The Role of Leadership

Having a complementary team does not mean all are equal. Someone has to lead.

Let’s look more carefully at the role of leadership itself. Is the character of a team leader substantially different from the rest of the team? I suggest that it is not. All good managers should command and grant mutual respect and trust; if they cannot, they should not be on a complementary team to begin with.

We’ve said that trust is created when there is an environment in which people have faith that they will benefit in the long run from their short-run sacrifices. Respect is created when conflicts are perceived not as problems but as opportunities to learn.

But how do you get divergent personalities to effectively communicate and ultimately come together around important decisions? That is the leader’s role. A leader, then is a person who not only excels at certain roles, but also is energized by the process of collaborative decision-making – where conflict is as necessary an ingredient as smell is in an onion – and can help others to share that experience. And, equally important, he can build a climate, a system of shared vision and values, that encourages everyone to work together so that no one is indispensable. This ability, which I call (I)ntegration, can change the consciousness of the organization from mechanistic to organic, and turn individual (E)ntrepreneurship into group (E)ntrepreneurship.

Thus, in order to identify the leaders, or those with the potential to become leaders, in our organizations, there are certain qualities we should be looking for, and they are more about character than style.

Leadership is Being a Thumb

The best things in life are sometimes discovered in their absence. You don’t know the value of love until you don’t have it anymore; you can’t realize the value of health until you’ve been sick. You don’t know the value of democracy until you’ve lived under a dictatorship.

A good leader may also be revealed by what happens – or doesn’t happen – in his absence; that’s when his staff notices that everything is running as if he’s around, even though he isn’t around. Ralph Ablon has said: “A good manager creates an environment in which the most desirable thing will most probably happen.”

Many people visualize leadership as a pointing finger. “Do this, do that!” I believe a complementary team is like a hand composed of fingers of different lengths and capabilities, and its leader is like a thumb. Why? Because the thumb is the only finger that opposes the other fingers, yet can “work” with any or all of them – thus enabling them to perform as a hand. If you lose a thumb, a surgeon will break one of your healthy fingers and refashion it into a thumb so you can have a hand again.

Being a leader is being a thumb: Making different fingers work together like a hand.

A good manager does not necessarily have to excel at (I)n­te­gration, or being a thumb. A leader, however, does. The difference between good management and the next level, leadership, is that a leader must excel in at least two of the managerial roles, one of which must be (I)ntegration. Without that ability to (I)ntegrate, which enables four fingers to perform like a hand, there can be no teamwork.

Of course, all members of a team should have some leadership qualities – at least the minimum level necessary to (I)ntegreate a department or a meeting, and keep conflict from destroying fragile agreements.

There are three archetype styles for leadership. The first is (PaeI), whom I call the shift-level leader, or sometimes “The Small League Coach.“ Then there’s (pAeI) – a Participative (A)dministrator; and finally there is (paEI) – the Statesman. If the three of them were to comprise a team, the question of who would lead it would have to be determined by the changing nature of the tasks to be performed and the always evolving mission of the organization itself.

For me, a good analogy for leadership is a relay race. Please note that I did not say a marathon race, which is as different from a relay race is night is from day. A relay race, of course, is based on teamwork, while a marathon is an individual effort.

Here is another good analogy: Good leaders are like parents who take turns supervising their children – so the kids will learn early how to adapt to different models of authority.

In the Adizes methodology there is no voting; nor are team members’ proposals rejected unilaterally (if it occurs at all, a veto would take place only at the highest level of the company). Instead, the team discusses the problem until there is consensus – and I mean consensus, not compromise. The only exception is when there is time pressure, in which case the leader will make a temporary decision to be reviewed and possibly revised later.

What kind of leader is best for a particular organization at a given moment in time will depend on several variables, including where the organization is in its lifecycle, the styles of the other team members and on the nature of the tasks to be accomplished. The appropriate leadership style must change as the organization grows and ages, just as parenting style has to change depending on the age of the child.

Get your printed copy of this book, or get it for your Kindle!

Characteristics of a Leader

Characteristics of a Leader Understanding that no one can be the ideal, perfect manager described in management school textbooks, what general characteristics should we be looking for instead?

A good member of a complementary leadership team sees himself as a servant. He’s there to serve the organization so that the people that comprise it can get their job done. He creates an environment in which people can shine.

And a good leader assumes that his people are doing their best. As K.H. Blanchard said, “Catch them doing it right. Don’t catch them doing it wrong. Reinforce the positive.” If someone is not doing his best, a leader will sense that, figure out what is blocking his capabilities, and help him to improve. If that proves impossible, a leader will find another place to work that better fits his capabilities and style. Eventually, with the leader's help, that person will shine somewhere.

As will become clearer in the following pages, what makes a good leader is maturity, and maturity comes from experience – from the “University of Hard Knocks.” I’m very much against the “fast track” for young MBAs: It means they climb to the top based on what they know, not what they are. What they lack is the experience that brings maturity, which in turn brings humility.

Not everybody knows how to lose, for instance. Winning is easy. Losing is difficult. Show me a leader who knows how to lose and come out a winner (by acquiring some wisdom in the process), and I will show you a good leader, because the road to heaven is through hell. The person who has gone through hell knows his weaknesses and has learned to be humble. He’s learned to seek the assistance and support of others. As the late Mary Kay said when she was asked the secret of her success, “Do you want to see the scars on my knees?”

What makes a winner is not whether or not he falls, but how quickly he gets up and tries again,

A good leader creates an environment where the most desirable outcome will probably happen. He (I)ntegrates. He is a thumb, not a pointing finger.

I know that many of the attributes I ascribe to a leader are traditionally considered feminine rather than masculine traits. The role of the (I)ntegrator in a complementary team is analogous to that of one parent – usually the mother – in a family? What makes a house a home if not the feminine energy? What integrates a family, with its multiple needs and personalities, into a cohesive entity if not the feminine energy? But please notice I did not say “a woman” or “a man,” because the so-called feminine energies can be possessed by either.

A leader is best when people barely know that he exists, Not so good when people obey and acclaim him, Worst when they despise him. Fail to honor people, They fail to honor you; But of a good leader, who talks little, When his work is done, his aim fulfilled, They will all say, “We did this ourselves."

—Lao Tse

Can the elements of good team leadership be broken down and generalized? In working with leaders of organizations all over the world, I have found that good leaders do have certain characteristics in common:

1. Self-awareness

Most people do not know themselves. All of us tend to be a bit deluded about ourselves, believing that we are excellent (P)roducers, fine (A)dministrators, creative (E)ntrepreneurs, and good at (I)n­te­gra­ting others. We rarely have an accurate picture of ourselves; we are either favorably or unfavorably biased toward ourselves.

A good leader must be aware of what he is doing, aware of his style, his (PAEI) code. Can you monitor yourself the way you monitor others? That may sound simple but it isn’t. When I describe mismanagement styles in my lectures, people in the audience laugh because they can immediately identify their bosses, their peers, their subordinates. They can say, “That one is a big (P),” “That one is a big (A),” etc.

But when they try to categorize their own style, it’s more difficult. Why? Because most people are not aware of what they do. “It takes two to know one,” as the social scientist Gregory Bateson once said. Being aware means being cognizant of your and other people’s reactions and emotions. Can you feel what is going on?

2. Consciousness

What is the difference between being aware and being conscious? They are not synonyms. Consciousness to me means: “I am aware of the consequences and meaning of what I am aware of. I understand cause and effect. I am cognizant of my effect on others – the impact my behavior has on other people’s behavior.”

You might think that you are a wonderful (I)ntegrator, not realizing that you cause lots of disruptive conflicts in the organization. What counts is not only how you feel but how you make others feel.

One way to be conscious of your behavior and its effect is to watch how people react to your words and actions.

But that is not as simple as just seeing what happens; you have to notice it, understand it, and evaluate it. This requires, first of all, that you have the ability to intuit other people’s feelings by observing their body language and behavior, their words and their silences.

Second, you must be conscious enough of what you have said and done, and how it might have been experienced, that other people’s reactions will make sense to you.

For example, let us say you are a big (P) manager and you tend to order people around very brusquely when you’re tense. After an episode of that kind, it wouldn’t do you much good to notice that your staff people seem angry or subdued – unless you are also aware that you behaved brusquely and might have hurt some feelings.

None of this is simple. This is multi-tasking in the inscrutable arena of human relations, where knowing all the facts does not necessarily make you wise.

But this awareness beyond yourself of the meaning and impact of what you do is part of what defines us as human. Have you ever seen an animal build a temple, or worship a god, or make symbols? No: We are the only living creatures who assign meaning to symbols. We even die and kill for symbols. Animals are aware, but they do not attempt to construct a bigger picture, to derive a meaning from their acquired knowledge. That is consciousness, which goes beyond awareness.

In order to be conscious, you have to be (I)ntegrated in the world, understanding that there is a larger meaning beyond yourself. There must be an intention behind your actions, a purpose for what you do that transcends yourself.

Awareness is short-term; consciousness is long-term. Unless you are conscious, you will not try to build a learning environment, you will not try to be tolerant or patient. You will just do whatever you want to do, because you’re not thinking beyond yourself and your own short-term desires.

I suggest that we are what we do to others; we are how we behave. This existentialist, behavioral approach implies that in order to know ourselves, we must realize what effect we have on others. We can do this best if we are open enough to hear and accept what people have to say about us – even if what they say is inconsistent with our own beliefs about ourselves.

Can you see yourself through the eyes of others? If you really want to know who you are, go ask your subordinates; they know exactly who you are. If you cannot bring yourself to ask, or you cannot credit what people tell you when you do ask, you’re almost certainly going to be living with some illusions about yourself.

A conscious leader knows how his style affects the team as a whole. Thus, being conscious means you must hear, and then listen to and feel what you hear – rather than just hearing without listening, or listening without feeling. This brings me to a personal story:

Many years ago I was lecturing in Mexico, speaking in English with a simultaneous translation. And I was getting tired of simultaneous translation because the audience always laughed at my jokes a minute or two after I said the punch line; it was all out of synch.

So I asked them whether they would mind if I spoke to them in 15thcentury Spanish, or Ladino, which as a Sephardic Jew I had spoken as a child. (It was the only language in which my grandmother and I could communicate.) They agreed. So I tried it and something very interesting happened. At a certain point when I asked them, in 15th-century Spanish, “Did you hear me?” they looked as if they did not understand me. So I asked them in English, “What did I say? Why are you reacting that way?”

“Well, you asked us if we feel you.”

“No, no, no, no,” I said. “I did not ask you if you feel me, I asked you if you hear me.”

And they said, “Oh no, the word in modern Spanish is escuchar, and you were using the word sentir, which is really to feel.” (It’s interesting, however, that in modern Spanish the source of the word remains: A person who is hard of hearing is called “mal de sentido.”)

That’s when I had a big illumination: Five hundred years ago, the verbs “to feel,” “to hear,” and “to listen” were one and the same word: Sentir. It really meant “to sense.” (That is why, in languages that developed from the same source, the word sentir today has different meanings. In Spanish it means “to feel,” in Italian “to hear,” in French “to smell.”)

What has civilization, development and sophistication brought us? Now there are three words instead of one. Now I can hear and not listen: “I heard you!” – but I did not listen to what was said. I can repeat every word of what was said, but it went in one ear and out the other. Nothing was absorbed because I did not listen.

Then there is the next disintegration, in which a person listens to what he hears but he does not feel it.

Five hundred years ago, people felt what they were saying to each other; they were more in touch with each other. Life was more primitive but more connected. My dog, for instance, can hear, listen, and feel me just by smelling me. When I come home, he senses if I am in the mood to play or whether I am so upset that he’d better keep out of the way. I do not have to say a word. He feels me.

With some people, on the other hand, it might take time and effort for them to make the transition from hearing to listening and finally to feeling what I want to say. The modern world with its rapid change has caused disintegration, to disengage, separate, tune out. Thus, it is much more difficult to communicate.

Here is another example: One day I was in Chicago, driving a rental car from a client’s office to the airport. There was a blizzard outside, and it was freezing.

Of course, I did not feel the cold. I was in a heated car with my jacket off; I was an inch or two from a freezing situation – and yet I felt nothing.

But that is emblematic of the new, bold world we live in. The person sitting across from us on the train may be falling apart emotionally – but we do not feel it.

So in essence, what I am saying is that a good leader has to feel, not just think and analyze and rationalize. He must try to understand less in his head and more in his heart.

In order to know himself, a manager must get in touch with a surrounding world that is less censored, less controllable and more direct. Can you feel what people tell you, not just hear and listen? For a manager to be in touch with himself, he must be in touch with others. When I work in developing countries I often enjoy it more than in highly sophisticated countries. Relationships in developing countries are more direct, without intermediary interruptions. In modern countries, there’s too much thinking and not enough instinctive feeling going on.

Let me say it directly: What makes you a good manager or leader is not what you know but what you are. What you know gets obsolete over time. What you are is forever. Thus:

It is easier to hire a person who IS,

and teach him to know,

than to hire someone

who knows

and teach him to BE.

3. Well-rounded: No zeros in (PAEI) code

Every manager and leader has his strengths and weaknesses; in other words, they are human. Thus, there are no perfect (PAEI) managers and it is useless to go looking for one.

On the other hand, a manager who has any blanks, or zeros, in his code is doomed to being a mismanager. Each zero signifies a blind spot in his perspective, which leaves him unable to properly fit any position. It is as if he were a pilot, who must distinguish among different-colored signals, and yet he is color-blind.

Thus, an (A)dministrating manager whose style is coded (-A--) cannot be a leader and in fact cannot be a competent manager either. A good manager must be at least a (pAei); an (A)dministrating leader a (pAeI). An (-A- -) style manager is dysfunctional, even if he is the best (A) the organization has ever had. Why? Because the other essential roles are absent.

Why must he be competent at all the roles? One obvious reason is flexibility: If, for example, there is no (A) type around at a crucial moment, you might have to step in and do (A) tasks. The individual as a team member must be able to perform the other roles when necessary. In my analogy of the five fingers, the fingers combine to create an organic entity called a hand, and part of what defines a hand is that each finger can do the job of any other finger. It might not excel at doing this job; it might be somewhat awkward – but it can do the job if it’s called for.

What would happen if you were missing one of the four roles but had a surplus of another? Could you make up for your lack of (E), for example, by throwing lots of extra (P) into the mix?

No – because (P)’s ability to contribute to the totality will be limited by the deficiency of the other components that are necessary for an interaction. You can carry that (P) only so far; how far depends on the deficiency of the other letters.

This same principle can be seen in chemistry, in the concept of limiting regions: “If the reaction mixture contains one of the reactants in greater quantity than is required by the equation, the excess reagent simply does not react. The quantities of the products obtained are determined by the reagent(s) not in excess.”3

To rephrase that more simply: If a formula requires 2 mg of one ingredient, 3 mg of another, and 4 mg of something else, then putting in 50 mg of any of these components is useless because it won’t be supported; you would have to increase everything else proportionately in order to get a bigger reaction. There is an optimal interaction that is necessary in quantities.

The same thing is true in complementary teams. There is chemistry among the members of a team, and you have to watch what everybody contributes. The value of any single role to the organization must be evaluated based on the interaction with the other styles. No one can evaluate himself in a vacuum – “I’m a great (P),” “I’m a wonder-(E)” – because the fact is that your (E) will be worthless unless you have an (A) and a (P) and an (I) that enable your (E) to grow successfully.

Thus, if you are a very big (E), you will need to find an equally powerful (A) to complement yourself on your team, and vice versa.

A third reason you need a threshold capability in each one of the roles is because without it, you would probably be unable to appreciate the strengths and contributions of the other team members. If a manager has no competence in or understanding of a particular role, his link with the person whose major task it is might be compromised, because if you are blind to the hardships of (A), on what basis can you learn to respect an (A)? But if you can perform each one of the (A)’s tasks, at least minimally, then you can appreciate what the (A) is excelling in.

Let me emphasize again that the difference between a manager and a mismanager is not what he excels in. All of them will excel at something. But one is flexible, able to perform all of the (PAEI) roles if called for and over time, while the other is inflexible. What defines a mismanager is his inflexibility: There is an exclusive role he can perform, he is blind to anything else, and because of that he is very close to being Deadwood. When change happens, this mismanager will not be flexible enough to adapt, and he may flip over and become Deadwood.

4. Knows strengths and weaknesses; knows his uniqueness

It is important to have a balanced view of yourself. Some people only identify their strengths while denying their weaknesses. Some magnify their weaknesses and underestimate their strengths.

A balanced view means, “I know what I’m good at; I know what I’m weak at. I don’t overestimate my strengths and underestimate my weaknesses, and I don’t underestimate my strengths and overestimate my weaknesses. I’m aware of them and I am also aware that I am unique in my strengths and weaknesses.”

Why are you unique? Because if you take each component of (PAEI) in any individual and score its presence from 0 to 100, you will get more permutations than there are people on this globe. We are all alike and we are all different at the same time. There are no two people who are the same. There is nobody like you, nobody in the whole world.

How do we reach an understanding of our unique capabilities and limitations? By being in regular communication with others, by being open to the assessments that others make of us. In these ways we can help determine our place as managers on the (PAEI) map.

This knowledge is particularly important for working well in a team. You must know who you are, so that you can find out what kind of people you’ll need to complement yourself.

5. Accepts strengths, weaknesses, and uniqueness

A good manager does not try to be someone else. He knows his weaknesses and his strengths, and he accepts them. He does not have an unbalanced view of himself.

Managers are sometimes given psychological tests. One might show, for example, that a manager has a tendency to be too taskoriented. In that case, the manager is told, “You must become more people-oriented.” But this type of limited feedback does not change a manager at all. It cannot. If he could be more people-oriented, he probably would be already. Such an approach only gives the manager cause to be less satisfied with what he is. Thus his level of frustration rises, without any significant change in his behavior.

Accepting oneself does not come from taking tests. It is part of becoming mature. An adolescent may act out his dreams, but adults accept reality. As adults, we know our limitations and like ourselves in spite of them. On the other hand, accepting oneself does not mean giving up any effort to improve. Acknowledging that I will never be a perfect (PAEI) manager doesn’t mean I should fatalistically accept all my flaws and give up hope of learning to do better. Just the opposite, in fact: Armed with a realistic assessment of their skills and weaknesses, managers can focus on removing any blanks in their code and enhancing their performance of the necessary roles, continuing to learn and grow in all roles – instead of measuring themselves against some impossible ideal of perfection. Accepting yourself is important, because unless you accept who you are already, you cannot effectively change. Accepting your weaknesses is a condition for improving. Why is that? Because your energy is a limited resource; if it is spent on rejecting who you are, it will not be available for adapting and changing yourself into the person you want to be.

The desire to improve should be realistic; try to avoid those New-Year’s-resolution-like commitments to changing your personality completely. In my work, I do not even try to change styles. I only try to enrich the style so that a manager can communicate and work more effectively with others. I teach and train people how to work together – not in spite of being different but because they are different. I also use my techniques to place people in positions that are compatible with their managerial style, and help them develop their ability to perform additional roles so that they can advance in the organization.

But to be able to accomplish this growth, a person must first know who and what he is. My definitions of these criteria correspond closely to the respected psychologist Abraham Maslow’s description of “the self-actualized personality.”4

According to Maslow, self-actualized people can accept themselves and others as they are. They do not shun those who have not become what they “ought” to be. Nevertheless, self-actualized people are action-oriented, and are neither self-satisfied nor satisfied with the status quo.

Because self-actualized people are secure, they are not afraid to reveal their feelings to others. Their interpersonal relations are very deep.

Self-actualized people tend to judge people and situations correctly and efficiently. In general, they are readily able to detect the spurious, the fake, and the dishonest.

Self-actualized people are self-reliant and make their own judgments. They are autonomous and independent in thought and action. Their decisions are guided by internal standards and values rather than by what others are doing. They respond to problems in a natural, logical manner.

Self-actualized people enter into fruitful exchanges with anyone they meet. They are willing to learn from anyone, and are not afraid to ask questions that others hesitate to ask. They do not fear blunders.

Self-actualized people generally have fresh, happy outlooks. They are filled with awe, pleasure, wonder, and even ecstasy.

Once you become aware, conscious, and accepting of your strengths and weaknesses, you have something you can work on. Are there zeros in your code? Can you perform all four roles competently?

In addition to being a prerequisite for self-improvement, the ability to accept yourself and be at peace with yourself despite your weaknesses is also a condition for accepting others who are weak in certain areas. If you cannot accept your own uniqueness, you are not going to accept the uniqueness of other people. If you don’t accept yourself, you’re not going to accept anybody around you. All the frustrations you have with yourself, you’ll pass on to somebody else.

6. Can identify excellence and weaknesses in others

Now that you’re aware of and accept your own style, strengths, and weaknesses, you must become conscious of the styles of others, and in particular you must be able to identify the strengths of other people in areas in which you are weak.

This is tricky. Big (E)s can identify other big (E)s instantly. But they do not know how to evaluate (A)s because this is their weakness. They don’t understand (A)s, they don’t know what criteria to apply to (A)s; as a matter of fact they don’t even like them.

By and large, for example, big (P)s hire other (P)s. The Lone Ranger, or (P---), hires gofers. He suspects and despises (A)s, fears (E)s, and ignores (I)s. So how can he realistically be expected to identify or hire them?

This is one of the biggest challenges for managers: Can you hire and utilize and develop and cherish and nourish people who are different from you, instead of opting for the security of hiring people who are like you?

Knowing your managerial code is not enough. You must know all the requirements of good (PAEI) management and be able to recognize and respect the characteristics in others that complement your own.

This is where uni-dimensional people with zeros in their codes, who are blind to other roles, have enormous difficulty: In identifying, accepting, and appreciating those roles.

Successful managers recognize that all managers are deficient humans. Ray Kroc, the president of the McDonald’s chain, once described himself as a “country boy,” who does not even pretend to know finance or in-depth management techniques. He viewed his role as that of finding the right people to work together.

This in itself is no revelation. What is new, however, is that I am not talking here about skills or knowledge; I’m not trying to fill a position in a specific area, such as finance or operations. On the contrary, I am talking about something less concrete and at the same time more embedded in personality: Styles, behaviors. Can you identify excellence in a style component in which you are weak?

Unfortunately, many managers fear excellence in others. These are managers who have little self-respect or who are not flexible enough to deal with people whose styles are different from theirs. Such managers do not have the best people working for them. They are like the racehorse owner who fills his stable with ponies but expects to win the Triple Crown.

7. Can accept and appreciate differences in others

When we reach the stage at which we can recognize the qualities of others, the next step is to figure out how to live with them. Can you see beauty in difference? Can you accept, respect, and nourish it?

Now, accepting people doesn’t mean you have to work with all of them. Accepting might mean accepting the responsibility for getting rid of an employee, if you discover that for one reason or another he cannot work within a team.

But accepting also means understanding that you’re never going to find the perfect person. So can you work with someone who is different from you, despite his inevitable weaknesses? Are you aware that since you cannot be superior in all four management roles, your subordinates will ideally be superior to you in some respects? Each time one of them excels, it reinforces how weak you are in that role. Can you experience that and not feel threatened? Can you accept that you are human, that you have weaknesses, and that it is OK and even desirable that someone else can do what you cannot?

The superior-subordinate-superior type of relationship is common in research and development (R&D) departments. An R&D manager may have “under” him Ph.D.s who are geniuses in certain areas. These “subordinates” may be fantastic (E)ntrepreneurs, whereas the R&D manager may be only an (A)dministrator. A problem will arise only if the (A)dministrator wants to be both the best research director and the best researcher – if he wants to compete rather than support.

8. Knows how to slow down and relax in difficult situations

In Chapter 7, I mentioned my “duck theory” of management: If you look at a duck as it’s floating along in the water, on the surface it looks unperturbed and calm, but under the water its feet are working fast, very fast.

A good manager should and a good leader must be relaxed when conflict arises. He remains objective and respectful of other people. In fact, one common characteristic of the best managers I’ve known is that the more intense the conflict, the calmer they’ve become.

On a basic level, being a good manager or leader means knowing how to disagree without being disagreeable. Some people actually agree disagreeably. We’ve probably all had the experience of finally reaching agreement with someone, after many hours of discussion, but feeling that the process was so painful that we never want to deal with that person again. Whether it’s your marriage, your family or your business, you often forget the content of a conflict – what were you fighting about? – but if you felt abused by the discussion you will never, ever forget how it was handled. The how is more important than the what.

The same thing is true in international relations. How we handle our enemy is extremely important. Never disrespect your enemy, because you will never find peace that way.

1. Creates a learning environment in which conflicts can be resolved, by both commanding and granting mutual trust and respect.

Conflict is necessary, indispensable. Show me an organization without conflict and I will show you a cemetery. Show me a marriage without conflict and I will show you a marriage that has died, is dying, or will soon die. Show me a society where conflict is forbidden by law, such as a Communist regime, and I will show you a stymied society that cannot change easily.

A leader must be able to command and grant respect; he must be able to create a learning environment in which conflict is used constructively, as a tool, rather than destructively. Thus he must have a lot of (I) in his code. He must be able to (I)ntegrate his followers to follow.

Finally, a leader must have patience and be tolerant of the conflicts that inevitably arise among colleagues with different styles and strengths. He must be able to harness conflicts – accepting the pain that this process requires. For me, good management is not about how much financial theory you know, or how well you read financial statements, or how good you are at strategic planning. To me, good management is about how much pain you can take in working with others. The higher you go up the ladder, the greater is the pain.

I often joke that one way to identify a good leader is by the depth of the scars on his tongue. Leaders have to bite their tongues: They must know what to say and how much to say, and they must be able to handle the frustration of not saying what’s on their minds, when that is appropriate.