MULTIPLIERS Book (Part-2)
The Challenger
Matt McCauley is the CEO of children’s clothing company Gymboree. In this company, he started working in Planning and Inventory Management and with time climbed up the ranks and became the youngest CEO of the company. Matt was a pole vaulter in college who always challenged himself and kept raising the bar. He applied the same principle in his work also.
When Matt took over as CEO, a product line had been revamped and the business was not being run properly. They saw an opportunity to increase sales and net income, which was $0.69 per share. Matt applied his deep knowledge of operations and inventory. He estimated that if the company improves, it could reach $1.00 per share. When Matt told this to the board members, they started laughing. But Matt was very confident in its possibility.
He called the management team and showed them the sales and expense adjustments he had studied. He described them as ‘mission impossible’ to reach net income of $1.00 per share. Matt asked all the senior managers, “What would be your Mission: Impossible?” Soon everyone in the company was working towards their Mission: Impossible. The discovery of their personal Mission Impossible motivates people to reach this goal.
One year later, Matt reported to the board that he had earned $1.19 per share, not $1.00. This was 72% more than the previous tax year. What did he do after this? Matt raised the bar even higher and suggested the company could reach $2 per share. The board members felt that he was speaking too loudly. But Matt then turned to his employees and shared his Mission: Impossible task with them. He asked everyone to reach their personal Mission Impossible.
- Advertisement -
The next year Matt reported achieving $2.15 per share, not $2.00. This was 80% more than last year. Ultimately, Gymboree’s net income had increased 5 times in 4 years.
Matt McCauley used his knowledge and expertise to see an opportunity and a path to achieving extraordinary performance. He took up a challenge and asked his people to join him in trying to achieve the impossible. Together they analyzed how this could be achieved and in the end Matt had his people achieve more than they ever thought possible. He had greatly increased his imagination and capability.
Let us look at the example of this second leader. If Matt is a challenger then this second leader is ‘Know-It-All’.
Richard Palmer is the founder of SMT Systems. This company creates tools for business process reengineering. This company was his brainchild. He created it on the basis of being an expert business process analyst. Everyone knew that Richard was a genius, he was the top genius of the company. He was also a chess champion and a graduate of Oxford.
Richard did not share his ideas. He told them loudly and consistently. He thought he was inspiring people, but in reality he was tiring people and forcing them to accept his views. Richard had given the position of CEO to someone else, but everyone knew that he would have the final say in everything. Richard also made sure that he was always the smartest person.
Once at an executive management meeting, Richard put the company’s general counsel on the hot seat. He suddenly gave the General Counsel a pop quiz about specific legal codes on corporate governance. Richard was concerned that the General Council was not aware of the details of the particular code his city was going to be required to comply with.
Richard kept asking questions one after another. The General Council answered all the questions. Later the questions started becoming very specific and were about scenarios that might never have happened in real life. The General Council was confused, but he responded as best he could to the best of his ability. Richard was not satisfied with this. He went straight to a bookshop after work and bought the most updated 600-page manual on corporate governance codes.
He stayed awake the whole night and read that book. The next day Richard called another meeting. He discussed what he had learned from the 600-page manual and highlighted the wrong answers the General Council had given.
Richard is a Know-It-All leader. Leaders like him create a downward spiral in the organization, which pushes everything downwards. First, the leader gives all the answers. Second, as they have been trained, people wait for instructions from the leader. Third, people work on the instructions of the leader. At the end the leader says, “Without me they will never be able to do anything and I will always have to tell them what to do.” Know-It-All people impose limits on the organization by imposing what they know on others. That means people are not able to explore anything other than the ideas of the leader.
Whereas challengers like Matt McCauley follow a different logic. He uses his intelligence and energy for two things. First, he finds the right challenge for his team. Second, he breaks the challenge into manageable parts so his team can develop the confidence and ability to achieve it. Challengers believe that people can become stronger and smarter by facing challenges. Through this, people learn to trust themselves, hence even the impossible becomes possible.
Challengers do not impose their ideas on others and do not limit what the organization knows. He pushes people to go beyond their knowledge. With this, people learn to face any challenge and also have the focus and energy to achieve it.
So how can you become a challenger? How can you avoid becoming a know-it-all? To do this follow these 3 habits –
First, sow the seeds of opportunity. Even if the challengers have a clear vision, they do not tell about it. Instead he lets people discover it for themselves. Challengers provide just enough information to help people think and find their own path.
Second, challenge. A challenger takes people towards challenge. He asks difficult questions to get her, but does not answer them. Challengers let people find the answer for themselves.
Third, create confidence. It is believed that what is impossible is actually possible. The Challenger explains the challenge from top to bottom, creates a plan for everyone, and motivates people with small, quick wins.
The Debate Maker
Diminisher takes decisions either on his own or along with some of his close people. He feels that only those at the top, including him, have the brains to take good decisions. Diminishers are unable to properly utilize the intelligence of their people, whereas all that is needed to develop it is to challenge and debate.
The previous US President George W Bush called himself “the decider”. The Time magazine called his leadership the “blink presidency” because he made decisions as quickly as a blink.
In a Washington Post interview, Bush said that he is a gut player, meaning he listens to his heart. He listens to his instincts, he doesn’t follow rules. From this the journalist concluded that he was an impatient type of person. He did not like reading, taking briefs or debating. He didn’t like doing homework. But homework is an important part of the position of president.
In 2003, the US-Iraq war was the result of Bush’s hasty centralized decision-making. He took this decision immediately without much analysis or consulting others. During the 2007 invasion of Iraq, Bush did not attend meetings where important decisions were to be taken because he said he had other work.
Diminishers like Bush think that there are very few people in their organization who are worth listening to. For example, he asks his team to interview applicants for an open position, but he only selects applicants whom his star employees like. Diminisher claims to have an open door policy, but mostly he holds private meetings with some of the most influential advisors. He can ask for opinion from his team but he takes the decision privately and makes the decision known to everyone.
Multipliers are different from these. They don’t focus on what they know. Instead, they are interested in what others know. He brings people together to deal with problems and find out what they know and encourage them to brainstorm and debate.
Diminisher are decision makers who rely only on their own information or that of a few people. Multipliers are debate makers who harness the entire brain power of their organization. Not all decisions require debate, but multipliers use debate to handle major decisions with strong facts and without bias. In debate, multipliers challenge their people and increase their knowledge. This makes the team smarter and more prepared to take decisions.
As mentioned earlier, Lutz Leob was the manager of the education business at Microsoft. He ran a traditional education business that offered 5-day classes through corporate training partners. Lutz had two goals: drive profitable revenue growth and expand its reach so more customers could become skilled in using Microsoft’s technology. He had two options that he was thinking about. Firstly, should they continue to work with corporate training partners for 1-2 classes or secondly, should they try to do it with the academic sector.
Lutz had enough knowledge and experience to make decisions on his own, but he relied more on brainstorming and debate. Lutz gathered his team and asked them about the big questions. Should they deliver their education through schools rather than corporate training providers? Should they risk their current business model to achieve profit growth and reach more customers?
He gave his team their assignments. After 2 weeks, he was supposed to meet outside the office where he could have more space to think.
After 2 weeks, everyone came prepared with their ideas. Lutz began the meeting by saying, “Our $300 million education business may be operating on an outdated model. I expect the best thinking from everyone. Everyone should speak up. We will ask ourselves difficult questions. “
The first question was, “Should we be in an academic space? What do we need?” Team members started debating and sharing their opinions. Lutz pushed him harder by guiding him to change sides. He asked people to debate from the perspective of others. For example, he said, “Raza, switch positions with Chris. Chris you favored this idea, now argue against it.” He also said, “Teresa, you’ve looked at this from a technical perspective. Now I want you to discuss it from a marketing perspective.”
Thus, the debate became more lively and the team started coming up with more brilliant ideas. Eventually Lutz and everyone decide to go to the academy market. He spent the next two years shifting his education business to schools and students. He used to have 1500 corporate training partners. In 2 years that number had increased 3 times to 4700 academic partners. The team had achieved its highest reach and higher profit targets.
So how can you be like Lutz? How can you become a debate maker? Here are 3 habits for this –
First, frame the issue. Debate makers prepare the team by creating the right questions. They make it in a way that everyone can contribute. Here’s a guide to framing the issue –
What decision needs to be taken? What are the options? Why is this an important question? Why is everyone’s input and debate needed in this? Who will take the decision? How will the final decision be taken? Will it be taken by consensus or by majority rule?
Second, start the debate. There are 4 elements to a good debate. It is engaging and relevant for all those who join it. It is completely detailed. In this, correct information is shared so that the team can completely understand that issue or problem. It is fact based. Debate is based on facts and not on opinion. It is educational. People gain more knowledge after debate. It is not about which side wins and which side loses.
Third, take good decisions. The leader should summarize all the key points of the debate and discuss next steps. Do they need more information or is it time to make a decision? Can the team take the decision together or can the leader take the decision after listening to the ideas through debate? The leader may allow decisions to be made by the person who has the most knowledge about the issue.
The advantage of debating is that team members are able to deeply understand the problem and the need for change. They take responsibility for their decisions and become more willing to take decisions together.
The Investor
Multipliers invest in their team’s success. Sometimes he comes forward to teach them something or share his ideas, but he always lets people take responsibility for their actions.
Whereas, Diminisher solves the problem by jumping in between. He makes the team dependent on him. He micromanages his people and always tells them what to do.
Multipliers let their teams handle problems. With his guidance the team becomes independent. They do not need to be saved by the leader. The team can work well even without a leader present. This happens because the multiplier had invested the resources and ownership they needed.
The head coach of the Highland rugby team, talked about earlier, was Larry Gelwicks. He watches his high school team practice. This reminded Larry of the first team he coached to a national championship. Every day, he would wake up before dawn for fitness training.
Their current team was good, but Larry noticed that their physical stamina was not as good as the first team. He would always remind him to do fitness training. The team would say yes, but would never do so.
Larry could have canceled game practice for fitness training, but that would have affected the team’s skills. He could have yelled at his players, but that wouldn’t have a long-term effect, so Larry thought of a better way. That was to give the responsibility to the players.
The next day, Larry shared his plan with the team. He said that only 6 weeks are left for the finals. It takes 6 weeks for a good athlete to increase his strength and endurance. He told his team, “We have two options, either we coaches can continue trying to think of something or you, the captain, take responsibility for your problem and find a solution.” What should we do?”
After some time the captain of the Bax replied, “Leave it to us.” The Captain stood up and went forward. He asked Larry what kind of fitness exercises he should do to improve his speed, strength and flexibility. After that the coach left the room and allowed the team to discuss among themselves.
The captains of all four teams were teenagers. One by one they wrote their ideas on the chalkboard. Eventually he divided the team into small groups of 4 members. Until the national championships, the group met every day before school for fitness training.
What was the result of this? That team turned out to be one of the fittest teams Larry had managed in the last 30 years. No one could defeat him and he became the overall national champion.
Larry was an investor and the next leader was a micromanager.
Marcus Dolan was also the head coach of a high school rugby team. He said, “Come here!” He shouted and called one of his team captains from the other side of the field. Marcus said, “If you ever start practice without me again, I’ll kick you off the team. You’ll ruin your teammates’ game too, you doz.” It is natural that the team captain got scared. He never tried to initiate again. Eventually everyone did what Marcus said.
He used to micromanage his every move. The result was that the team became dependent on him. The players themselves could neither think nor change their strategy on the field. This team kept losing every game. Anyone who tried to take initiative would be intimidated by the already micromanaging Marcus. Sports Illustrated magazine named Marcus Dolan as the losingest coach in high school sports history.
When we watch sports on TV, we often see the coach of the losing team waving or shouting from the sidelines. But we have never seen a coach who runs into the field, snatches the ball and takes the shot himself. These coaches know very well what they have to do in the game but they do not do it.
Yes, every sport has its own rules. The coaches are there to coach the players and the players are there to play.
Now let’s apply this idea to organization. In difficult times, why can’t managers stop themselves from running on the field, snatching the ball and hitting the winning shot? There are no rules in the organization that make it illegal for a manager to do so. But we can see how micromanaging has a negative impact on the team.
For example, a sales manager is impatient with his team’s progress in closing a deal with an important client, so he tries to close the deal himself. Or a marketing VP sees her employee make a mistake while reporting to the CEO about a new product. When the CEO asks difficult questions, the VP takes the lead and answers, and she even decides to end the presentation herself.
When you micromanage your team, you diminish their abilities and potential. Multiplayers understand that their job is to teach, coach, and hold their players accountable. They let their team know what’s at stake and it’s their responsibility.
So how can you become an investor? How can you avoid becoming a micromanager? For this there are three habits –
First, define your ownership. Give responsibility to your people.
Second, protect your investment. Give your team the knowledge and resources they need to get the work done.
Third, make them responsible. People themselves should become accountable for their actions. The leader doesn’t always have to be there to handle things.
A senior executive always carried a small leather notebook with him to every meeting. He rarely wrote notes in it. But he used to listen carefully in the executive meetings and participate fully in the discussions. He used to share his ideas whenever the team needed it. Occasionally he would write a single note. This note contained things for which he himself was responsible. He kept his people responsible for things as much as possible. He did not take over their work.
Conclusion
Diminishers are those who build empires, are tyrants, who know everything, who take decisions and are micromanagers. Multipliers are talent magnets, meaning those who attract talent towards themselves, Liberators, meaning those who liberate, challengers, debaters, and investors.
First, you learned that talent magnets attract A players to their teams and develop them into A+ players.
Second, you learned that liberators create an environment where people can bring out their best ideas and do extraordinary things.
Third, you learned that challengers look for the right opportunities to enhance their team’s capabilities.
Fourth, you learned that debate makers do not like to take decisions alone or with a few people. He encourages people to brainstorm for a problem.
Fifth, you learned that investors give people the knowledge and resources they need to solve their own problems.
Maybe you are a leader and sometimes you realize that you have the qualities of a diminisher. So don’t think that you are a bad person. Liz also discusses the ‘Accidental Diminisher’ or leaders who unintentionally limit their team. You want to be a good manager, but you are unaware of the negative things you do. In this summary you learned how to change it. Now you can move towards becoming a multiplier.
How do you want to be remembered as a leader? What will be your legacy? Do you want to be remembered as a person with a big personality? Or as a person who helped people move forward? As you become a multiplier, you will realize that as you lift others up, you also bring out the best in yourself.
Being a multiplier is useful not only for leaders in the corporate world but also for governments, nonprofit organizations, hospitals, schools, small to medium-sized businesses, and many more. Thousands of leaders may have limited their people unknowingly. Imagine if they had all taken a step forward to become multipliers?
Anyway, see you again with the powerful explanation of the new movie.
