Hat tip: Ken Thompson. The managing directors and senior leaders at prominent investment bank Goldman Sachs have published the firm’s nine leadership principles. Although I can’t say that I follow the i-banking closely, this list is not the sort of thing I’ve ever seen before out of the i-banking sector. Anyway, my favorite one in the list is "Debate Freely, Decide Quickly, and Commit". I chose this one because it is something pretty critical in entrepreneurial endeavors. No time to have a weak stomach when being a maverick or pioneer (or supporting the mavericks – which is really my focus).
As an aside, a thought of my own that came to mind, but I wasn’t sure where it mapped in the list, is that I have a personal taste for leading by doing. For example, if one wants to show how money can be made in a venture, then go close a deal and sell the product, make key introductions, or structure the deal where things are falling apart and the negotiation settlement zone is narrow. If one wants to show how money is being left on the table, then prove it in the field. If one thinks that product development is less than optimal, then line up both the confirming and disconfirming evidence with customer prospects, customers, and competitive information. If you need people to work overtime and make a contribution beyond the normal call of duty then you have to put in the time too. If the team is under financial pressure and cutbacks are in order, make sure that you are in the front of the line to be cut.
interesting list, but i have become very cynical when it comes to big companies and their stated ‘leadership principles’,’values’, etc. from my experience, the realities of day-to-day bureaucracy mean that these are hardly ever followed even in spirit, let alone the letter.
it’s funny you mention your favorite – i am currently dealing with a situation where the ‘debate freely’ has turned into a free-for-all, which means the ‘decide quickly’ is out of question, and ‘commit’ – well, there’s always some sort of commit, good or bad. i think the only way it MAY work is if there is leadership that insists this be followed, but if a firm has N levels of hierarchy, and every level is involved in debating their own issues, who’s going to be the watchdog? again, maybe i’m just being a cynic because of my experiences.
the one thing i am sure of is that i am done working for corporations, if i can help it.you are right in that this definitely is critical, and hence has to work, in entrepreneurial endeavors.
Although I take leadership issues pretty seriously, when I think about the i-bankers I know, I imagine that they would be laughing their heads off when looking at this list. Excellence, intelligence, and hunger for the deal tend to drive them.
Good point about bureaucracy. Sometimes I have to remind myself to be sensitive to this. Bureaucracy in various larger firms has, in some ways, become institutionalized by the culture. Having worked most recently for early-stage companies and as a management consultant for larger firms (the latter where one’s goal is to cut through bureaucracy), I see bureaucracy as an impediment that you have to get through or you’ll be out of business or fired from the client premise.
I suppose that my taste for the “debate freely … *commit*” option also reflects my Myers-Briggs personality. I’m a “(J)”udging person off the charts whereas I test more balanced on other dimensions. While striving to seek closure (part of the J trait) on issues can be a strength, I recognize that depending on the team I’m working with or the problem I am working on that one may have to let things happen more naturally. My former boss and colleague (a good friend) has helped me to become more aware of how strengths can also be weaknesses in other contexts.