Conversation 6: Management, Leadership, and Mismanagement Styles

The (PAEI) code has multiple uses. Today we will apply it to understand managerial or lead- ership styles. But first please let us review what we have covered so far.

Okay. To manage is to decide and implement. To decide, we need to focus on effectiveness and efficiency in the short and the long term. For that we need the (PAEI) roles to be performed. The problem is that the roles are incompatible.

What happens if a role is not performed?

To understand what happens when a role is missing in managerial styles, I created archetypes of some extreme cases. In these cases, instead of having one role missing and three performed, I have three roles missing and one performed. Once we understand these extreme cases, we can better understand the less extreme ones.

(P- - -): The Lone Ranger

Let’s take the first case, in which (P)erforming is the predominant role. It is the doing, the achieving, the single-minded fulfillment of the purpose for which the organization exists. (A), (E), and (I) do not exist in this (P - - -) style, which I call the Lone Ranger style.

How does the Lone Ranger manage or lead? I emphasize the word how. We’re not inter- ested in why the (P - - -)’s style is as it is. We are not psychologists who want to know what happened in someone’s childhood to cause certain behavior in adult life. We are interested in how someone actually behaves as a manager and what we can do about it.

But it is tough, if not impossible, to change a person’s style.

You are right. I do not believe I can change style totally. I can, however, make it more flexible and able to relate to others.

Now, think about how the Lone Ranger rose through the ranks to become a manager.

That’s easy, diligent, hard-working (P)erformers are often promoted to management.

The Lone Ranger is neither a LIFO nor a FIFO, but a FISH: First In, Still Here.

But now that several people are reporting to the Lone Ranger, what’s happening?

There will be problems. (A)dministering, coordinating, and supervising are not a (P- - -)’s strong points.

Neither are new ideas, change, and vision. (I)ntegrating people is also missing from the (P- - -)’s repertoire. This (P) excels exclusively in (P)erforming, in (P)roducing results.

I think I know this person.

Let’s examine the Lone Ranger’s style. Does he work hard?

Certainly! Very hard.

When does the Lone Ranger arrive at work?

First, before anyone else.

When does he leave?

Last.

In inventory control, the terms LIFO and FIFO stand for Last In, First Out and First In, First Out. The Lone Ranger is neither a LIFO nor a FIFO, but a FISH: First In, Still Here. The (P- - -) works all the time. At eleven o’clock at night, what does the (P- - -) take home?

I suspect there are physiological causes to behavior, having to do with hormones and glands—for example, the (P) role could be driven by the adrenaline gland, and the (E) by the thyroid gland—but this is so far from my expertise that, for now, let us skip it.

A briefcase full of work.

Right. The exhausted Lone Ranger might not have the time or energy to even open the briefcase, yet it’s there next to the bed. Some Lone Rangers travel the world lugging their briefcases. They don’t have time to open them, but they carry them just in case. They’re like alcoholics who are never far from a bottle. That’s why some people call (P- - -)s workahol- ics, who are never far from work. You can identify them in seminars. First of all, do (P- - -)s willingly attend workshops or seminars?

No. They go only if ordered to. They have no time for meetings, there’s too much to do.

At seminars, where do you find them during the break?

On the telephone to the office, asking, “Any problems?”

It’s as if they’re saying, “I’ve been here for two hours with, God forbid, no problems. Please give me a problem to solve.” They’re like alcoholics saying, “Two hours and I haven’t had a drink. Please, have mercy. Give me a drink.”

I know this type. When they are forced to attend a meeting and a secretary walks in with a stack of papers, they’re the first to ask, “Anything for me?” They like to do work. (P- - -)s measure themselves by how hard they work. They worry if they’re not worried.

That’s why it’s dangerous to have a (P- - -) around after an organization has outgrown him. This person is like an unguided missile. Let’s say the founder has a (P) style and he shows up at the office because he doesn’t know how to fill his time any other way. If he has nothing to do, he will find something that may only stir up trouble. He might cross organizational boundaries and ignore organizational charts. You might even find him at the shipping dock telling people how to load a truck. Worse, he might call a customer and make a deal that violates company policies. Why? Because he has to do something. If you don’t give a (P- - -) something to do, he’s going to do something you may not want done.

Like a child.

Lone Rangers work very hard. They complain that the day is too short and that there is too much to do. If someone asks, “Why don’t you delegate some work to your staff?” what’s the answer?

“They can’t do it. They’re not ready yet.”

“How long have they worked for you? Twenty-five years? Why don’t you train them?”

“I have no time to train them!”

“Why don’t you have time?”

“Because I have no one to delegate to.”

(P- - -)s go in circles and can’t delegate. That’s why I call this person the Lone Ranger.

Next, how does the Lone Ranger’s desk look? Clean?

No, it’s crowded with papers. If one desk is not big enough, there’s a credenza behind it, also crowded.

If that’s not enough, there are papers all over the floor and along the wall. If you ask the (P- - -) how he is doing, what will the answer be?

“Oh my God! There’s so much to do. I’ve been working so hard lately.”

And if you ask how long “lately” is? “

Twenty-five years!”

If you want to see a depressed Lone Ranger, clean up his desk overnight.

Their behavior is compulsive. Imagine asking an alcoholic, what should I do with this bottle of Chivas Regal? What would he say?

“Put it on my desk.”

Likewise, when you ask a Lone Ranger, what should I do with this problem, what will be the response?

“Put it on my desk.”

When you look at the desk of a Lone Ranger, what you see is not work but “a wine cellar.” If you want to see a depressed Lone Ranger, clean up his desk overnight.

I knew a manager who had a subordinate who worked extremely hard but always complained she had too much to do. The manager decided to help her out by not giving her any new assignments until her desk was cleared. The cleaner the desk got, however, the more depressed she became. Instead of feeling relieved, she felt rejected. Now I understand why.

Good example. Now let’s look at the people who work for a Lone Ranger. They come to work most of the time after him and what are they doing?

Waiting for an errand to run.

In organizational parlance, the Lone Ranger’s employees are called gofers: they go for this, go for that. They’re untrained, unprepared, and undirected. They are expected to get it done and then ask what’s next.

Does the Lone Ranger hold staff meetings?

No. There isn’t any time.

Suppose the Lone Ranger is told he must have staff meetings because a good manager should have them. What would the meetings be like?

Very short. The Lone Ranger would tell the staff what to do, then send them on errands. Few questions would be asked. No debate. No discussion. Then the (P- - -) would proudly announce, “We had a staff meeting!”

Does the Lone Ranger train people?

No. A Lone Ranger would say, “I have no time to train,” or “Why train people? All they have to do is watch me do it, work hard, and get the job done.”

The Lone Ranger sees the world in a simplistic way, the problems are simple and the solutions are simple. The problem is you’re not working hard enough. The solution is to work harder. That’s all. The (P- - -) confuses quantity with quality.

More is better for a Lone Ranger. All you have to do is do more: If we tried harder, we wouldn’t have any problems. Our problem is that people are not working hard enough.

Function is everything; form is ignored. From the (P- - -)’s perspective if you work hard enough, success is assured.

(-A- -): The Bureaucrat

Now let’s proceed to the next deficient style: (-A- -).

The (-A- -) is not a (P)roducer of results or a (P)erformer. She doesn’t focus on the needs that must be (P)rovided by the organization, but solely on (A)dministration, systematization, and routine. The Lone Ranger looks exclusively at what is being done, never mind how. The (-A- -) is looking exclusively at how it’s being done, never mind what it is.

This person is not an (E), who would move in new directions, take new risks, and initiate change. Neither is this person an (I), who tries to bring people together. I call this person the Bureaucrat.

A Bureaucrat manages by the book and looks exclusively at how to make the organization efficient, right?

A bureaucrat sometimes ends up running a well-controlled disaster.

Yes, and the book, by the way, doesn’t have to be written. It may be all in the (-A- -)’s memory. She runs the organization on precedents. A system exists and you are expected to follow it. Everything must be documented. The Bureaucrat suffers from a disease called “manualitis,” everything must be put into manuals. When does a Bureaucrat come to work?

On time.

When does she leave?

On time.

When do the Bureaucrat’s subordinates get to work?

They’d better be there on time.

When do they leave?

On time.

What do you think they are doing in the meantime?

That’s not important. What’s important is that they get there on time and leave on time. To them the form is more important than the function. I have seen this many times.

That’s how a Bureaucrat sometimes ends up running a well-controlled disaster. The company’s going broke, but on time. Everything is very efficient and by the book. What does the Bureaucrat do with free time?

Write that book!

Yes!

The Bureaucrat is always looking to control violations. The (-A- -)’s function is to make new rules, new standard operating procedures, and new policies. That’s why in bureaucracies the book of procedures and policies grows larger and larger from year to year. The more violations the (-A- -)s find, the more rules they have to make. More rules, however, mean more violations, which means more rules are needed. The book grows over time without bringing more control.

Does a Bureaucrat have staff meetings?

Of course. Probably every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, from nine in the morning until noon.

Does the (-A- -) have an agenda?

Absolutely, with details regarding how, not the what, or the why.

The Bureaucrat wants to do things right and cares less about whether they are doing the right things.

Subordinates in an (A)-dominated culture learn that if they don’t make waves, if they do everything by the book, and lie low long enough, they might become the president.

The classic Bureaucrat is the character of Captain Queeg in the novel The Caine Mutiny by Herman Wouk. In the middle of World War II, what worries Captain Queeg most?

Who stole the strawberries.

A company managed by a Bureaucrat may be going broke, but they will call a meeting about who stole the strawberries, or who did not fill out the proper forms. The Bureaucrat wants to do things right and cares less about whether they are doing the right things. She would rather be precisely wrong than approximately right.

I can see that the Bureaucrat also confuses form with function, except that in contrast to the Lone Ranger, the Bureaucrat believes that if the form is carried out, the function will follow. An (-A- -) perceives that all that is needed to achieve results is to go through the motions faithfully and sometimes blindly.

Consider Captain Queeg. A typhoon was about to sink his ship unless he ordered a change in course. But what did he say? “I’m not disobeying orders on account of some bad weather.”

This reminds me of a story about Bureaucrats. I was on a plane flying over the Amazon River and an accountant was seated next to me. He asked, “Do you know how old this river is? It’s one billion years and seven months old.” That figure sounded strange, so I asked, “How do you figure one billion years and seven months?” He said, “Seven months ago somebody told me it was a billion years old.”

Bureaucrats will give you a budget balanced to the last cent, but in the wrong direction. They can be precisely wrong.

Your story reminds me of another one, two friends were riding in a hot-air balloon and got lost in the clouds. They began to descend, trying to figure out where they were. When they spotted someone on the ground, they shouted to him, “Where are we?” The person shouted back, “In a balloon.” One friend said to the other, “That guy must be an (A). His information was accurate, precise, and totally useless.”

Oh, this joke has a continuation. The guy on the ground goes home and tells his wife, “I just met two top-level executives, (E)s. They are up there in the clouds and have no idea where they are, where are they going, or where they’re coming from.

You are alluding to the third type of mismanagement, or misleadership, the men in the balloon: (- -E-).

(- -E-): The Arsonist

Describe for me this style as you understand it.

The (- -E-) has zero (P). He doesn’t pay attention to providing the immediately needed service. He also has zero (A). The details of how something gets done are unimportant. Zero (I) means interpersonal relationships, team building, and organizational climate are not important either.

This person is an exclusive (E). This style is looking primarily to the future and identifying what he considers to be new opportunities.

Right. I call this style “the Arsonist.” He likes to start fires.

An Arsonist is usually very dangerous on Monday mornings or upon returning from a plane trip that lasted more than three hours. The (- -E-) has had time to dream up new strategies, new priorities, and a new direction. The (- -E-) is very excited as he unloads these ideas on the employees.

When do the employees come to work? What will happen if the Arsonist shows up at seven in the morning and the employees are not there?

The Arsonist wouldn’t like that. He would feel they’re not committed enough.

When do the subordinates leave?

Right after the Arsonist leaves!

Yes, they have to be at work before the (- -E-) and leave after he does.

The time people arrive at and leave work is one of the behavioral characteristics that identify managerial or leadership styles. The Lone Ranger is first in, last out. The Bureaucrat is in on time, out on time.

When does the Arsonist come to work?

Who knows!

When does he leave work?

Who knows!

But since people don’t know when the Arsonist will appear or disappear, and they must be at work before him and leave after him, what happens? They are on-call practically twenty-four hours a day, 365 days a year. It is not unusual for the Arsonist to call a staff member in the middle of the night from Paris to discuss a sudden idea.

I’ve seen companies with a big (- -E-) in charge. The subordinates are vice presidents who make huge salaries, but they sit in their offices until seven or eight at night just watching their fingernails grow. They have little to do, but they’re afraid to go home, because the Arsonist might call a meeting. They never know when that might happen, but everyone must be ready. Nobody knows what the agenda is either. Even if the Arsonist does have one, he is the first to violate it. The staff is supposed to be able to answer questions according to whatever agenda the Arsonist has in mind. People attend meetings with their entire office in a mental briefcase.

Let’s compare this style with that of the Lone Ranger. The Lone Ranger is called a workaholic, but she might also be called a firefighter, since the Lone Ranger responds to problems after they occur. When a fire flares up, she extinguishes it, then waits for the next burst of flames. Another term for the Lone Ranger is “manager by crisis.” In fact, the Lone Ranger is managed by crisis.

If the Lone Ranger’s style is management by crisis, the Arsonist’s style is crisis by management. The Lone Ranger gets ulcers, the Arsonist gives them.

Now, if the (P- - -) is a firefighter, the (- -E-) is an Arsonist. If the Lone Ranger’s style is manage- ment by crisis, the Arsonist’s style is crisis by management. The Lone Ranger gets ulcers, the Arsonist gives them. That’s why when the Arsonist returns from a trip, people whisper, “Here he comes.” They know the Arsonist will call a meeting and start new fires. The Arsonist enjoys seeing people run around frantically, working harder than usual, as if the organization were on fire. That’s why when an Arsonist asks you how you’re doing, you should answer, “I’m working so hard, I’m falling apart. I haven’t seen my family for weeks.” The Arsonist might respond, “Good, good.”

In a company managed by an Arsonist, who does all the talking in a meeting?

The Arsonist!

Here’s another joke to make the point. Italians are known for their food and their music, but not for their military accomplishments. In the First World War, some Italian soldiers were in the trenches ready to attack. Out of the trenches emerged a commanding officer in a beau- tiful blue uniform with a red sash, gold epaulets, and many decorations. He pulled out his saber, raised it to the sky and shouted, “Avaaaantiiiiiii!” The soldiers in the trenches looked up, clapped their hands, and shouted, “Bravo!” But nobody left the trenches!

Feeling incompatibilities in your organization? Maximize your managerial potential by exploring the Adizes Leadership Indicators Suite (ALIS) test. Gain clarity on your strengths, weaknesses, and unique managerial style to excel in your career.

The same happens in the organization managed by an Arsonist. Upon returning from a trip, the Arsonist calls a staff meeting and starts waving his saber in the air, enthusiastically pre- senting ideas that he is excited about. He exclaims, “We have this opportunity, we have that opportunity! We are going to do this, we are going to do that.” The subordinates look at each other and mentally clap hands while thinking, “Bravo! Here we go again.” But nobody gets out of the trenches. Why?

Because next Monday the Arsonist is going to change direction again. An Arsonist never tells you to stop what you’re doing, but continues giving you new things to do. When people get out of the trenches, they soon realize they’re running in circles. So what happens? They learn to stay in the trenches, clap their hands, and await the next avalanche of “absolutely top priorities.” They pray and hope the boss will forget them. Maybe he doesn’t really mean it. What does the (- -E-) really mean anyway?

It’s difficult to soar like an eagle when he is surrounded by turkeys.

You are right. Subordinates spend an enormous amount of time trying to understand where their Arsonist boss stands. They waste energy trying to interpret directions and hold off on acting because they don’t know if the decisions are for real or just ideas.

This frustrates the Arsonist, who has dreamed up more and more fantastic new ideas de- signed to make changes. Staff people cheer “Bravo!” yet they don’t move. Nothing, or very little, gets done. From experience they believe it is just another idea and he will change his mind soon thereafter or forget the idea because a new one came to replace the old one.

Unfortunately for all, in this case it was not an idea, but a real decision. The Arsonist grows impatient, since nothing is happening. He is thinking it’s difficult to soar like an eagle when he is surrounded by turkeys. The organization is not moving, (- -E-) concludes, because the employees don’t support what he wants. Paranoia and suspicion of sabotage set in. He looks for the culprit. (- -E-)s usually have someone whom they accuse of not being up to par. There must be someone who carries a bell around his neck like the lead bull. Someone who is the reason why nothing is done as the (- -E-) wants. If that person quits, almost instantaneously the (E) choses a new person to become the scapegoat.

It’s too late for you to disagree with me. I’ve already changed my mind.

The Arsonist fails to realize that people can’t fol- low because they don’t understand what is wanted. Arsonists themselves frequently don’t know what they want either. They might even say, “It’s too late for you to disagree with me. I’ve already changed my mind.”

Sometimes subordinates think a decision is real, so they act on it. Then the Arsonist gets upset, asking, “Why did you do that? I was only thinking out loud.” In another case, when the people don’t follow his directions, the Arsonist becomes outraged. “Why didn’t you carry out my decision? That was a final decision!”

It is funny but sad. People really have difficulty knowing what’s going on with an Arsonist. They lose whether they work on an assignment or not. Without an easy way to carry out, or even catch up with the latest idea, they constantly feel like losers.

Arsonists don’t realize that they are their own worst enemies.

The Arsonist too suffers from a sense of failure. His mind rushes forward faster than the accomplishments of the organization, leaving him unfulfilled. Over time he feels disillusioned, and deeply disappointed. He feels people have let him down. Arsonists don’t realize that they are their own worst enemies.

An organization is like a series of gears: A big wheel causes a succession of smaller wheels to turn. When the big wheel makes one turn, the small wheels must make many.

If the “big wheel” is an Arsonist, it changes direction frequently and abruptly. It goes forward a full circle, then backward a half circle, then forward again a half circle, then back two full circles. What happens then to the small wheels? For every little bit the big wheel turns, they have to make a full circle. They turn a little and then in mid-turn they have to reverse. Before they even have a chance to follow the last instruction, they have to change direction. Finally, the gears break down. Nothing or very little gets done. When that happens, the Arsonist feels this proves his suspicion that the staff is not to be trusted. They did not do what they were supposed to do.

But Arsonists are charismatic. They’re dreamers, and they attract people who believe in their dreams.

Only to become disillusioned later, because people cannot fulfill the Arsonist’s ever- changing dreams.

How about the subordinates?

Each of the extreme styles has a typical subordinate. As I mentioned, the Lone Ranger’s subordinates are gofers. They’re untrained and must be always ready to carry an assignment, trained or not. The Bureaucrat’s subordinates I call yes-yes clerks. They follow the rules and don’t make waves. The Arsonist’s subordinates are called claques, after the people hired by an opera house manager to start artificial applause on opening night. An Arsonist’s subordinates are paid to clap hands and cheer.

When an Arsonist calls a meeting and presents ideas, can you object?

It’s dangerous, because Arsonists will take it personally and hold it against you. Arsonists hire employees to clap hands, not to boo while they sing their high C. Tread lightly when disagreeing with Arsonists, because the big (E) also stands for Big Ego.

Never have an audience when you have a sensitive meeting with an (- -E-).

The moment you express doubts about an (- -E-)’s idea, he will interpret your reaction as disagreement. It would be better to preface your comments with “I agree with you that...” and watch how you use the word “but.” The Arsonist may get annoyed. Try to avoid saying “I disagree.” It real- ly can infuriate them. Say instead, “I have a different opinion for your consideration.” And always have a discussion in “four eyes.” If there is a third person attending, the (- -E-) will de- fend his position and fail to be logical. He will fight you. He has to win the argument. Never have an audience when you have a sensitive meeting with an (- -E-).

You are absolutely right. I have to watch whomever am I working with. Each has a different style and I can upset them badly if I do not know how to handle their style.

I recommend my book Leading the Leaders. It will tell you in detail how to handle different styles. It can help your marriage too.

Now, let’s look at the last style of mismanagement.

(- - -I): The Super Follower

What do you think happens when you have only (- - -I)?

This type of manager’s exclusive focus is on who, never mind what, how, or why. They look at people and how they‘re dealing with each other.

Let me give you an analogy; four people are looking out the same window, but they see four different things. One of them sees birds, mountains, lakes, and sailboats. Who is that? Who sees only the big picture?

The (E).

The second person looks out the same window and sees no birds, no clouds, no sailboats, only that the frame is dirty. Who is that?

The (A).

Right. This style is obsessed with details. For instance, you could write a major report about how and why your company should enter the New York market, and the (A) might return it with small corrections and objections over minute details. You suspect the Bureaucrat missed the whole point of your report. You saw the big picture, and the (A) missed it by focusing on the details.

The third person sees neither the big picture nor the details. Instead, this person is busy figur- ing out how the window opens and how it is cleaned. Does it allow enough air in? Is it facing the right direction? The functionality of the window is what interests this person most.

That’s the (P).

Right. Finally, the last person isn’t even looking at the window. This person is looking at the other three people and wondering what they’re looking at. Examining people and their interdependence is the primary concern of (I). She is interested exclusively in who is with whom. I call this person (- - -I), the Super Follower.

Why “Super Follower?”

Look at it this way. In a meeting managed by a Super Follower, who speaks?

Everybody else.

What does the Super Follower do?

Listens to which people said what, who did not say what, and why they didn’t say what they could have said.

(I)s know what’s going on politically better than everyone else in the organization.

She focuses on people and their interrelationships. They have a good political nose. They don’t show their cards easily, because they want to know where the group is going before committing themselves. They don’t communicate clearly, because they want to find out first what other people think. They might send up a weather balloon by saying, “I have an idea, but I’m not that sure about it.” They might say, “I recommend we declare dividends, but I don’t feel too strongly about it.”

(I)s know what’s going on politically better than everyone else in the organization. They want to know what the consensus is so they can join it.

(- - -I)s do not lead. They follow the followers.

There is another name for this style. When my book How to Solve the Mismanagement Crisis was translated into Spanish, the translators called this style pez enjabonado. That’s Spanish for “soaped fish,” something so slippery you can’t hold onto it.

In trying to corner the Soaped Fish, you might say, “You said this,” to which she would re- spond, “You didn’t understand what I really wanted to say.” A Soaped Fish always wiggles out. How? Because she is more politically astute than anyone else. She feels the vibrations and underlying political currents of the organization before anyone else. Group dynamics and power politics are her focus.

Employees of the Soaped Fish are called informers. They find out what’s going on, who said what, why they said what they said, and what they meant when they said it. Through these informers, the (- - -I) hears and understands the organizational drum signals.

But aren’t we painting an extreme picture?

Each one of these styles is an extreme case. It is extreme because one role is being performed and the other three are not at all. That is why those are exaggerations. I have exaggerated on purpose to be able to see the contours of behavior clearly. In reality people are not that extreme. They have some of the above style characteristics but not all.

Managers vs. Mismanagers

When you have a big (P) and small (aei) it means the person is primarily a (P)roducer of results, but also has some ability in the other roles. He doesn’t excel in them, but isn’t blind to them either. A (Paei) is not a Lone Ranger, but a (P)roducer, and usually a first-line super- visor. A manager.

By the same reasoning, a (pAei) is not a Bureaucrat, but an (A)dministrator, and a (paEi) is not an Arsonist, but a creative contributor. (In order to be an entrepreneur, she needs to be (PaEi).)

In life there are many combinations of (PAEI) roles, with different degrees of strength and weaknesses producing styles that combine the archetypes described here.

Each style has strengths and weaknesses. We should not say that (E) is bad in itself. It’s bad if the other roles are zero. We always have to ask ourselves if there is a full code. Does a partic- ular person have a one-track style or a well-rounded style?

If a style has a blank in the code, that person is a mismanager. If the person has all the letters of the code, how large each role should be depends on the task, on the responsibilities that person has. If a style has no blank in the code, that person is a manager; and if he has two roles in capitals and one of them is (I), that person is a leader.

For an in-depth discussion of this subject of styles, see my trilogy: The Ideal Executive: Why you cannot be one and what to do about it, Management/Mismanagement Styles, and Leading the Leaders

We can sum up this conversation about managers and mismanagers with this chart:

DIAGRAMA

If you assume that each role can vary in intensity from zero to a hundred, you will have more permutations of styles than people on earth. So, we are all different and, at the same time, we are all similar.

To summarize, we have learned that when any of the (PAEI) roles is missing, mismanagement will occur and the resulting style of mismanagement will be somewhat predictable. Conversely, when two roles are capitalized and one of them is an (I), a leadership style will emerge.

We are all different and, at the same time, we are all similar.

This means that there are different leadership styles: (PaeI), (pAeI), (paEI), or, even better (PAei) and (PaEI)?

Absolutely. Whether a person is a leader is a question not only of style, but also of what the organization needs at that time. The founder of a company needs to be a (PaEi), or, even better a (PaEI) leader. If her style is (PAeI), it will not work for a startup company. She will suffocate the “baby.” But that could be exactly the leadership style needed for a company in the aging stages of the lifecycle.

We all can be leaders as long as we have (I), but what style of leaders we will be depends what the system needs at that point in time.

Next, we’ll discuss what happens when all four (PAEI) roles are missing, and when all four (PAEI) roles are performed equally well.

That should be easy.

It isn’t, and you’ll see why!

See Adizes, Managing Corporate Lifecycles