Everyone in today's business world is familiar with the pressures that result in reorganization, restructuring, decentralization, and attention to the near term. Recently, we have seen the fall of Richard J. Ferris, CEO of Allegis, allegedly because he attempted to build his organization for the long term. Psychological catastrophes that accompany these pressures are no longer news.' In addition, the concentration on cutting costs and attacking competitors frequently results in abandoning research and product development. The heavy emphasis on paying for the bottom line has all too often led to loss of innovation and depreciation of those qualitative features of an organization representing the core of its character. Yet the majority of CEOs remain heavily focused on the numbers, a pressure exacerbated by the threat of possible takeovers and the increasing demand of large stockholders, such as pension fund managers, for high returns in the short run. Search consultants report they continue to be asked to find prospective CEOs who will tightly control organizations for short-term results. Although these results often bolster stock prices, making the firm more attractive to institutional buyers, they start a spiral of escalating demands for lean and mean cultures. The phrase lean and mean, taken from the world of professional sports, is now widely used. The implication in that phrase is that one should be willing to incapacitate the opponent whenever possible,2 and highlights the struggle for so many executives between being hard and soft, between being nonemotional and emotional, between being hard-nosed and a bleeding heart. The fact of the matter is most business management has always been hard, in the sense of emphasis on measurement by the numbers and relative insensitivity to and inadequate understanding of psychological issues. So, the new model says, Become harder in the face of stress. Tighten up. It is exactly that mode of defense which, when practiced by an individual under stress, can lead to ultimate burnout and breakdown. I have reservations about what is promising to become the organization. The tighter the organization, the greater its rigidity and the harder for it to adapt flexibly to change. A tight organization implies significant control by its leadership and correspondingly less input from others, threatening the flow of information from those closest to the customer. An uptight organization is likely to be a driven organization. It is difficult to sustain the morale and commitment of people who are under unrelenting pressure. Physical and emotional exhaustion are likely to follow, with high turnover and loss of key personnel. Driven by bottomline pressures, more managers are likely to take only marginal risks with respect to environmental, legal, and financial regulations. These can have financial costs and reflect on the reputations of those organizations. There is considerable criticism of established hardnosed leadership. Roger B. Smith, chairman of General Motors, has such a difficult time with the critics that he has developed a psychosomatic skin rash.3 Thomas G. Wyman, who tried to bring better business management to CBS, seemed unable to deal with the mix of personalities in his organization. Harold Geneen of ITT, James Dutt of Beatrice Foods, and the late Charles Bludhorn of Gulf +Western have been criticized for their insensitivity to the feelings of employees and customers alike. That insensitivity is characteristic of all hard-nosed management. When costs have been cut to the bone and controls tightened into rigidity, the resulting insensitivity and lack of flexibility will inhibit competitive adaptation. That likely outcome leads me to predict that there will have to be a significant change in the personality characteristics of chief executives if their organizations are to be successful. That prospective requirement, however, will increase the sense of helplessness on the part of many top managers. In this article I will discuss both of those issues, the likely change, and the increase in the sense of helplessness.
Read full abstract
Dec 1, 1992
Kendall Roth 
Open Access