Quanta Corporate Citizenship Jenna Jordan, from the University of Chicago, has written a very interesting paper called When Heads Roll: Assessing the Effectiveness of Leadership Decapitation.
She analysed 298 cases of leadership decapitation around the world from 1945 to 2004 in order to understand whether eliminating a leader results in the dissolution of their organisation. She also analysed whether eliminating the leader increases the likelihood of organisational collapse over time, and if it does not result in the group collapse, if it hinders its future progress.
According to her findings, “the data indicates that as an organisation becomes larger and older, decapitation is less likely to result in organisational collapse”. Furthermore, “it does not increase the likelihood of organisational collapse (…). The marginal utility for decapitation is actually negative. Groups that have not had their leaders targeted have a higher rate of decline than groups whose leaders have been removed”. To her third question, where she qualitatively analysed only three cases, the results are mixed.
Does it sound familiar? How many times have you seen an organisation – formal or informal – having its leader removed and the organisation getting stronger? How many times have you heard about stories where union leaders were fired, whistleblowers were put aside, environmental activists were put under pressure, and consumer groups were ignored and their causes only grew stronger? How many times have you read articles about a company where terrible or great CEOs were removed and their companies still carried on with dodgy or outstanding practices? How many religions do you know where the leader is prosecuted and the belief only grows stronger? Sounds like the common Hollywood movie script where the leader is removed but the cause – for better or for worse – is carried on by the followers.
By the way, I should have said before, her brilliant paper is not about firing CEOs. Her paper is about killing terrorists and other non-friendly leaders.
Accordingly to her findings, killing someone is simply not a good tactic. If anything, it generally makes the cause even stronger. Larger and older groups are particularly more resilient to the loss of their leaders. Furthermore, accordingly to her findings, religious groups are more resilient than ideological ones in terms of losing their leader. Contrary to the belief that “religious organisations are (…) more likely to have charismatic leaders who are essential to setting and maintaining organisational goals [and] according to theories of charismatic leadership these groups should be weakened by decapitation”, actually, removing leaders of religious groups often makes attacks fiercer and the group stronger.
If we link her results with our own quantitative analyses about the motivation driver behind people’s actions, we can infer that the major difference between ideological and religious groups is that, in the first, the followers are driven by the need to be accepted by a group while, in the second, they are driven by reward & punishment (in the case of religious terrorists, from their god).
The reason why I’m writing about a paper on terrorism in a CSR blog is that we see very similar patterns in the way organisations deal with their ‘enemies’ and some very relevant lessons they can learn from Jordan’s paper.
First, once you have a problem, deal with it. The sooner you solve it, the lower its impact on your bottom line. If you are faced with whistleblowers, intransigent union leaders or dissatisfied consumers, it is better to address the issue earlier on and try to bridge the relationship before things escalate. You don’t want a consumer writing a blockbusting song about how your company broke his guitar. Even if a compromise hits the profits now, it is likely to be much worse if you wait to deal with it later. Think about it as a decision making tree. Although you will certainly incur a cost now, it is much lower than the likely (although less certain) cost you will incur in the future not only to fix the relationship, but also to rebuild your damaged brand.
Second, do not transform your opponent into a martyr. Firing, sidestepping, muting or taking off the gloves will only increase the likelihood that your opponent will get greater attention and sympathy, and therefore create a more institutionalised cause that is much more difficult to change.
And, finally, if the situation has already escalated, understand what drives the followers. If it is a desire to be accepted by a peer group (often the case with staff), than removing a few key people is more likely to result in positive results than if it is a more external set of incentives and the followers actually have something to lose (or gain) if they pursue their cause (often the case with consumer and environmental groups).
- Gus
She analysed 298 cases of leadership decapitation around the world from 1945 to 2004 in order to understand whether eliminating a leader results in the dissolution of their organisation. She also analysed whether eliminating the leader increases the likelihood of organisational collapse over time, and if it does not result in the group collapse, if it hinders its future progress.
According to her findings, “the data indicates that as an organisation becomes larger and older, decapitation is less likely to result in organisational collapse”. Furthermore, “it does not increase the likelihood of organisational collapse (…). The marginal utility for decapitation is actually negative. Groups that have not had their leaders targeted have a higher rate of decline than groups whose leaders have been removed”. To her third question, where she qualitatively analysed only three cases, the results are mixed.
Does it sound familiar? How many times have you seen an organisation – formal or informal – having its leader removed and the organisation getting stronger? How many times have you heard about stories where union leaders were fired, whistleblowers were put aside, environmental activists were put under pressure, and consumer groups were ignored and their causes only grew stronger? How many times have you read articles about a company where terrible or great CEOs were removed and their companies still carried on with dodgy or outstanding practices? How many religions do you know where the leader is prosecuted and the belief only grows stronger? Sounds like the common Hollywood movie script where the leader is removed but the cause – for better or for worse – is carried on by the followers.
By the way, I should have said before, her brilliant paper is not about firing CEOs. Her paper is about killing terrorists and other non-friendly leaders.
Accordingly to her findings, killing someone is simply not a good tactic. If anything, it generally makes the cause even stronger. Larger and older groups are particularly more resilient to the loss of their leaders. Furthermore, accordingly to her findings, religious groups are more resilient than ideological ones in terms of losing their leader. Contrary to the belief that “religious organisations are (…) more likely to have charismatic leaders who are essential to setting and maintaining organisational goals [and] according to theories of charismatic leadership these groups should be weakened by decapitation”, actually, removing leaders of religious groups often makes attacks fiercer and the group stronger.
If we link her results with our own quantitative analyses about the motivation driver behind people’s actions, we can infer that the major difference between ideological and religious groups is that, in the first, the followers are driven by the need to be accepted by a group while, in the second, they are driven by reward & punishment (in the case of religious terrorists, from their god).
The reason why I’m writing about a paper on terrorism in a CSR blog is that we see very similar patterns in the way organisations deal with their ‘enemies’ and some very relevant lessons they can learn from Jordan’s paper.
First, once you have a problem, deal with it. The sooner you solve it, the lower its impact on your bottom line. If you are faced with whistleblowers, intransigent union leaders or dissatisfied consumers, it is better to address the issue earlier on and try to bridge the relationship before things escalate. You don’t want a consumer writing a blockbusting song about how your company broke his guitar. Even if a compromise hits the profits now, it is likely to be much worse if you wait to deal with it later. Think about it as a decision making tree. Although you will certainly incur a cost now, it is much lower than the likely (although less certain) cost you will incur in the future not only to fix the relationship, but also to rebuild your damaged brand.
Second, do not transform your opponent into a martyr. Firing, sidestepping, muting or taking off the gloves will only increase the likelihood that your opponent will get greater attention and sympathy, and therefore create a more institutionalised cause that is much more difficult to change.
And, finally, if the situation has already escalated, understand what drives the followers. If it is a desire to be accepted by a peer group (often the case with staff), than removing a few key people is more likely to result in positive results than if it is a more external set of incentives and the followers actually have something to lose (or gain) if they pursue their cause (often the case with consumer and environmental groups).
- Gus
Add Comment
