Skip to main content

Why It's Not A Good Idea To Manipulate People

Branding is often equated with manipulation. Unfortunately, some people can indeed take advantage of its tactics to succeed at work, and in the process step on the very people they are supposed to lead.
They are encouraged to do so because metrics of CEO performance have little or nothing to do with genuinely treating people well.
Think about it. When the term “CEO” (or any term associated with a top executive) is uttered, most of us think of “hard” skills. (See for example this article in Forbes: “Great CEOs Must be Either Technical or Financial.”)
However at least one analysis of CEO data shows that those who occupy this role definitely have certain seeming “people skills” that non-CEOs lack.
Or are they?
The screenshot below is from “Making It to the Top: Nine Attributes That Differentiate CEOs,” an analysis of an in-house database of “nearly 4,000 executive assessments, including over 130 CEOs” done by consulting firm Russell Reynolds Associates.
The company found that CEOs have 9 differentiator qualities. The following 4 are specifically associated with people, under the category “Team Building” –
  • “Seeks to understand different perspectives but does not overanalyze”
  • “Displays intensity/emotion but maintains control”
  • “Involves others in decisions but also is an independent decision maker”
  • “Is comfortable with a variety of people but is not too trusting.”
While on the surface the CEO seems to be a good team member, is it more plausible that this person is actually an advanced manipulator of people?
Consider a recent study, “Narcissistic CEOs and executive compensation” (The Leadership Quarterly, 2013). It found that CEOs may actually be more likely than non-CEOs to have this personality disorder.
“Narcissism is characterized by traits such as dominance, self-confidence, a sense of entitlement, grandiosity, and low empathy.There is growing evidence that individuals with these characteristics often emerge as leaders, and that narcissistic CEOs may make more impulsive and risky decisions.”
Certainly CEOs are not punished for having poor people skills or even evaluated based on the quality of their interactions with other people.
This is true even though we hear over and over again that “people are an organization’s most important asset.” See for example:
Harvard Business Review, in “Valuing Your Most Valuable Assets,” points out this discrepancy, noting that employees don’t normally get white-glove treatment. Yet HBR itself discounts the quality of employee management completely in its ranking of “The Best-Performing CEOs in the World.”
Harvard’s CEO rankings are not based on “people skills” at all!
See below the basis of the rankings and the weights associated with them:
  • Stock performance (80%): 1) total shareholder return 2) change in market capitalization (which is the cost of a share times the number of shares outstanding)
  • Responsibility performance (“ESG”) (20%): A combined measure of the company’s performance on 1) environmental impact 2) social responsibility and 3) quality of governance (Research Methodology)
Here’s the bottom line: When we put our metrics where our mouths are, we will stop seeing mini-dictatorships crop up in in professional organizations. This will be an automatic byproduct of a different kind of “normal” business climate, one in which we stop tolerating leaders with personality disorders and only hire people who routinely treat others with human decency.
This question was originally posed on Quora. This blog is a repost of my answer there. All opinions my own. Photo by Víctor Nuño via Flickr (Creative Commons).

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between brand equity and brand parity?

Brand equity is a financial calculation. It is the difference between a commodity product or service and a branded one. For example if you sell a plain orange for $.50 but a Sunkist orange for $.75 and the Sunkist orange has brand equity you can calculate it at $.25 per orange.

Brand parity exists when two different brands have a relatively equal value. The reason we call it "parity" is that the basis of their value may be different. For example, one brand may be seen as higher in quality, while the other is perceived as fashionable.

All opinions my own. Originally posted to Quora. Public domain photo by hbieser via Pixabay.

What is the difference between "brand positioning," "brand mantra," and "brand tagline?"

Brand positioning statement: This is a 1–2 sentence description of what makes the brand different from its competitors (or different in its space), and compelling. Typically the positioning combines elements of the conceptual (e.g., “innovative design,” something that would be in your imagination) with the literal and physical (e.g., “the outside of the car is made of the thinnest, strongest metal on earth”). The audience for this statement is internal. It’s intended to get everybody on the same page before going out with any communication products.Brand mantra: This is a very short phrase that is used predominantly by people inside the organization, but also by those outside it, in order to understand the “essence” or the “soul” of the brand and to sell it to employees. An example would be Google’s “Don’t be evil.” You wouldn’t really see it in an ad, but you might see it mentioned or discussed in an article about the company intended to represent it to investors, influencers, etc.Br…

Nitro Cold Brew and the Oncoming Crash of Starbucks

A long time ago (January 7, 2008), the Wall Street Journal ran an article about McDonald's competing against Starbucks.
At the time the issue was that the former planned to pit its own deluxe coffees head to head with the latter.
At the time I wrote that while Starbucks could be confident in its brand-loyal consumers, the company, my personal favorite brand of all time,  "...needs to see this as a major warning signal. As I have said before, it is time to reinvent the brand — now.  "Starbucks should consider killing its own brand and resurrecting it as something even better — the ultimate, uncopyable 'third space' that is suited for the way we live now.  "There is no growth left for Starbucks as it stands anymore — it has saturated the market. It is time to do something daring, different, and better — astounding and delighting the millions (billions?) of dedicated Starbucks fans out there who are rooting for the brand to survive and succeed." Today as …