BEST OF HBR1961

Although the more recent work of authors such as Abraham Zaieznik and Daniel

Goleman has fundamentally changed the way we look at leadership, many of

their themes were foreshadowed in W.C.H. Prentice's 1961 article rejecting the

notion of leadership as the exercise of power and force or the possession of ex-

traordinary analytical skill. Prentice defined leadership as "the accomplishment

of a goal through the direction of human assistants" and a successful leader as

one who can understand people's motivations and enlist employee participation

in a way that marries individual needs and interests to the group's purpose.

He called for democratic leadership that gives employees opportunities to learn

and grow-without creating anarchy. While his language in some passages is

dated, Prentice's observations on how leaders can motivate employees to sup-

port the organization's goals are timeless, and they were remarkably prescient

UnderstandingLeadershipby W.C.H. Prentice

Effective leaders take a personal

interest in the long-term development

of their employees, and they use tact

and other social skills to encourage

employees to achieve their best. It isn't

about being "nice" or "understanding"-

it's about tapping into individual

motivations in the interest of furthering

an organizationwide goal.

AiTTEMPTS TO ANALYZE leader-ship tend to fail because the would-beanalyst misconceives his task. He usuallydoes not study leadership at all. Insteadhe studies popularity, power, showman-ship, or wisdom in long-range planning.Some leaders have these things, but theyare not of tbe essence of leadership.

Leadership is the accomplishment ofa goal through tbe direction of humanassistants. The man who successfullymarshals his human collaborators toachieve particular ends is a leader. Agreat leader is one who can do so dayafter day, and year after year, in a widevariety of circumstances.

He may not possess or display power;force or the threat of harm may neverenter into his dealings. He may not be

102 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

BEST OF HBR

popular; his followers may never dowhat he wishes out of love or admira-tion for him. He may not ever be a color-ful person; he may never use memo-rable devices to dramatize the purposesof his group or to focus attention on hisleadership. As for the important matterof setting goals, he may actually be aman of little influence, or even of littleskill; as a leader he may merely carry outthe plans of others.

His unique acbievement is a humanand social one which stems from hisunderstanding of his fellow workers andthe relationship of their individual goalsto the group goal that he must carry out.

Problems and IllusionsIt is not hard to state in a few wordswhat successful leaders do that makesthemeffective.But it ismuch harder totease out the components that deter-mine their success. The usual methodis to provide adequate recognition ofeach worker's function so that he canforesee the satisfaction of some majorinterest or motive of his in tbe carry-ing out of the group enterprise. Crudeforms of leadership rely solely on singlesources of satisfaction such as mone-tary rewards or the alleviation of fearsabout various kinds of insecurity. Thetask is adhered to because followingorders will lead to a paycheck, and de-viation will lead to unemployment.

No one can doubt that such formsof motivation are effective within limits.In a mechanical way they do attach theworker's self-interest to the interest ofthe employer or the group. But no onecan doubt the weaknesses of such sim-ple techniques. Human beings are notmachines with a single set of push but-tons. When their complex responses tolove, prestige, independence, achieve-ment, and group membership are un-recognized on the iob, they perform atbest as automata who bring far less thantheir maximum efficiency to tbe task.

and at worst as rebellious slaves whoconsciously or unconsciously sabotagetbe activities they are supposed to befurthering.

It is ironic that our basic image of"the leader"is so often that of a militarycommander, because-most of thetime, at least-military organizationsare tbe purest example of an unimagi-native application of simple reward andpunishment as motivating devices. Theinvention in World War II of tbe term"snafu" (situation normal, all fouledup) merely epitomizes what literatureabout military life from Greece andRome to the present day has amplyrecorded; namely, that in no otherhuman endeavor is morale typically sopoor or goldbricking and waste so muchin evidence.

In defense of the military, two obser-vations are relevant:

1. The military undeniably has specialproblems. Because men get killed andhave to be replaced, there are impor-tant reasons for treating tbem uni-formly and mechanically.

2. Clarity about duties and responsi-bilities, as maximized by the autocraticchain of command, is not only essentialto warfare but has undoubted impor-tance for most group enterprises. In fact,any departure from an essentially mili-tary type of leadership is still consideredin some circles a form of anarchy.

We have all heard the cry, "some-body's got to be the boss,"and I supposeno one would seriously disagree. But itis dangerous to confuse the chain ofcommand or table of organization witha method of getting things done. It isinstead comparable to the diagram ofa football play which shows a generalplan and how each individual con-tributes to it.

The diagram is not leadership. By it-self it has no bearing one way or an-other on how well executed the play willbe. Yet that very question of effective

W.C.H. Prentice was formerly tbe president of Bryant and Stratton Business Institutes

in Buffalo, New York, the president of Wheaton College in Norton, Massachusetts, and

the dean ofSwarthmore College in Swarthmore, Pennsylvania. He is now retired.

execution is the problem of leadership.Rewards and threats may help eachplayer to carry out his assignment, butin the long mn if success is to be con-tinuing and if morale is to survive, eachplayer must not only fully understandhis part and its relation to the groupeffort; he must also want to carry itout. Tbe problem of every leader is tocreate these wants and to find waysto channel existing wants into effectivecooperation.

Relations with PeopleWhen the leader succeeds, it will be be-cause he has learned two basic lessons:Men are complex, and men are differ-ent. Human beings respond not onlyto the traditional carrot and stick usedby the driver of a donkey but also toambition, patriotism, love of the goodand the beautiful, boredom, self-doubt,and many more dimensions and pat-terns of thought and feeling that makethem men. But the strength and im-portance of these interests are not thesame for every worker, nor is the de-gree to which they can be satisfied in hisjob. For example:

• One man may be characterized pri-marily by a deep religious need but findthat fact quite irrelevant to his daily work.

• Another may find his main satisfac-tions in solving intellectual problemsand never be led to discover how his lovefor chess problems and mathematicalpuzzles can be applied to his business.

• Or still another may need a friendly,admiring relationship that be lacks athome and be constantly frustrated bythe failure of his superior to recognizeand take advantage ofthat need.

To the extent that the leader's circum-stances and skill permit him to respondto such individual patterns, be will bebetter able to create genuinely intrinsicinterest in the work that he is chargedwith getting done. And in the last analy-sis an ideal organization should haveworkers at every level reporting to some-one whose dominion is small enough toenable him to know as human beingsthose who report to him.

104 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

U n d e r s t a n d i n g Leadersh ip

Limits of theGolden RuleFortunately, the prime mo-tives of people who live inthe same culture are oftenvery much alike, and thereare some general motiva-tional rules that work verywell indeed. The effective-ness of Dale Carnegie's fa-mous prescriptions in bisHow to Win Friends and Influ-ence People is a good exam-ple. Its major principle is avariation of the Golden Rule:"treat others as you wouldlike to be treated." While lim-ited and oversimplified, sucha rule is a great improvementover the primitive coerciveapproaches or tbe straightreward-for desired-behaviorapproach.

But it would be a great mis-take not to recognize thatsome of the world's most in-effective leadership comesfrom the "treat others asyou would be treated" school.All of US bave known un-selfish people who earnestlywished to satisfy the needsof their fellows but who werenevertheless completely in-ept as executives {or perhapseven as friends or as hus-bands), because it never oc-curred to them that othershad tastes or emotional re-quirements different fromtbeir own. We all know thetireless worker who recog-nizes no one else's fatigue orboredom, the barroom-storyaddict wbo thinks it jolly toregale even the ladies withbis favorite anecdotes, thedevotee of public servicewho tries to win friends andinfluence people by offeringthem tickets to lectures onmissionary work in Africa,tbe miserly man who thinks

A great leader̂ s UNIQUEACHIEVEMENT is ahuman and social one whichstems from his understandingof his fellow workers.

everyone is after money, andsoon.

Leadership really does re-quire more subtlety and per-ceptiveness than is implied intbe saying, "Do as you wouldbe done by."

The one who leads us effec-tively must seem to under-stand our goals and purposes.He must seem to be in a posi-tion to satisfy tbem; he mustseem to understand the im-plications of his own actions;he must seem to be consistentand clear in his decisions. Theword "seem" is importanthere. !f we do not apprehendthe would-be leader as onewho has these traits, it willmake no difference bow ablebe may really be. We will stillnot follow his lead. If, on theother hand, we have beenfooled and he merely seemsto have these qualities, we willstill follow bim until we dis-cover our error. In other words,it is the impression he makesat any one time that will de-termine the influence he hason his followers.

Pitfalls of PerceptionFor followers to recognizetbeir leader as be really is maybe as difficult as it is for him tounderstand them completely.Some of tbe worst difficultiesin relationships between su-periors and subordinates comefrom misperceiving reality. Somuch of what we understandin the world around us is col-ored by the conceptions andprejudices we start witb. Myview of my employer or supe-rior may be so colored by ex-pectations based on the be-havior of other bosses thatfacts may not appear in thesame way to him and to me.Many failures of leadership

INSIDE THE MIND OF THE LEADER JANUARY 2004 105

BEST OF HBR

can be traced to oversimplified misper-ceptions on the part of the worker or tofailures of the superior to recognize thecontext or frame of reference withinwhich his actions will be understood bythe subordinate.

A couple of examples of psychologicaldemonstrations from the work of S.E.Asch' will illustrate this point:

• If 1 describe a man as warm, intelli-gent, ambitious, and thoughtful, youget one kind of picture of him. But ifI describe another person as cold, am-bitious, thoughtful, and intelligent, youprobably get a picture of a very dif-ferent sort of man. Yet I have merelychanged one word and the order ofa couple of others. The kind of prepa-ration that one adjective gives for thosethat follow is tremendously effectivein determining what meaning will be

AN IDEALORGANIZATIONshould haveworkers at every levelreporting to someonewhose dominion issmall enough to enablehim to know as humanbeings those whoreport to him.

given to them. The term "thoughtful"may mean thoughtful of others orperhaps rational when it is applied toa warm person toward whom we havealready accepted a positive orientation.But as applied to a cold man the sameterm may mean brooding, calculating,plotting. We must learn to be awareof the degree to which one set of obser-vations about a man may lead us toerroneous conclusions about his otherbehavior.

• Suppose that I show two groups ofobservers a film of an exchange of viewsbetween an employer and his subordi-nate. The scene portrays disagreementfollowed by anger and dismissal. Theblame forthe difficulty will be assignedvery differently by the two groups if Ihave shown one a scene of the workerearlier in a happy, loving family break-fast setting, while the other group hasseen instead a breakfast-table scenewhere the worker snarls at his familyand storms out of the house. The alter-cation will be understood altogetherdifferently by people who have had fa-vorable or unfavorable glimpses of thecharacter in question.

In business, a worker may perceivean offer of increased authority as adangerous removal from the safetyof assured, though gradual, promotion.A change in channels of authority orreporting, no matter how valuable inincreasing efficiency, may be thought ofas a personal challenge or affront. Theintroduction of a labor-saving processmay be perceived as a threat to one'sjob. An invitation to discuss companypolicy may be perceived as an elaboratetrap to entice one into admitting hereti-cal or disloyal views. A new fringe ben-efit may be regarded as an excuse not topay higher salaries. And so on. ,

Too often, the superior is entirely un-prepared for these interpretations, andthey seem to him stupid, dishonest, orperverse -or all three. But the successfulleader will have been prepared for suchresponses. He will have known thatmany of his workers have been broughtup to consider their employers as theirnatural enemies, and that habit hasmade it second nature for them to "actlike an employee" in this respect andalways to be suspicious of otherwisefriendly overtures from above.

The other side of the same situation isas bad. The habit of acting like a bosscan be destructive, too. For instance,much resistance to modern conceptsof industrial relations comes from em-ployers who think such ideas pose toogreat a threat to the long-established

picture of themselves as business auto-crats. Their image makes progress inlabor relations difficult.

Troubles of a SubordinateBut another and still more subtle factormay intervene between employer andemployee-a factor that will be recog-nized and dealt with by successfulindustrial leaders. That factor is thepsychological difficulty of being a sub-ordinate. It is not easy to be a subordi-nate. If I take orders from another, itlimits the scope of my independent de-cision and judgment; certain areas areestablished within which I do what hewishes instead of what I wish. To acceptsuch a role without friction or rebellion,I must find in it a reflection of someform of order that goes beyond my ownpersonal situation (i.e., my age, class,rank, and so forth), or perhaps find thatthe balance of dependence and inde-pendence actually suits my needs. Thesetwo possibilities lead to different prac-tical consequences.

For one thing, it is harder to take or-ders from one whom I do not considerin some sense superior. It is true thatone of the saddest failures in practicalleadership may be the executive whotries so hard to be one of the boys thathe destroys any vestige of awe that hisworkers might have had for him, withthe consequence that they begin to seehim as a man like themselves and towonder why they should take ordersfrom him. An understanding leader willnot let his workers think that he con-siders them inferiors, but he may bewise to maintain a kind of psychologicaldistance that permits them to accept hisauthority without resentment.

When one of two people is in a supe-rior position and must make final deci-sions, he can hardly avoid frustrating theaims of the subordinate, at least on oc-casion. And frustration seems to lead toaggression. That is, thwarting brings outa natural tendency to fight back. It doesnot take much thwarting to build up ahabit of being ready to attack or defendoneself when dealing with the boss.

106 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIKW

U n d e r s t a n d i n g Leadersh ip

Ttie situation is made worse if theorganization is such that open anger to-ward the boss is unthinkable, for thenthe response to frustration is itself frus-trated, and a vicious cycle is started. Sug-gestion boxes, grievance committees,departmental rivalries, and other suchdevices may serve as lightning rodsfor the day-to-day hostility engenderedby the frustrations inherent in beinga subordinate. But in the long run aneffective leader will be aware of theneed to balance dependence with inde-pendence, constraint with autonomy,so tbat the inevitable psychological con-sequences of taking orders do not loomtoo large.

Better yet, he will recognize that manypeople are frightened by complete in-dependence and need to feel the secu-rity of a system that prescribes limits totheir freedom. He will try to adjust theamounts and kinds of freedom to fitthe psychological needs of his subordi-nates. Generally this means providinga developmental program in which theemployee can be given some sense ofwhere he is going within the company,and the effective leader will make surethat the view is a realistic one. Here ananalogy may be helpful:

Nothing is more destructive of moralein any group situation than a phonydemocracy of the kind one finds in somefamilies. Parents who announce thatthe children are going to participateshare-and-share-alike in all decisionssoon find that they cannot, in fact, letthem, and when the program fails, thechildren are especially thwarted. Theycome to perceive each of the necessarilyfrequent decisions that are not made byvote or consultation as arbitrary. Theydevelop a strong sense of injustice andrebellion.

In industry the same conditions hold.It is no good to pretend that certaindecisions can be made by subordinatesif in fact they cannot. To make depen-dency tolerable, the lines must beclearly drawn between tbose decisionsthat are the prerogative of the superiorand those that can be made by or in con-

sultation with tbe subordinate. Oncethose lines have been drawn, it is essen-tial not to transgress them any moreoften than is absolutely necessary.

Ideally, the subordinate should havean area within wbicb he is free to oper-ate without anyone looking over hisshoulder. The superior should clarify

THE SUCCESSFULLEADER knowsthat many workershave been broughtup to consider theiremployers as theirnatural enemies.

the goals and perhaps suggest alterna-tive ways of achieving them, but thesubordinate should feel free to makethe necessary choices. That ideal maysound artificial to autocrats of "the oldschool," and, if it does, it will mean noth-ing even if they give lip service to it. Ifthe worker knows that the boss likesplan A, he is not going to try plan B andrisk his job if it fails. If he knows that hisjob rides on every major decision, hecan only play safe by identifying himselfin every case with his superior's views.But that makes him an automaton wbocan bring no additional intelligence tothe organization nor free his superiorsfrom any decisions. He earns the respectof no one-not even the boss wbohelped make him that way.

Goals in DevelopmentNo decision is worth the name unlessit involves the balancing of risks and re-turns. If it were a sure thing, we wouldnot need a man to use his judgmentabout it. Mistakes are inevitable. Whatwe must expect of employees is thatthey leam from their mistakes, not thatthey never make them. It should be theexecutive's concern to watch tbe long-

term growtb of his men to see that, asthey learn, their successes increasinglyoutweigh their failures.

This concept of long-run growth isa vital part of continuing leadership.Each man must be permitted to knowthat his role in the group is subject todevelopment and that its developmentis limited only by his contributions.Especially, he must see the leader asthe man most interested in and helpfultoward his growth. It is not enough tohave interested personnel officers orother staff people who play no role inpolicy making. Despite all the assistancethey can render in technical ways, theycan never take the place of an intereston the part of tbe responsible executive.

Dealing with TactAt just this point, one often finds mis-conceptions. No sensible person wishesto make of the executive a substitutefor father or psychiatrist or even direc-tor of personnel. His interest can andshould be entirely impersonal and un-sentimental. He might put it to the em-ployee somewhat as follows:

"There is nothing personal about this.Anyone in your post would get the sametreatment. But as long as you work forme, I am going to see that you get everyopportunity to use your last ounce ofpotential. Your growth and satisfactionare a part of my job. The faster you de-velop into a top contributor to this com-pany, the better I will like it. If you seea better way to do your job, do it tbatway; if something is holding you back,come and see me about it. If you areright,you will get all the help I can giveyou plus the recognition you deserve."

No genuine growth of an employeewill occur without some teaching. Thesuperior must from time to time takecognizance of tbe successes and failuresand make sure that tbe subordinate seesthem and their consequences as hedoes. And at this point of assessmenta gravely difficult aspect of leadershiparises. How can criticism be impersonaland still effective? How can a decisionor a method be criticized witbout the

INSIDE THE MIND OF THE LEADER JANUARY 2004 107

BEST OF HBR

worker feeling that he is personaMybeing demeaned?

The importance of adequate commu-nication at this point is twofold. Notonly may long-range damage be done toemployee morale, but a quite specificshort-range effect is often the employ-ee's failure to do what he should towardcarrying out the boss's alternative plan,since its failure might prove that he hadbeen right in the first place. It is all tooeasy for a leader to produce antagonismand defensiveness by dealing imperson-ally with a problem and forgetting thehuman emotions and motives that areinvolved in it

Interestingly enough, such failuresseem to happen more often in officesituations than anywhere else, and wemight well wonder if we have nottended to insulate behavior in manage-ment from behavior outside-in thehome, for instance. We do not assumethat an order or a memorandum is thebest way of making our wishes accept-able at home. Most reasonably brightpeople leam early in life how to get oth-ers to cooperate. It is second nature tocreate a personal and emotional settingthat is right for the particular person(e.g., wife, adult son, teenage daughter,or child) and for the particular requestthat is to be made.

More than that, we are likely to knowwhich aspects of, say, a vacation plan tostress to make it seem attractive to thewife who wants to be waited on, the sonwho wants to fish, or the daughter whowants adolescent companions. We arelikely to learn, too, that one of thesemay be more readily persuaded if shehas a hand in the decision-makingprocess, while another wishes only tohave a ready-made plan submitted forhis approval or disdain. Indeed, we prob-ably respond to such differences athome with very little thought.

But in the office we lay aside oureveryday intuitive skills in human rela-tions and put on the mask of an em-ployer or an executive. We try to handleour tasks with orders or directives im-personally aimed at whoever happens

to be responsible for their execution,forgetting that effective mobilizationof human resources always requiresthe voluntary participation of all. Lead-ership is an interaction among people.It requires followers with particulartraits and particular skills and a leaderwho knows how to use them.

Secrets of a SymphonyOrchestra ConductorThe director of an orchestra may per-haps serve as a useful model for some ofthe important relationships which runthrough all leadership situations:

1. Obvious enough in this context, butnot always remembered, is the fact thatthe men must have the requisite skillsand training for their roles. Not all

In the office we layaside our everydayINTUITIVE SKILLSin human relationsand put on the maskof an employer or anexecutive.

group failures are the boss's fault.Toscanini could not get great musicfrom a high-school band.

2. A psychological setting must beestablished for the common task. Aconductor must set up his ground rules,his signals, and his tastes in such a waythat the mechanics of getting a re-hearsal started do not interfere withthe musical purpose. Just as the con-ductor must establish agreement aboutpromptness at rehearsals, talking orsmoking between numbers, new versusold music, and a dozen other things thatmight otherwise come between himand his colleagues in their common aim,so every office or factory must haverules or customs which are clearly un-derstood and easily followed.

3. Most important of all, the musi-cians must share satisfaction with theirleader in the production of music or ofmusic of a certain quality. Unless theyindividually achieve a sense of accom-plishment or even fulfillment, his lead-ership has failed and he will not makegreat music. Some distinguished con-ductors have been petty tyrants; othersplay poker with their musicians andbecome godfathers to their babies.These matters are essentially irrele-vant. What the great conductor achievesis each instrumentalist's convictionthat he is taking part in the makingof a kind of music that coutd only bemade under such a leader. Personalqualities and mannerisms may have asecondary importance; they may serveas reminders, reinstating and reinforc-ing the vital image of a man with thehighest musical standards. But no onecan become a Toscanini by imitatinghis mannerisms.

"Low-Pressure" LeadershipThese simple facts are often overlooked.In industry we can find endless num-bers of executives who merely mimicthe surface characteristics of some suc-cessful colleague or superior withoutever trying to find ways to enlist theactive participation of their ovm staffsby showing them ways to personal ful-fillment in the common task.

These executives take the approachthat a certain type of salesman takes;and it is significant, I think, that thefinancial, manufacturing, and researchstaffs of many companies look on sales-men as a necessary evil, and would behorrified at the thought of bringingwhat they consider a "sales approach"into management. Their reason maynever be clearly formulated, but itsurely has something to do with an airof trickery and manipulation that sur-rounds some advertising, marketing,and selling. The salesmen and advertis-ers I refer to are often willing to seekand exploit a weak point in their cus-tomer's defenses and make a sale evenwhen they suspect or perhaps know

108 HARVARD BUSINF.SS REVIEW

U n d e r s t a n d i n g Leadersh ip

that the customer wilt live to regretthe purchase.

Slick uses of social and psychologicaltricks can indeed result in persuadinganother to do your bidding, but tbey areunfit for a continuing human relation-ship. As every truly constructive sales-man knows, a business transactionshould benetit both buyer and seller.And that means tinding out the needs ofthe customer, making sure that he un-derstands them himself, and providinghim with a product that will satisfy thatneed. Trained in such an approach, thesalesman should be the executive parexcellence, carrying over into adminis-trative dealings with people what he hasbeen using in sales.

By contrast, the tricky, fast-talkingmanipulator who prides himself on out-witting his customers, who counts onselling a man cigarettes by playing onhis vanity or selling a woman cosmeticsby playing on her ambition, might tum

into an executive with the same con-tempt for his workers that he had pre-viously for his customers. If he enjoyshoodwinking his workers by playingon their motives and their interests,they will soon discover that they arebeing toyed with, and the loyalty andconfidence that are an essential ingre-dient of effective leadership will be cor-roded away.

ConclusionIn the last resort, an executive must usehis skills and his human insight as doesan orchestra leader-to capture individ-ual satisfactions in the common enter-prise and to create fulfillment that holdsthe subordinate to his part. No collec-tion of cute tricks of enticement orshowmanship can do that for him.

Leadership, despite wbat we some-times think, consists of a lot more thanjust "understanding people," "beingnice to people," or not "pushing other

people around." Democracy is some-times thought to imply no division ofauthority, or to imply that everyone canbe his own boss. Of course, that is non-sense, especially in business. But busi-ness leadership can be democratic in thesense of providing tbe maximum op-portunity for growth to each workerwithout creating anarchy.

In fact, the orderly arrangement offunctions and the accurate perceptionof a leader's role in that arrangementmust always precede tbe developmentof his abilities to tbe maximum. A lead-er's job is to provide that recognition ofroles and functions within the grouptbat will permit eacb member to sat-isfy and fulfill some major motive orinterest. ^

1. "Forming Impressions of Personality," Tbejournal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1946.

Reprint R0401KTo order, see page 115.

"It's OK if you don't want to give us control of the company.We're perfectly capable of living with incredible disappointment.

INSIDE THE MIND OF THE LEADER JANUAKY 2004 109