Wednesday, August 31, 2011

HBS Press: Power Genes: Understanding Your Power Persona--and How to Wield It at Work

I have always found psychological studies on birth order fascinating. And Maggie Craddock has applied the birth order paradigm to leadership styles in the workplace in, "Power Genes: Understanding Your Power Persona--and How to Wield It at Work"

Craddock describes the value in the study of your "power persona" as being able to see your blind spots and potentially fix them. She outlines the four power persona types in her study: The Pleaser (who did get enough affection as a child and needs validation), Charmers (who learned to triangulate and manipulate (middle children)), The Commander (plays by the rules), and the Inspirer (finds reward for questioning status, an altruist, creative).

From the Harvard book store:
We've all joked about it: the domineering father figure as top manager, the boisterous elder brother type as heir apparent, the caring mother hen on the executive team. But that leaves the rest of us in the workplace as a gaggle of siblings battling for recognition, resources, and rewards from our "parents". Next thing you know, we're doing exactly what we did when we were kids to get what we need at work--trying too hard to please, acting out, brownnosing. Yet these responses aren't productive in the workplace. In "Power Genes", executive coach Maggie Craddock reveals how to kick those old habits and use your power more effectively to advance your career. Craddock identifies four "power types"--Pleaser, Charmer, Commander, Inspirer--and explains how to diagnose your type. Next she walks you through a process for avoiding your type's signature destructive reflexes and replacing them with new behaviors. She also shows how to interact productively with other people--peers, bosses, employees--of each type. "Power Genes" helps you jettison unproductive habits and take charge of your workplace relationships.

And also from Psychology Today:

What's Your Power Style?
How your family history shapes your power style.
Published on June 22, 2011 by Maggie Craddock in Power Styles
Have you ever wondered if a person's childhood experiences influence the way they operate as a professional later in life? Did that boardroom bully who intimidates others in order to make a point shove people around on the playground as a kid?

Ask yourself some questions: Do you ever find yourself so anxious to placate a challenging colleague or client that you get tongue tied at just the moment you should be expressing yourself more confidently? Have you ever worked with someone who managed to charm senior management while hiding their tendency to be hostile towards peers and subordinates? Would you prefer to give up control of a project rather than hassle with red tape and regulations that hamper your creativity?

Whether you are trying to get ahead at your existing firm, land a job in a new organization or even manage your personal life so your it is a source of support rather than strain, it's helpful to understand that many of your instincts for giving and taking power stem from ways you were conditioned in the first system you experienced in life - your family system. Through my research for my new book Power Genes

Understanding Your Power Persona
(Harvard Business Press, June 2011), I discovered that the building blocks of anyone's signature power style are rooted in the ways they have been conditioned to respond emotionally and behaviorally to the first authority figures they encountered in life, namely, their caregivers.
To get a sense of how you may be emotionally conditioned to respond to power in the workplace, reflect for a moment on the predominant way that your caregivers exerted authority in your family system. Was it trust-based or fear-based?

Did they motivate you by considering your feelings, or did they issue orders they expected to be promptly obeyed? If you were raised by caregivers who asked your opinion when making important family decisions, you probably react positively to colleagues who take the time to connect with you at a human level. This type of reaction indicates that the emotional dimension of your signature power style may be trust-based.

In contrast, people who were raised by caregivers that were either rigidly authoritarian or highly permissive often find that the emotional dimension of their power style can be fear-based. They may react negatively to consensus building on the job and gravitate towards leaders who operate independently and exude an aura of confidence.

But there is another level of your power style the needs exploring. The behavioral dimension of your power style stems from the way you learned to deal with your caregivers as a unit to get what you wanted in childhood. Did a more informal approach win the day, or did you learn to operate more formally with them?

If your childhood experience taught you that you could sometimes get one parent to say "yes" to a request that had been refused by the other, the behavioral dimension of your signature power style may be predominantly informal. People with a strong informal dimension to their power style prefer one-on-one interactions on the job when they are trying to influence others. For example, even when they know they will need to present an idea or proposal to a group, they will tend to run their ideas by key individuals privately before the group meets.

In contrast, clients who report that their caregivers stuck together when disciplining or rewarding them often exhibit a preference for dealing with groups to further a professional agenda later in life. People whose behavioral preferences indicate a formal dimension to their signature power style prefer to orchestrate an open debate around contentious issues with a group than negotiate individual agreements in private.

Comparing the ways my clients learned to adapt to get their needs met in childhood with the challenges, these same clients were facing in their current jobs unearthed some important trends. For example, Jeff, a senior executive in the advertising industry, was about to be passed over for promotion because his tendency to talk over others in meetings made him appear too anxious to lead a creative team. While Jeff had worked with presentation coaches who would video him so he could practice slowing down when he presented for clients, his urgent need to be heard kept driving him to talk over others during internal brainstorming sessions.

Jeff grew up in the shadow of an older sister who was a champion figure skater. His parents, who loved and supported him, had been so preoccupied with his sister's athletic career that they had inadvertently left Jeff starved for attention. Jeff longed to capture and hold his parents attention. This longing drove Jeff to created advertising campaigns that successfully grabbed the attention of families around the world. As Jeff began to understand the way that his fear of losing attention as a child was undermining the tone he set internally on the job, he was finally able to make the changes necessary to become a more powerful listener and land the promotion he deserved.

As you consider the roots of your power style, it's important not to make snap judgments
about others or about yourself. Most of us employ more than one power style, and you may even switch styles depending upon the situation. The four core power styles that I explore in Power Genes are the Pleaser, the Charmer, the Commander and the Inspirer. Most people find that their signature power style is a blend of at least two of these core power styles. Jeff, in the example above, discovered that his approach to wielding power reflected a blend of the Pleaser and Commander power styles.

The Pleaser - Due to outside stressors, which can range from financial struggles to preoccupation with a sick relative, Pleasers often didn't get the attention they craved from their caretakers early in life. As a result, Pleasers often grow up hungry for validation and are hardwired to take care of others. Pleasers often wield power by attempting to connect with others at a personal level.

The Charmer - Charmers were often required to soothe an emotionally needy parent early in life. As a result, Charmers sometimes have little respect for formal authority and may manipulate others in order to get their needs met. The Charmer power style is exemplified by people with an intensity of focus that both intimidates and seduces others into compliance.

The Commander - Often, a Commander has grown up in a family system devoted to sports, religion, the military or any larger system that reinforces discipline and a strict code of conduct. Commanders operate with a results orientation and tend to foster a sense of urgency in others.

The Inspirer - The family systems that foster Inspirers often value self-expression over conformity, and the caregivers in such systems are often willing to make personal sacrifices to achieve excellence in areas such as artistic expression or scientific inquiry. Inspirers tend to be innovative thinkers and operate with a consistent commitment to the greater good.

You can evaluate your signature power style by examining your dominant emotional triggers and behavioral patterns. As you do this, it's important to bear in mind that there are no "good" or "bad" power styles. Each style has inherent strengths and challenges, and each presents us with important lessons about power in the workplace.

To assist you in better identifying with a specific style, I will be exploring case studies based on each of the four core power styles in future blog posts.

Maggie Craddock is the President and founder of Workplace Relationships. Her firm does executive coaching, succession planning, team building and cultural enhancement. For more information please visit

Does an incentive to stay create an environment for top executive performance?

In uncertain times for a corporation, can an executive incentive package create stability and an environment for the executive team to perform at a high level?

Over the past two decades, executive severance agreements (ESAs) and change in control agreements have become standard ex ante tools for key executives and teams. Their intent is to prevent key executive turnover with large incentives offered to executives who remain in their positions except for "Good Reason" or in a change in control situation.

Severance agreements have received substantial attention from the business press, attorneys, business schools, executives, and investors. Termination of high profile executives from large public companies resulting in substantial severance payments has driven much of this attention. Some institutional investors have proposed that no severance package should exceed 3X
pay, especially in the case of poor performance. While severance agreements with executives can be negotiated post-termination, our focus will on ESAs for currently employed executives or ex-ante employment agreements, change-incontrol
agreements and severance agreements. Some studies by prominent business schools have shown that in excess of fifty
percent of executives have some form of severance agreement and over eighty percent have some form of change-in-control agreement. These studies have also suggested that executives with higher pay are more likely to have a severance
agreement in place, based upon the executive’s bargaining power or strength of firm governance.

Driven by high profile industry examples, leading educational institutions like Harvard Business School have taken up the study of severance agreements. Most studies evaluate the ethics or effectiveness of these agreements on executive and management team performance. But interestingly, the themes of some graduate business school courses and seminars encourage executives to distrust the corporate environment. The recent poor economic environment has led business educational institutions to even promote the view that “businesses don’t really care about you” (HBS, R Gulati, 2011).

Educational institution publications like the Harvard Business Review have developed an executive leadership series, Managing Your Career In Tough Times (2010), with one section titled “The Right Way to be Fired” which promotes ex ante employment and severance agreements. Legal publications, Harvard Law and the New York Law Journal, and their seminars instruct executives on the “negotiating options” for executives in employment, change-of-control, and severance agreements.

While the growth of severance agreements began with large corporations and is taught through leading business schools like Harvard, interest in these agreements has spread to smaller companies and even local graduate business schools where the topic of severance agreements can be found at Purdue’s Krannert and at Indiana University’s Kelley School. Advice and tutorials on how to negotiate an executive employment contract are readily available on the Internet.

In evaluating information on executive employment agreements, change in control agreements and clauses, and executive severance agreements, there is consistent and common language for triggering events and benefits.

Agreements written over a decade ago will go into much greater detail in defining the triggering events for executive employment agreements and executive severance agreements. But as these agreements have evolved the triggering event language is more simplified and focused on three types of executive termination – ‘for cause’, as a result of ‘change-in-control’, and by the executive ‘for good reason’. Rather than detailing many possible termination scenarios, agreements written recently define these three types of terminations as triggering events.

‘For cause’ terminations result in no continuing benefits paid usually past the date of termination. ‘Change-in-control’ and ‘for good reason’ usually trigger a severance benefit agreement or clause. Severance agreements and benefits can be part of the individual executive employment agreement or part of a stand-alone executive severance agreement.

The benefits triggered by these agreements are lump sum payments or continuation of several years of payroll, bonus, and benefits. Some agreements gross up payments to cover excise taxes. Studies at a number of leading business schools suggest that these agreements and their benefits do not provide their intended purpose and in some instances may have created an environment that fostered executive turnover. Current study of severance agreements suggests the possibility that more equity incentive versus cash compensation may better enhance executive performance and corporate stability.