everything to the best of your ability, in the end it doesn’t matter what others think because you cannot control others opinions and you will have the satisfaction that comes with true accomplishment.

Brown Nosing and the Destruction of an Organization

Where is the line between enthusiasm and brownnosing? It is like the quality of a great painting. It is difficult to define but we all know it when we see it. A big part of the impression comes from what we think of the individual’s personality. People that are not well-liked are construed to have ulterior motives just because we don’t like them. It is fuel for the fire. But what is it that tips the balance? Is it one act or a series of smaller things? Most people who develop the reputation, at least in my observational experience, set a pattern but it is usually one event that seals the deal. There is a common measure of what is expected in a co-worker. All jobs have some inherent unpleasant things which need to be done. It is the nature of work. People expect that. Most people want to get the job done and go home where the enjoyment is located. The brownnoser is different. An extra duty, particularly a “face time” event where it is generally considered a pain to participate finds the brownnoser overwhelmingly excited to be able to attend. That is one of the recognizable differentiating factors which identify the individual. Another identifying factor is the desire of those individuals to stop at any moment and tell anyone at great length how valuable the brownnoser’s efforts are and how the organization would be doomed without those efforts. Other co-workers contributions are recognized but one gets the sense of a grudging acceptance and feigned over-enthusiasm rather than real enthusiasm. In order to make themselves part of the “in-crowd”, the brownnoser always speaks to others in a “just between us people in the know” attitude in order to give the impression that they are part of the inner circle. This usually involves dropping names of the powerful in the organization. This sucker fish approach to riding on the coattails of power is an attempt to leverage the brownnoser into a position of more power in the organization. In Washington, DC, the saying is “The appearance of power is power”. That is because if someone thinks you are powerful, they will treat you with the proper deference, and therefore you are powerful because you get what you want. The brownnoser uses name-dropping to associate themselves with the powerful in order to appear to be part of that group.

The error in this approach with a smart boss is that the experienced intelligent boss also recognizes brown-nosing for what it is. Unfortunately, brownnosing often works. I remember an engineering job years ago where a peer that was universally regarded as a weak performer by his entire group of peers, with good reason, was rated number one in potential by management primarily on the basis of his organizing golf tournaments which had nothing to do with his job. That is a recipe for poor morale and disgruntled employees. A number of excellent engineers left the organization because of that situation. Communism was ultimately doomed to failure because it flew in the face of human nature. If there is no incentive to work harder, why would anyone do it? The brownnoser does the same thing to an organization. If the brownnoser succeeds preferentially, the other employees stop performing because they recognize their legitimate efforts are in vain. Their only defense is to begin brown-nosing as well and you end up with an organization consisting of two factions: the competing brownnosers and the disgruntled employees doing the minimum to maintain their jobs. Unfortunately, most of us have been in an organization like that at some point. The only way to maintain your drive is to find another place to work. In fact, the most likely people to leave are the best performers because they are in the best position to get better jobs. You cannot work for long for people you don’t respect and those who unwittingly respond to the brownnoser are not respected. Therefore, to maintain the quality of an organization, managers must recognize the brownnoser and not allow their actions to reap favoritism. Only by avoiding that mistake will productivity and morale be sustained.

Leadership Skills

What has happened to leadership skills? I’ve noticed a great tendency toward non-confrontational leadership recently. There is a widespread philosophy of what I call “Punish the innocent for the offense of the guilty”. I noted this process a lot in the military, particularly during my time with the Marine Corps, but it is also present in the Navy and in civilian settings as well. The scenario is usually like this: 1) Something happens which causes some angst for the boss or gets noticed; 2) a knee jerk policy is put in place to prevent anyone from making the same misjudgment even though only one of 10,000 people did it. A more specific example: A large group of military members goes out in town in a foreign country. Of the huge crowd, one or two, misbehave. Therefore, leadership doesn’t allow any else to go out, punishing the 99% who behaved responsibly for the crimes of the one or two who didn’t. Another example: One person abuses a phone privilege. Therefore, no one can use the phone. Once again, punish the innocent. Last example: A specific individual makes an obvious error in judgment or omission. Therefore leadership states, “It is a process problem” and appoints a team to study the process and make recommendations, instead of confronting the specific individual.

Why does this happen? The first reason is laziness. Rather than investigate and hold the specific individuals accountable, it is easier to make a blanket policy despite it being the wrong course of action. The second reason is to avoid uncomfortable confrontation. I am not sure whether people are scared or wimps but sometimes leadership means getting in someone’s face and calling them to account. The R. Lee Ermey style in Full Metal Jacket is extreme but you get the picture. Wimps are terrible leaders, particularly in the military. Individual responsibility is a key to success. I find it ironic that the Marine Corps, which does individual responsibility better than anyone, uses the mass punishment a lot. By using these techniques and a “one strike, you are out” policy, our society creates a group of never make a decision, never take a chance, always form a committee leaders who are ineffective. They are always late with decisions because they run them past everyone who will listen before a decision is made. The decision is usually issued with disclaimers in case anyone doesn’t like it. I heard someone say once, “I am not sure what the path to success is but the sure path to failure is trying to please everyone”. People like Ulysses Grant, William Sherman, George Patton, etc. who were politically incorrect would not do well in today’s leadership models.
Leadership positions are lonely and involve pissing people off on occasion. I look at it this way: You can either occasionally take a turn taking on the responsibility for driving the bus or you have no right to complain when it shows up someplace you didn’t want to go. Authority and responsibility go hand in hand. One cannot be held responsible for something one has no control over. One cannot have power and not be held accountable for actions taken with that power. It is not enough to walk around with a business card that says you are a leader. The skills must be exercised daily. You don’t have to tell people if you are a leader, they will know by watching you.