I take a lot of notes, all the time. About what I'm thinking, what I should improve, what negative patterns I need to correct etc... While I was reviewing some of last year's note I found this one:
"In a company, there are two types of people.
Type A: their only focus is to climb the corporate ladder. They spend all their time and energy to make sure they move up, and are experts in announcing "good news" to reach their goals and polish their image. They will however hide bad news and mistakes.
Type B: they work hard to move the company forward, build business and are confident about the quality of their work. Because of this, they are not afraid to admit mistakes or announce bad news to the CEO."
What I was basically noting was that some people are experts in self marketing, while others are "honnest and have integrity" and don't play the game. This over simplified manichean view of the corporate world brings me back to my previous post.
Type A, obviously a theoritical extreme, is an expert in the political and networking game, hence his climing of the corporate ladder.
Type B, the other extreme, is the nice guy that relies on the judgement of his CEO or apraiser.
The problem with Type B is that often times the apraiser is several levels above him hence he does not have a clear vision of Type B's work and results. Furthermore Type B's apraiser can be influenced by Type As. To climb the corporate ladder, Type B is basically only relying on the fact that his appraiser has 100% clear vision and will see him for the diamond in the dirt he is.
Pfff, yeah right! If hard work and ethics always paid out, we would know.
Type B believes that the world is Rational, which isnt the case. Tons of Economics studies have shown that the rational choice theory is wrong. Consumers, investors, humans in general are NOT rational. There is no reason to believe that the corporate world is either.
Time to walk the political walk. The world is not black and white and progress is not linked to performance alone.
PS: what would be the best time allocation ratio between being a Type A or Type B? I would say roughly 20 / 80. Spend 20% of your time being political.
Amen to that. I would add that the corporate world is not alone in this phenomenon; every other sector, whether government, non-profits, or academia witnesses the same dichotomy... Type As end up in leadership positions thanks to their Type A behavior, but the depressing thing is that their ability to get to the top doesn't necessarily make them good leaders once they're there. I have recently seen several people get to the top and be totally inept people managers... As you said, they are unable to identify problematics, and they spend time micro-managing their staff because they worry more about their own image than furthering their organization's mission. Are Type As more vulnerable at the top than Type Bs, assuming the Type Bs can make it that far?
ReplyDeleteOf course, people aren't 100% Type A or 100% Type B. I'd be interested in seeing the gender split between Type As and Type Bs, but that's a different issue. A little self-promotion can get you places, but you also need to know what and how to do it once you're there. :)
Thnx for this. It's actually quite interesting to think of the management and leadership flaws type As AND type Bs could have once they reach the top...
ReplyDeleteRegarding the gender split... hmmm... with absolutely no thought put into this I would say 50/50. For this specific matter, I don't see gender playing too big a role as I've known As and Bs both male and female.