Fearlessness: A Leading Idea

In a September '07 interview about “Leading Ideas,” Editor-in-Chief of Strategy+Business Art Kleiner talked to “management expert” Margaret Wheatley about her current interest in “fearlessness.”

The world has changed, she says. Executives no longer have time for “development or learning.”

My historical perspective is somewhat longer than hers. But I can’t think of a time when this was NOT a standard excuse. Assuming that executives generally volunteer for the role, are they really all that surprised or intimidated by the everyday demands of the role? If so, it is not “fearlessness” that they are lacking, but competence.

The interview is certainly worth visiting. But it is mostly about her and not about the executives to which she refers. As she put it, “fear set in and risk increased” around 2001. Here, she is explaining how she had to change to cope with what she took to be those executives’ fears. Of course, all CEOs have their moments of uncertainty about their capabilities. If they didn’t, it’s unlikely that they would ever be able to sustain success. She says the concept of “execution”—in the sense of getting things done -- gives her the shivers. Even a brief glance at a dictionary (she has a Ph.D.) will demonstrate that the same word can mean different things in different contexts. I get the feeling that she means something very personal by “fearlessness” – not what most people would understand by that word.

A final observation, if I may: Reality is in the eye of the beholder. It is not to be found only at the Shambhala Institute. Fear has its uses. It may even be prudent. Managers may be well-advised to be more fearful of management experts than of the big bad world of reality.

Comments

[Jim Stroup]

Lee,

Nice job. My vote for best line: ". . . it is not “fearlessness” that they are lacking, but competence."

You note, astutely, that this particular consultant's ideas are mostly about her, and not really about the challenges faced by managers. Similarly, her audience is largely managers who are concerned about themselves, their images, and their own careers, and not their work, their responsibilities, or their firms.

Many of the sort of executives who are pulled astray but this sort of self-absorption head large firms that have an organizational momentum that will keep them going no matter who is at the top. So, executives like this can watch the stars while they're at the wheel, imagining that they see themselves there, and the great ship will muddle on. Most people will simple assume that whereever it muddles to is where the executive had wanted to go.

Others will strike a rock or an iceberg, and send the whole enterprise down. We hear a lot about them. but like the iceberg, this problem is much more widespread, and it is aided and abetted by the sort of ingratiating advice that certain specialized consultants provide.

Thanks for your presentation of this, and for your work.

[Lee Thayer]

Jim, thank you for your helpful comments. You’re right, that most executives are concerned more about themselves than about their moral obligations to their organization and its destiny (and legacy, for that matter). The inertial forces of the organization (built into its culture) will usually win. This means that all the fake executives have to do is determine what direction the organization is going and then “lead” it that direction.

A lot of the current claptrap about group think, etc., serves this function well. I think that we have as a culture lost our will, and this shows up at the door of every organization.

Is “fearlessness” the same as being willful? It seems to me that Wheatley, as smart and as capable as she is, presents us with a paradox – which is, “I’m fearful of certain words that don’t fit my ideas of political correctness. But I think CEOs need to be more fearless.” Is this the paradox of don’t do what I do, do what I say, so common today?