Saying No to the Yes Mentality

The President of a medium-sized company in which I held a substantial interest once found himself hopelessly overburdened with work, due to the implementation of an expansion program. The company president--let's call him "Edward Blaine"--decided to hire an assistant. He thought a capable aide could relieve him of much onerous and time-consuming detail, keep an eye on minor routine matters and act as a sort of buffer and sifter. Blaine reasoned that with such help he would be able to better concentrate on the many major problems confronting his company.

Ed Blaine interviewed several prescreened and promising applicants. He finally settled on "Walter Thomas," a young man who seemed to show intelligence, drive and ambition and who gave every indication of possessing the ability to quickly grasp and efficiently handle the work expected of him. Thomas, in short, appeared to be a happy answer to a harried president's prayer.

But appearances can be deceiving and they certainly were in this instance. Walter Thomas' career as assistant to the president lasted less than three months; he was sacked--and with good reason.

Some time later, during the course of a general conversation that led to a discussion of personnel matters, Ed Blaine glumly recounted the incident to me. "Thomas proved to be one of those personnel errors," Blaine began, scowling at the recollection. "I hired him to take some of the load off my back; and the next thing I knew, I had far more work than before--and far less time in which to do it."

Ed went on to describe a type of executive and the situations he created that are unfortunately familiar to upper-level managers. By all outwardly measurable standards, Walter Thomas had been an entirely satisfactory choice. He did possess potentials and qualifications that fitted him for the position he was hired to fill. The trouble was that Thomas' weaknesses evidenced themselves only after he started on the job. It was then that his true nature came to the fore. He simply could not use his abilities constructively; his drive and ambition were directed to unproductive and purely self-seeking channels. Instead of performing the tasks at hand, he constantly gave performances intended solely to flatter and impress his superior. Walter Thomas was--to employ a charitable euphemism--an apple polisher, born and bred, beyond salvation.

"He'd come into my office a dozen times each day, soft-soaping me until I gagged, constantly asking my advice and acting as though I were omniscience personified whenever I gave it," Blaine related disgustedly. "In between these sessions, he'd dictate mountains of memorandums--all addressed to me, naturally. He did everything but the work he was supposed to do, trying to convince me he was slaving to the point of exhaustion, but doing it gladly because I was such a great guy."

Neither fool nor vainglorious egoist, Edward Blaine was singularly unimpressed by his assistant's tactics. When a blunt and vigorous re-educational cram course failed to have any effect, he sent the young man and his overworked polishing cloth packing.

Walter Thomas was by no means the first of his ilk to find the boot he'd sought to lick being firmly planted in his gluteal region and propelling him out the door. Strangely enough, no matter how badly bruised their posteriors, such types continue to crop up in almost all business organizations. They refuse to believe the basic truths that may be boiled down into a slightly muddled but nonetheless axiomatic metaphor that overpolishing the apple will create sufficient friction to remove its protective peel.

Like any individual who has achieved any degree of authority in the business world, I have encountered my share of toadies who sought to gain attention through flattery. However, while their numbers are considerable and the energy they expend is great, their successes in achieving their goals are few. It has been my observation that such individuals are predestined to fail because they almost invariably make several major mistakes.

First of all, they are too eager for quick results. Hence, they employ what they consider the most potent, quickest-acting stratagems, which, 99 times out of 100, are so unsubtle and maladroit that they are completely transparent.

Second, the devoted apple polisher is so intent on his truckling and favor currying that he neglects his official duties. Any superior who has reached an upper-level position in the hardheaded, competitive world of business has done so only because he possesses an objective outlook. He judges a subordinate's performance on the basis of results achieved. No amount of bootlicking will compensate for inadequacies in the profit-and-loss statement.

Third--and this comes close to being an ultimate absurdity--the dedicated apple polisher is, like Walter Thomas, often a fundamentally intelligent and able individual with considerable potential. Were he to devote as much time and effort to productive work as he does to playing the slavering spaniel, he would advance much faster. And, what is more, he would in the process gain, rather than lose, the respect of those above him.

Fourth, most seasoned businessmen have long since learned the hard way that there is more than a grain of truth in George Herbert's acid adage: "Many kiss the hand they wish cut off." The scarred veteran of business battles is all too aware that the apple polisher is quite often a completely cynical opportunist--a sneak who seeks to ingratiate himself in order to make it easier for him to stab in the back those he flatters. Consequently, and if for no other reason, superiors are alert for signs of servile adulation. Whenever they recognize any such signs, they are instantly suspicious. Thus, the sycophant who briskly applies his polishing cloth is, more often than not, earning distrust rather than approbation.

It is, indeed, deplorable that some still believe otherwise, maintaining that principles such as those I've just set forth are fine in theory but not valid in practice. The basis for such arguments rests on the familiar contentions that "everyone likes flattery" and "all human beings enjoy being made to feel important." To make matters even worse for those who pay them heed, some "experts" are even wont to advise young executives that elbow grease expended in shining apples will carry them a long way down the road to success.

Permit me to cite an example, quoting from Victor A. Thompson's book Modern Organization, in which the author writes: "Subordinates must create the impression that they need to be told what to do; that they need to be told how to do it; and, in general, that they could not get along without the boss." (The italics are Mr. Thompson's.) So far, so good--or so bad.

However, somewhat farther along--and with what I consider striking inconsistency--Mr. Thompson declares: "Since the superior is presented as the busiest and most important person, subordinates must create the impression that they understand that he has little time to deal with them." And even farther along: "Many subordinates, therefore, attempt communication with the boss infrequently and briefly.... Subordinates must create the impression that they feel awed and humble in his presence."

With all due respect to the author, I wish I could reconcile what I find to be glaring contradictions in these statements. At first, he sounds as though he is counseling executives to mercilessly pester their superiors, constantly ask them for orders and beg for detailed directions. Then, inexplicably, Mr. Thompson does an abrupt volte-face, apparently advising these same executives to leave their superiors (who have "little time to deal a with them") pretty much alone. Finally, again abruptly changing his tack, he implies that the superior is to be treated with "awe" by "humble" subordinates.

Beyond finding these arguments to be contrary to all I have experienced in business, I cannot follow the fractured logic the author employs. But then, I have noticed that this same sort of tortuous and totally unconvincing reasoning characterizes all the arguments I have heard in favor of seeking success through flattery.

Now, I do not claim to know all there is to know about the business world. Far from it. Although I have been a businessman for more than 50 years, I do not exaggerate one whit when I say that I have learned--and still learn--something new about business every day. Nevertheless, I believe I have had enough business experience to know--and to state flatly--that, in the great majority of industrial and commercial organizations, the fawning timeserver is not only at the top of the expendable list but is usually quickly expended.

I have very little patience with the carpers who delight in characterizing businessmen and top executives as insecure, vainglorious nincompoops who would wither and die unless fed a steady diet of adulation by their subordinates. Occasional exceptions aside--and one can find exceptions to even the hardest rule--it simply isn't so.

The tempo and complexity of modern business, the heavy and continuing pressures on every executive at every level and the very nature of "organization" as we know it in business today are only a few factors that utterly demolish any "bootlick-your-way-to-success" myth.

Theory versus practice? All right. Let us look briefly at the workaday truths and harsh operational realities that prove decisive in modern commerce and industry.

In our present highly competitive, rapidly and constantly changing era, businessmen have to be tough, practical and realistic in order to survive. The fundamental factors that tip the scales--to success or to failure--are self-evident and sharply defined:

1. A company either makes a profit or it does not.

2. An office or department either operates and produces efficiently or it does not.

3. An executive either does his job properly or he does not. If he fails to perform his duties and discharge his responsibilities in a satisfactory fashion--in making adequate contributions toward the achievement of the positive alternatives cited above--he is out. And no degree of vernility or sycophancy will be likely to keep his neck off the corporate chopping block.

Frankly, I would like to meet the successful president or upper-echelon executive of a successful company who cares more about his subordinates' kowtows than he does about his production costs. If such men and companies exist, then the stockholders thereof would be well advised to run, not walk, to the nearest brokerage house to unload their shares. The companies will not remain successful. Pride, it is said, goes before a fall. The high cost of feeding what Carlyle has described as "the sixth insatiable sense" of a vain top manager will swiftly plunge any organization into a sea of red ink.

Take it from me or, if you prefer, from just about every leading member of the business community I've ever met: There is mighty little room in business for either the man who wants his subordinates to be bootlickers or for the man who is willing to do the licking. Either type is definitely non grata and a liability no thriving company can afford.

Untill now, I have approached my theme from a largely negative standpoint. I have hoped thus to impress my readers with the folly inherent in seeking business success through flattering superiors. I have touched upon positive aspects of the issue only by implication. Consequently, I believe it might be worth while to do my own version of an about-face and examine a few of what I have found and observed to be explicit positive pointers.

To begin with, every young executive must realize there is a very clear distinction between what I have labeled apple polishing and the common courtesy and (continued on page 237) The Yes Mentality (continued from page 160) respect a subordinate may reasonably be expected to show a superior.

For the sake of argument, let us accept the slightly unorthodox theory postulated in the Journal of Business by Robert Tannenbaum, who holds that authority stems from two sources. The first, which he calls "formal," originates "at the top of an organization hierarchy" and flows "downward therein through the process of delegation." The second, or "informal," source of the authority "possessed by an individual lies in the acceptance of its exercise by those who are subject to it," Tannenbaum says.

Whatever the source, the young executive must appreciate that his superior does have authority and that, all things being equal, it is accepted by others. As a junior, he is also required to accept that authority if he wishes to become a functioning member of the organization. It's entirely possible that the young executive might not personally like his superior--but the courtesy and respect due the latter are not necessarily based on any personal considerations. They are due, if for no other reason, because the superior has had considerably more experience than the junior; he has "been through the mill" and demonstrated his abilities. It is highly unlikely that the junior possesses anywhere near the seasoning of the superior. The former has much to learn--and the latter has much to teach him.

Here, again, we face a distinction--this time between legitimate requests for guidance from a superior and constant, unnecessary pleas for advice intended solely to feed the superior's ego and draw his attention to the adulation with which the junior regards him. Any boss worthy of the title will gladly give constructive counsel and assistance to a subordinate, for he knows that only thus will the subordinate realize his full potential. On the other hand, that same boss will not tolerate a subordinate who tags constantly at his heels, besieging him with needless questions and requests.

There is one reliable test a subordinate can apply to determine whether or not he's overstepping the line in this regard. Whenever he has a problem he is tempted to take to the boss, he should ask himself the following questions.

"Am I sure I can't answer this myself within the limits of my area of authority? Or, if I can't do it myself immediately, are there sources from which I can obtain the necessary information without 'going upstairs'?"

Only after exhausting all other available avenues should the junior go to the boss. A competent, mature senior executive will unquestionably award far more points for displays of initiative and self-reliance than he will for being bothered endlessly over trivial matters.

Straining to impress superiors with how long and how hard they are working is among the most common--and most transparent and annoying--tactics misguided subordinates employ to attract attention and curry favor. This hoary ploy seldom accomplishes much beyond irritating the boss, who can probably top any of his subordinates in hours of time and ergs of energy expended in doing his job.

The surest way the young executive can prove that he's really straining and thus gain approbation is by concentrating on his work, carrying out the tasks assigned to him and achieving whatever goals have been set for the activity under his control. Let him increase production, reduce costs, carry out his part of a program efficiently and on--or ahead of--schedule or otherwise give concrete evidence that he has worked hard, and he won't have to point any fingers at himself to be noticed. His accomplishments will flash all the signals and sound all the bells necessary to make the boss take notice.

Heaping praise on a superior's head is another familiar gambit used by soft-soap artists. Now, I do not intend to suggest that a subordinate should invariably avoid making any laudatory comment to his superior. Far from it, for there is nothing improper about passing complimentary remarks--subject to the results of a preliminary test.

Is praise justified from two standpoints: Has the superior really accomplished something warranting praise and, if so, is the subordinate qualified, and is it within his province, to pass judgment on it?

How often does the subordinate take it upon himself to give the boss a pat on the back? Does he do it only when it is appropriate, or habitually, grabbing at every opportunity to applaud his chief's actions? What is the manner in which the subordinate does the praising--is it simple, straightforward and sincere or is it treacly, grandiloquent and abased?

The right answers to these questions should be evident to even the tyro--and only if all the answers are right in any given situation should a subordinate express praise.

While we're on the subject of praising the boss, we might also consider the question of criticizing him. Situations--sometimes crucial ones--do occasionally arise when a subordinate has ample justification to criticize his superior. To refrain from doing so under such conditions is a passive--but still pernicious--form of apple polishing. How should a subordinate proceed? I can add nothing to the excellent advice William B. Given, Jr., chairman of American Brake Shoe Company, gave in a Nation's Business article.

"How do you criticize the boss?" he wrote. "A realistic answer: In about the same manner as you yourself would want to be criticized by a subordinate. Nobody particularly enjoys criticism. Yet, if you feel something the boss is doing or failing to do cramps your performance or that of someone else in your department, this means it is cramping his performance, too. You should be able to find an acceptable way to discuss it with him. Actually, this is not so difficult as it may seem; he may take it as a compliment that you feel free to criticize. If you are in doubt, do it."

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Given. A good executive--regardless of how high he is on the organization chart--will listen to justified constructive criticism that is properly presented. He knows that he is not infallible, that he can make mistakes that might cramp an individual's or a department's performance--and that eventually this will adversely affect not only his own performance but the welfare of the company as well. In the vast majority of cases, he will be grateful to have the error called to his attention and will gain respect for the subordinate who did the calling.

Returning to the mainstream of my discourse, an executive can avoid the perils of rubbing the peel from his career apple fairly easily. A sense of proportion and equilibrium and, above all, plain common sense are his principal defenses.

Any man who imagines himself a manager should start off on a job or career acutely conscious that an executive's purpose in business life is to help achieve company goals--and not to become a teacher's pet to his superior.

Even though he might be the rawest beginner and a basket case insofar as common sense is concerned, he should--if nothing else--bear in mind that the superior whose favor and favoritism he curries may be shifted to another department, or leave the company, at any time. The departed superior's successor is not very likely to look with much sympathy upon a subordinate who has already labeled himself a toady.

But men with wider intellectual vistas and sounder perspectives are aware that, to succeed in any position of responsibility, an executive must work with people--and this most certainly includes those who are his equals. Furthermore, they know that the rule works both ways--if they are to accomplish anything at all, people must work with them.

Whether equals or subordinates, people are singularly unenthusiastic about working with anyone who is working solely for himself and only toward the goal of becoming the boss' enfant gàtè. They will regard him with distaste and resentment--let us view human nature and human reactions with realistic honesty--and they will not find it difficult to contrive and spring a wide variety of deadly traps to rid themselves of his presence.

All things considered, I would hardly say that the executive who tries to truckle his way to the top has a very promising future in the business world. Even if men like these are lucky, the most they can look forward to is wedging themselves into some lower-middle-management slot and remaining there long enough to qualify for retirement benefits.

In my opinion, the executives most likely to succeed in business are selfmade--in the sense that they rely on their own abilities and hard work to fuel their journey up the ladder. They disdain any thought of attaching themselves to vainglorious "patron" superiors. They would never dream of playing puppet or constantly scraping and applauding in an effort to ingratiate themselves with the boss.

The best men are those who would rather forgo personal benefit or even promotion than sacrifice their self-respect. They earn their promotions--and in the process they also earn the respect of others. On the other hand, the confirmed apple polisher seldom gains anything but contempt wherever he goes. True, if he persists in his habit energetically enough, he might well achieve one--albeit unplanned and unwelcome--result: He might polish off his entire business career. It is even possible for him to wind up applying his well-worn polishing cloth to the apples on a corner fruit stand!