When I lived in Washington a decade or so ago, one of the local banks started calling itself The Most Important Bank in the Most Important City in the World.

Needless to say, I took my business elsewhere – I didn’t feel important enough to do business with them and was pretty sure I wasn’t important enough for them to give me the kind of service I wanted.

Self-importance is a geographic hazard in Washington. It’s also an occupational hazard for executives, many of whom exhibit thinly disguised contempt for staff-level employees. Managers in companies afflicted by the executives-are-royalty culture learn that self-important arrogance gets them ahead. Sad to say, in some companies it does.

You have alternatives, though.

For example, shortly after I departed the electric fish of my graduate school days in pursuit of an actual income, I found myself having to present a system design to the senior vice president of manufacturing. I’d only interacted with corporate executives a couple of times at that point in my career. From my perspective, this was a big deal.

Nervous, I arrived a bit early, expecting to sit outside his office until the rest of the attendees showed up.

“Go on in,” his secretary said, and there I was, alone with the No. 2 guy in the company.

After we introduced ourselves, he held up a black book and said, “I found the most remarkable thing in the library the other day.” I asked what it was.

“It’s a PhD thesis from an anthropologist who lived with the Sioux Indians a hundred years ago. It’s just amazing!” And with that he proceeded to put me completely at ease as he told me about what this long-dead anthropologist had learned.

After the meeting (which went well, in part because this gentleman extended himself on my behalf) I learned some other things about him.

That he’d literally started at the bottom of the company, working his way up. That he was responsible for negotiating with a dozen bargaining units as a regular part of his job, and routinely had to make very difficult decisions. That he was respected throughout the industry.

I learned two other things. Here’s the first: Not a single employee had a single bad thing to say about this executive.

Not one.

Can you make that claim?

Here’s the other thing I learned: Abusive, ill-tempered, bad-mannered, politically driven managers didn’t succeed in his organization. With no disrespect to any other group I’ve known in my career, this team, with no written mission statement, vision, or other chartering document, was the most focused, mission-driven, aligned collection of managers I’ve ever worked with.

It’s common for groups with charismatic leaders to lose their way when their leader retires or moves on. Through at least two successors, though (both promoted from within), and at least two complete turnovers in managerial staff, this group continued to have the same chemistry. For all I know it still does.

I’ve since worked for and with screamers, schemers, liars, and back-stabbers. The first time it happened I had no idea how to deal with the situation, in fact.

But I’d learned the key facts: that lots of managers and executives are excellent leaders. That it’s possible to create an organization in which everyone focuses on the job instead of on personal agendas. That you can, as a leader, create an environment in which helping the company succeed is the best route to personal success.

I’ve heard colleagues say things like, “You don’t become a manager to make friends.” Maybe not.

But I know from experience that it’s possible for you, like the subject of this week’s column, to be a highly effective leader and still be a mensch.

John’s worst career mistake happened after a reorganization. His new manager, part of the new executive leadership team, had asked his opinion on several issues.

John cheerfully complied. Big mistake.

Executives are smart to learn as much about each new area of responsibility as they can. That means taking their direct reports to lunch, asking questions, and listening carefully. John’s new manager did exactly what she was supposed to do.

John achieved his goals in this conversation. He demonstrated his encyclopedic grasp of technology, his extensive knowledge of how to run IS, and his philosophy of leadership — which was based in large part on a management “initiative” that had been extolled as the Next Big Thing by the previous CEO. He figured he’d done a great job of impressing his new boss.

And he had. He’d impressed her with his insights, his range, and his leadership potential — and with his lack of interest in her insights, range, leadership, plans, and goals. Even worse, he demonstrated loyalty to the old regime. In short, he’d established himself as a potential troublemaker but not as a likely source of support.

So John went into “special projects,” wondering what had gone wrong and feeling bitter about his enforced change of career direction.

Served him right.

Executives get a lot of flak for bringing in management fads — panaceas that will make the company a great place to work, increase market share, generate awesome shareholder value, and cure the common cold. The flak is largely undeserved. Although these fads rarely accomplish anything, they’re the inevitable result of people doing exactly what they’re supposed to do. If you want to avoid John’s fate, you need to understand the dynamics of management fads.

Most fads fall into one of two categories. The first, Humoring a Promising Subordinate (HAPS) happens when the CEO wants to provide an opportunity for a protege. The protege reads about a promising new something and voila! HAPS happens.

You can recognize HAPS by the lack of CEO commitment. You’ll hear lip service, and you’ll probably attend a training session, but you’ll find the CEO’s attention focused on more pressing matters, such as new product development, a change in market focus, or improving the company’s key ratios.

Follow the leader. Give the HAPS lip service and whatever attention you think it deserves based on its intrinsic merits. HAPS can offer very good ideas. It just doesn’t represent the company’s strategic direction.

The more dangerous fads are Strategic Company Directions (SCDs) sponsored directly by the CEO and leadership team. They are major change initiatives, intended to transform the organization. Typically, SCDs won’t pay off for several years — three years is the minimum for total quality management, for example — and they can’t succeed unless the whole company gets behind them.

CEOs don’t get three years. Unless short-term results are strong, the board will find a new CEO. Since the board doesn’t hire a new CEO to implement ideas that didn’t work, that big SCD is yesterday’s news — a fad.

When faced with an SCD, commit to it. Do everything you can to make it succeed. If and when the company leadership changes, make it clear that you’re an implementer, not an advocate, and that you’ll work just as hard to implement the new team’s strategic direction. In other words, listen before you opine.

There are no bad guys here. Shareholders invest wanting prices to rise immediately, not three years from now. Boards of directors serve shareholders. The CEO answers to the board — no leeway there — and the rest of management follows along. Remarkably, the long-term health of the company isn’t anyone’s top priority — except, perhaps, employees’. And many companies, by their actions, discourage employee loyalty.

Sure, there are some executives who move from fad to fad like a butterfly flitting from flower to flower. They’re the exception. Most are doing what they’re paid to do. They’re trying to define, articulate, and create the future company according to their vision, not someone else’s.

I know. I was John.