Go to the Globe and Mail homepage

Jump to main navigationJump to main content

Businessman showing a dollar sign on his chest. (Comstock/Getty Images/Comstock Images)
Businessman showing a dollar sign on his chest. (Comstock/Getty Images/Comstock Images)


Mintzberg: Real leaders don't take bonuses Add to ...

This is Part 1 in a series of interviews with the gurus of leadership and management theory.

When it comes to thought leaders on management in Canada, the first name that often comes to mind is Henry Mintzberg, the iconoclast and internationally renowned Cleghorn Professor of Management Studies at McGill University, who has been a source of provocative ideas for more than four decades. Prof. Mintzberg has pioneered an alternative to the MBA program, the International Masters Program in Practicing Management , and CoachingOurselves.com , a social learning site in which managers can pick from a shelf of topics for group executive development. His work currently is on updating some thoughts on managing health care and a five-part electronic pamphlet he intends to publish, Rebalancing Society: Radical Renewal Beyond Left, Right and Center.

I think of you as a debunker. People walk around with a lot of myths of management, things they subscribe to that you have shown are dead wrong. What are the top notions you think people need to reframe their thinking on?

First, that leadership should be separate from management. Second, strategies are planned. Third, that executive bonuses make companies better. I could go on for a month with a list, but those are the top ones.

Let’s start with the prevailing belief that leadership is different from management – and above management in importance.

Managers who don’t lead are quite discouraging, but leaders who don’t manage don’t know what’s going on. It’s a phony separation that people are making between the two. By the way, Peter Drucker made the same kind of distinction 50 years ago, except he distinguished managers from administrators, so the pattern is that we keep upping the vocabulary. Next it will be heroes are different from leaders, and then gods are different from heroes.

It’s the idea that somehow you can succeed by being above the fray, a leader, dealing with the big stuff, while other people do the small stuff. But you can’t do the big stuff unless you understand the little stuff. To use a metaphor, painting the big picture has to be done with brush strokes. So you need to know what’s going on in your organization – you can’t be aloof and apart from it.

That leads to the second myth, that strategy is somehow immaculately conceived in offices, whereas strategies are actually learned on the ground. My favourite story is IKEA. You know how it ended up with knock-down furniture, which today is the heart-and-soul of their strategy, one of the prime factors distinguishing them from other sellers of furniture? It started when a worker tried to get a table into his car and had to take the legs off. Somebody said, “Hmm, maybe customers have to do that, too.”

That’s how strategies are developed. Their service strategy came when they were mobbed at a new building in Stockholm and couldn’t handle the crowds, so they took the counters away and let people find the stuff themselves. That’s an example of the way companies learn, and improve. Strategy is about learning – about learning how you serve people and deal with issues better.

Does that mean leaders never head off on a retreat and plan strategy?

Sure they go off on retreats, but the retreats, when effective, are to consolidate what they have learned. It’s good to sit back and reflect on what you have learned. But you don’t go on a retreat separate from people who have their fingers dirty and know what’s happening.

So strategy bubbles up from the front lines?

It doesn’t necessarily bubble up. I bet that with Steve Jobs at Apple it bubbled down. But Jobs wasn’t disconnected from things. He was a customer – he used his own products, and lived them. Strategy doesn’t have to come up from the bottom, where it often does, but it has to come from people who are connected to the actual operations of the firm. If senior management are connected, so much the better.

People make a big fuss out of micro-managing, but the bigger problem is macro-leading. Micro-managing means meddling in the affairs of people working for you, but finding out what’s going on is not necessarily meddling. Macro-leading is what you had with the big banks and insurance companies in the States. They didn’t know what was going on with their mortgages. Or maybe they knew, and were cynical.

In your last book you wrote that to succeed managers have to be proficient in their superficiality. How does that fit into this line of thinking?

The pressures of managing are to get a lot done – get it done quickly. A manager who doesn’t make decisions is worse in a way than a manager who makes bad decisions, because it stops everything. So sometimes managers are forced to make decisions, even though they are lacking information, just to keep things moving. So in a sense they are forced into superficiality by the nature of their job.

Report Typo/Error
Single page

Follow us on Twitter: @Globe_Careers

Next story




Most popular videos »

More from The Globe and Mail

Most popular