Plausible Categories

R&T describe this category of leader in a rather negative fashion:

• mistrust, egocentric, manipulative
• believe that 'might is right
• focus on personal wins any way possible
• other people are opportunities to be exploited
• out for themselves
• regard other people as objects
• break rules
• humiliate, intimidate and are bullying
• harsh retaliation—eye-for-an-eye
• externalize blame
• preoccupied with perception of control

THEE Search

Bull's Eye! This is a remarkably accurate description of the power-centred mentality within the Interacting-for-Benefit framework. Of course, not all power-centred people become leaders—although wanting to control people is a great incentive.

THEE's Observation

R&T have successfully identified a genuine category of leader—but do not appear to have appreciated positive aspects of what they have identified. They suggest that: "these people do not remain managers for long unless they transform to a more effective action-logic". But this is surely untrue. Why? Think before you click here.

Businesses are populated with power-centred managers and leaders (surely far more than R&T's 5%), and not all are so objectionable. Even if they function as described , many do it deftly and cunningly. The more capable power-centred executives become CEOs, and stay there quite long enough to amass a pile. 

Power-oriented People are not so Bad…

Many power-centred people are rather sophisticated with considerable achievements as well as charm and charisma. Their success depends on other aspects of their identity: their approach to decision-making, their approach to societal participation, their use of language, as well as extraneous factors like type of industry, social support network and wealth.

R&T seem to be short on compassion for this group. They make no mention of assisting such people to transform: although surely that would be desirable.

Is «Opportunist» a Good Label?

THEE regards recognizing and taking opportunities as essential for personal success, entrepreneurial initiative, and business achievement.

Power-centred people do take opportunities—why shouldn't they?  But linking this universal human capability narrowly to a negatively perceived power-centredness is unwise and could mislead.

In regard to making decisions, there is a style that has been correctly labelled by many as opportunist. More on this later.

R&T describe leaders in this category as follows:

• professionals
• use knowledge
• work to perfect their knowledge
• present hard data and logic to gain consensus
• pursue continuous improvement
• seek rational efficiency
• completely sure they are right
• view collaboration (with non-experts) as a waste of time
• look down on opinions of people less expert
• reject feelings

THEE Search

This list divided rather easily into two parts dealing with social interaction and decision-making.

►On social interaction

e.g. personal commitment to their own profession or discipline, attitude to collaboration across disciplines, neglect or rejection of the views of outsiders or non-experts, perfectionism.
THEE identifies these as aspects of the cause-centred mentality within its Interacting-for-Benefit framework.

►On decision-making

e.g. use of hard data and logic, consensus via facts, knowledge-based, rejection of feelings.
THEE notes that these features correspond to the empiricist approach in the decision-making framework.

THEE's Observations

There are two problems: confusion of categories and no link to leadership.

►Confusion

Cause-centred people are not necessarily empiricist decision-makers, and vice versa. Pushing two distinct categories from two different aspects of work-life into one is confusing.

►No link to leadership

Cause-centred people can be excellent leaders, and so can empiricist decision-makers. But neither category impels or impedes leadership. R&T's Expert category, is at most half-right.

Is «Expert» a Good Label?

Yes, but not for a leader.

We all know what an «expert» is: someone who knows a lot about something. Many experts are not and do not want to be leaders.

Something happens to empiricist-experts who become leaders, they tend to become hard, impersonal and demanding bosses. See later.

R&T describe leaders in this category as follows:

• create a positive work environment
• focus on deliverables
• like unambiguous targets
• work with strategies, tactics and plans
• balance immediate and long-term objectives
• open to feedback
• sensitive to relationships
• handle ambiguities and conflicts of everyday life

THEE Search

THEE identifies this as an account of the rationalist approach to decision-making.

THEE's Observation

Rationalist decision-makers can be excellent leaders, but only as long as they have a dash of pragmatism. The example of leading offered by R&T shows someone being pragmatic in regard to the number of features in a product.

Is «Achiever» a Good Label?

No, it is not—the term is too non-specific.

It is surely obvious that all leader categories strive to achieve.  If that were not so, then in what sense would they be categorized as leaders? I wonder how many non-achievers are likely to even hold down a steady job.

Pragmatists commonly apply the label of Achiever to themselves; and so do many others.

Rationalist leaders are quite directive and controlling, so THEE's suggested label for rationalist-pragmatic decision-makers is «Director». That fits with the common title of Managing Director for the Board CEO. Boards are expected to function in a rationalist mode—upholding values, setting policy, sanctioning strategies—and they are commonly assigned the «Director» label.

R&T describe leaders in this category as follows:

• see organizational constraints and perceptions as transformable
• create shared visions across different approaches
• deal with conflict and resistance
• orient to transformation and are highly effective change agents
• prefer an iterative development process
• see multiple levels: personal, organizational, social, international
• weave together idealist visions with pragmatic, timely initiatives
• create ethical principles and practices

THEE Search

The above features are characteristic of the systemicist approach to decision-making.  This form of leadership, characteristic of great leaders, includes the notion of taking people ●where they initially do not want to go, and ●where they think it is impossible to go.

THEE's Observation

Yes!! A genuine positive category!  Worth waiting for, and worth marking in bold-face in the box.

Is «Strategist» a Good Label?

Quite good.

The skilful use of strategy is a distinguishing feature of systemicist decision-makers. They map the forces and factors in the relevant system and perceive its continuing organic evolution. This enables them to use remarkably small interventions to trigger rather large changes.

More on Systems…

• Psychosocial reality presents itself as a complex system and that is why this approach to decision-making naturally lends itself to leadership in a way that the other 3 plausible R&T categories do not.
• Systemicist decision-makers naturally gravitate to leadership positions. On their way up, they are disturbed by poor judgements and decisions made by Opportunists, Achievers and Experts. So they often get a rough ride unless their diplomatic skills are honed.
• Leadership nevertheless always requires a pragmatic complement. In the case of systemicists, this pragmatism can be impersonal because the focus on individuals is naturally provided within the systemicist approach itself.

Three of R&T's abbreviated list are clear: The Opportunist, The Achiever (better called The Director) and The Strategist. The Expert is a somewhat confusing label—but the Expert-Boss is a recognizable leader-type.

During its investigation, THEE found that R&T's survey-analysis procedure tapped into features of:
► decision-making — which links primarily to achieving tangible results, and
► interacting for benefit — which links primarily to handling people and serving self-interest.