All Posts in Leadership

|In: Industry Commentary|Last Updated:

The Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States — our two most important founding documents — are remarkably secular. Rebukes to English governance, which claimed its legitimacy from God through the divine right of kings, they state with complete clarity that the legitimacy of governments is obtained, not from Heaven, but from the consent of the governed.

The words are clear and accessible to anyone who is at all literate and has the patience to read them. That this was the consensus of this nation’s founders is not in serious doubt.

Also not in serious doubt is the respect our nation’s founders had for consensus itself, perhaps because it is the purest form of the governed’s consent. In each case they spent a very long time discussing and debating what they should think and how that thinking should be expressed; also in each case, different factions compromised to reach the final decisions. Both documents were results with which each group and faction might not completely agree, but to which they could and did completely commit.

It’s become popular to consider the Constitution’s framers as selfish, wealthy, racist landowners interested solely in preserving their status. But this oversimplifies the complexity of their circumstances. When they led the Revolutionary War, they had quite literally risked their lives and fortunes to gain independence from England. Their sincerity of purpose in creating a resilient nation seems more likely than otherwise.

As for slavery, it is beyond doubt that many of the framers abhorred it (many with more moral courage than, for example, Jefferson, who abhorred slavery in principle but not so strongly as to suffer the personal inconveniences to be experienced from its elimination). The Constitution’s allowance of slavery demonstrates the nature of consensus better than any of its other features: Even those who hated it the most valued preservation of the nation even more. They understood, perfectly, the need to give way on some points — even those held very strongly — to achieve the larger result.

Consensus is falling out of fashion in leadership circles these days, and we’re the poorer for it. Three reasons seem to dominate this shift, all the result of too-limited understanding of the subject:

  • Wrong definition: Consensus is the form of decision-making in which a group might not fully agree with the final decision, but does commit to the final decision specifically because it is the decision of the group. It is not what some detractors call consensus — a process in which a group argues until it gives lip service to a decision which those who approve adhere to and those who don’t feel free to ignore.
  • Wrong priority: Achieving consensus is not a quick process. To those who participated, the Constitutional Convention seemed eternal; it did, in fact, require almost four months.Consensus is the wrong process to be used when speed is essential. Conversely, speed is sometimes the wrong priority for leaders to choose — there are many times when commitment is more important than velocity. In business, excessive speed can lead to undesirable results, among them “leaders” who leave those who are supposed to be following too far behind them; and leaders able to win every battle while fighting the wrong war.Metaphorically speaking.
  • Wrong technique: Voting is the process where everyone argues, and then tallies up preferences so that the majority wins and the rest lose. Consensus requires an expectation that everyone involved has to give way on some points. It also requires that all concerned do more than allow others to speak while they formulate their rebuttals. It requires actual listening — working to understand the other person’s point of view. That, in turn requires patience, an art practiced extensively by those who participated in our nation’s founding, as the prevalent style of speaking at the time was both windier and more formal than what we practice today.

In general, consensus results in more commitment, but to a relatively poor quality result. Because consensus requires compromise, this generality can’t be entirely avoided. But listening — recognizing that others have wisdom as well — can offset the effects of compromise, making the final result better than what any single individual can achieve.

It’s been said that no committee ever painted the Mona Lisa. That is, of course, true. It’s also true, though, that it was a committee that wrote the Constitution of the United States — a document that is, in its own way, as much a work of art as anything ever created.

Comments

|In: Business Ethics|Last Updated:

Talk about the end of an era …

The big news in business circles this week is Bill Gates’ decision to leave Microsoft. His decision will result in a lot of fallout in the industry, not the least of which will be the inevitable flood of opinion pieces dissecting the decision itself; its impact on the future of Microsoft; and Gates’ impact on life, the universe, and everything.

Why should Keep the Joint Running be the exception? Here’s what comes to mind:

The decision itself: Very smart. Others have pointed this out, too — Gates has nothing left to accomplish at Microsoft and would have gone stale had he stayed. By focusing on the work of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation he’ll have whatever new frontiers he wants for the rest of his life.

Impact on Microsoft: In the short term, very little — the transition will take two years, and he’s done an exemplary job of succession planning. In the long term, Microsoft will become a very different company, because corporate culture always reflects the personality of the company’s leader in some way, shape or form.

Gates’ impact on life, the universe, and everything: The personal computer would have happened with or without Bill Gates. The IBM PC architecture would have trounced both the Apple and generic CP/M architectures, too, for a very simple reason: IBM wanted to dominate the business use of personal computers, while Steve Jobs wanted to dominate being very cool with technology, Steve Wozniak wanted to play, and Gary Kildall wanted to fly.

But the personal computer wouldn’t have happened the way it did without Gates and his merry band of renegades. Because of them, the computer that invaded corporate desktops was fundamentally personal — an empowering technology that flattened corporate hierarchies and increased the ability of individual knowledge workers to influence business strategy, direction and outcomes. Had IBM maintained control of the architecture … OS/2 was its attempt to regain it … there’s little doubt that the PC would have been a very different animal.

Microsoft’s mission was to put a computer on every desk and Microsoft software in every computer. Give them credit — from a virtual green field, they accomplished what they set out to accomplish.

A few other thoughts: Start with this — Bill Gates gets a kick out of the technology itself. Anyone who has seen him demo new Microsoft products comes away with the same impression. He personally finds this stuff to be very cool. He’s like a kid in a toy store, except that he owns the toy store, and the toy factory too.

I just wish more CIOs got the same kick out of the technology they manage.

One other point: Gates and company achieved something mind-boggling in the annals of business history. They started as a garage business and continued to run it … successfully … as it grew through the $100 million, $1 billion, and $10 billion business breakpoints. It’s been done before, but it’s a rare achievement. Usually, founders have to turn over control to professional business managers because they don’t know how to run an organization beyond a certain size.

Gates, in contrast, adapted Microsoft to constantly changing business trends, at least three major technical watersheds, and its own stupendous increase in size without it ever losing its focus. Microsoft is about winning, has been from the beginning, and is to this day.

Compare that to the company you work for and ask yourself this basic question: Is “winning” in your company defined in Microsoft’s terms — winning customer mindshare, from that marketshare, and from that profits and shareholder value? If so, you’re lucky.

Probably, you work for a small business, too. In most corporate giants, “winning” is defined in terms of internal politics and rivalries, and corporate success is measured by the price of a share of stock, not by the health, success, and impact of the business.

I’ve read many times that Bill Gates turned a lot of people into millionaires, as if that was of any consequence. Bill Gates and his company changed how companies conduct business. That matters.

So here’s what you can learn from Bill Gates: Focus your attention on accomplishing something important. If you do, you and everyone who works for you will find their work less stressful and more rewarding.

You, and they, will probably manage to earn a pretty good living while you’re all at it, too.

Comments