Risk & Business Magazine Benson Kearley Risk & Business Magazine Summer | Page 17

BAD HABITS OF SMART LEADERS
S
ome leaders are too clever
for their own good
BY: MARSHALL
GOLDSMITH, AUTHOR
While we often consider the
blessings that accompany a
high IQ, we seldom think of
the challenges that come with extreme
intelligence. Yet there are many. In my
role as an executive coach, I have had
the opportunity to work with more than
150 major chief executives. As a group,
they would score well above the norm on
any standard definition of intellectual
intelligence (I am not referring to ‘emotional
intelligence’, ‘artistic intelligence’ or other
forms of intelligence). Although, like any
group, chief executives may do stupid
things, they are seldom stupid people.
1. PROVING HOW SMART WE ARE
For 10 years, I had the privilege of being
on the board of the Peter F. Drucker
Foundation. This gave me the opportunity
to spend more than 50 days with the
man who is – to my mind – the greatest
management thinker who has ever lived. I
would definitely put Drucker in the ‘super-
smart’ as well as ‘super-wise’ category.
Compared to him, I awould consider my
intelligence and wisdom to be that of a
child.
One of the lessons taught to me by Drucker
was: “Our mission in life is to make a
positive difference – not to prove how smart
we are.” It is amazing how many leaders fail
to grasp this basic lesson.
One of the ‘super-smart’ leaders who
I coached gained two simultaneous
doctorates from one of the most challenging
schools in the world, one in science and one
in the humanities – with honours – within
five years. When the brains were handed
out, he was not lurking near the back of the
line!
The first time I interviewed him, I took
copious notes. After an hour I said: “Dr.
Smith, let me read back to you how often
you have told me how smart you really are.
I don’t think I am as smart as you are, but
I am not stupid. I read your bio. Did you
think you really needed to point out your
brilliance to me six times in the past hour?”
As I read back his verbatim comments, he
was so embarrassed. “What an ass!” he said
of himself. I replied: “You are not an ass.
You are a very good person. You just have
an incredibly high need to prove how smart
you are. Perhaps, in the future, you could cut
back on this a little?”
How deep must be a person’s drive to
prove they are smart for them to gain two
simultaneous doctorates from one of the
top schools in the world. Very deep. Does
this ‘prove I am smart’ need disappear when
they gain the qualifications? Not really. They
don’t have enough degrees in the world!
I have asked thousands of leaders to answer
this question:
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF ALL
INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
TIME IS SPENT ON:
A. People talking about how smart, special
or wonderful they are – or listening to
others do this?
B. People talking about how stupid, bad
or inept other people are – or listening to
others do this?
The answers are amazingly consistent
around the world – approximately 65
percent.
How much do we learn pointing out how
smart we are? Nothing.
How much do we learn pointing out how
stupid other people are? Nothing.
How much do we learn listening to this?
Nothing.
So how much interpersonal communication
time is wasted on this? About 65 percent.
Smart people are generally considered smart
because they have proven how smart they
are in their journey through life – over and
over again. They have been given lots of
positive recognition for being ‘smart’.
Any human – or any animal – will tend
to replicate behavior that is followed by
positive reinforcement. The more we
repeat the “I am smart – I get recognition”
cycle, the harder it can be to remember the
excellent advice from Peter Drucker: >
17