Leadership Derailment in a Global Context

Derailment is defined as when talented or hitherto successful people fail to live up to expectations. The research into leadership derailment usually focuses on the individual. Why did the leader fail to live up to expectations? What “went” wrong? What did they not do that they should have done and what did they do that they should not have done? It’s usually all about the leader’s behaviours whilst contextual and cultural considerations are often marginalised. Unfortunately for international executives working across borders in a global environment, there are potentially many more “derailers” than to be found “domestically”.

Not just limited to derailment, it is seldom that I have found research that has taken a management theory from the USA and then tried to apply it globally, comparing and contrasting the results. I was therefore delighted to come across Chapter 7, “When things go wrong” (pp. 153-170) in McCall Jr. and Hollenbecks’ “Developing Global Executives,” Harvard Business School Press, 2002. The “American” theory which is criticised is McCall’s from a previous work where he studied why American executives derail in the USA; the authors then take that study, expand the research worldwide and see if the results are still valid in a global context.

Here is a summary followed by my (and essentially their) culturally biased critique (“et alors”).

The Dynamics of Derailment

The authors describe four key dynamics which can derail leaders along with seven “universal fatal flaws” which are defined as “troublemakers”.

Bad Timing

Areté Hamartia, or “a unique excellence becomes a fatal flaw”. In other words the strengths that previously propelled the executive become weaknesses later on.

Overlooked Flaws

The executive was getting good results so flaws were tolerated up to a certain point beyond which they were no longer acceptable.

Arrogance

Hubris or wanton arrogance. Similar flaws include being overly ambitious or political along with an inability to listen.

Bad Luck

Wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even the most flawless executive is liable to this risk.

In amongst all these “dynamics” there are seven “universal fatal flaws” which cause “trouble”:

·         Failure to learn or adapt to change

·         Bungled relationships with key people

·         Failure to take needed actions (and/or ask for help) to deliver on promises

·         Narrow or parochial perspective

·         Lack of people skills

·         Loss of contact with the rest of the company

·         Selecting a team of ineffective people

Et alors?

There are plenty of cultural references already in this study. For example, “arrogance” can be considered in the context of a culture’s acceptability of arrogance, so it is difficult to see how these dynamics can be directly transposed into other cultures. Similarly, whilst noteworthy, the universal flaws do not actually appear to be “universal”: some cultures will place more emphasis on some points than on others. Nevertheless, the authors applied the same research to see if this theory could be applied globally and their initial finding was that it could be. The same dynamics are prevalent in a global context and apply as equally to international executives overseas as to “domestic” executives at home. However, “while some global derailments were straightforward and the flaws obvious, many others were not”. The authors conclude that besides the flaws of the individual and their actions (where the derailment dynamics still hold true), in a global context, the international executive is at risk of derailment due to two other forces: "Contextual Factors" and "Organisational Mistakes".

Contextual Factors start with the fact that the context is “significantly enriched in international settings by the added stress of a foreign environment and by differences in language, culture and belief systems that make inappropriate behaviour and misunderstandings more likely.” If we consider that one of the keys to success is “fitting in” then it can be seen that this “rich” context is likely to increase the risk of derailment. The more complexities there are the more chance that something can go wrong. This is compounded with implicit cultures since the “hosts” might be reticent to give feedback whilst the “visitors” might find it impossible to read subtle clues. This is all the more reason to argue that the organisation should help and assist international executives on global assignments. This is something which, whilst not deliberate, is nevertheless avoidable and therefore noted by the authors as another derailment force: “Organisational Mistakes”.

Organisational Mistakes include “the absence of feedback, little monitoring, the tolerance of existing flaws and a lack of support”. Their study notes that the risk of organisational “negligence” can be particularly acute for foreign nationals coming to the company’s headquarters and for executives returning home. The authors suggest that in the domestic arena, the company is only complicit in the derailment of the executive; whereas in a global context they are often the culprits. Sometimes support was implied but then not forthcoming when really needed; expectations were often unclear; feedback (if forthcoming) was seldom honest; and their home contacts often did not understand the local situation (or at worse did not care) and did not stay in contact unless problems arose.

As the authors state, “the combination of personal, contextual and organisational forces makes international derailments much harder to codify than their simpler domestic counterparts…” There are a lot of cultural implications which increase the risk of derailment so the next question is what happens in a mono-cultural organisation operating globally: could the"mono-culture" of the organisation actually decrease the derailment forces to a “domestic” equivalent?