FROM CHIMPANZEES TO COMMUNISTS TO CAPITALISTS
Advice to Polish Leaders
An interview with Rob Kaiser
Witek Gotowski: Good Morning, Rob. Thank you for joining us today. We are all
looking forward to your words of wisdom.
Together with Bob Kaplan, you wrote a great book called “The Versatile Leader”
that was published in Poland more than a year ago. You also publish in Harvard
Business Review and numerous other well-known business and psychology
magazines. For several years you have travelled the globe giving lectures,
making presentations, and running workshops with executives around the world.
Leadership is always the name of the game with you, which is especially
important in these turbulent times. No wonder, then, that the topic of our
interview is leadership. Here is my first question.
WG: What does count in leadership today?
Rob Kaiser: The same things that have always counted in leadership. Leadership is a
universal part of the human experience--all peoples, in all cultures, at all times, and in
all places have had some form of leadership. At the core, leadership is about uniting
people around a common purpose and helping them work together to achieve
something bigger than any one person could achieve acting alone. In other words,
leadership is about building a team and coordinating its efforts.
The essential challenge facing an executive in a multinational corporation or a manager
of a high-tech project team in Krakow is the same essential challenge facing a grassroots community organizer in Kentucky or President Helle Thorning-Schmidt in
Copenhagen. It was the same central challenge faced by Lech Wałęsa in pulling
together the solidarity movement in the 1980s, Vladmir Lenin in organizing
the Bolshevik revolution a hundred years ago, and the headmen of hunter-gatherer
tribes on the African Savannah a hundred thousand years ago. In all cases, leadership
is about uniting people around a common purpose and the central challenge involves
getting self-interested individuals to cooperate in the service of a collective purpose.
So what counts in leadership is building a high performing team by getting people to put
the group's long-term interests ahead of their own short-term personal agenda.
WG: What are the key success factors in team building?
RK: The most basic thing is influencing people to see how by working together they can
achieve far more than by working alone. And this can be difficult. Human nature is
largely self-interested; but the good news is that we can also be cooperative. The
American moral psychologist, Jon Haidt, says that human social behavior is 85% selfish
chimpanzee and 15% hivish bee! The trick is to throw the "hive switch".
Kaiser, R.B. (2011, December). From Chimpanzees to Communists to Capitalists: Advice to Polish Leaders. Guest lecture
delivered to the Warsaw University of Technology Business School Leadership Academy. Warsaw, Poland.
1
You see, self-interest comes naturally. My wife and I did not have to teach our children
to take what they wanted from each other--they did that on their own. We had to teach
them to cooperate, to see how by identifying common interests and working together,
teaming up was a far more effective method. People are capable of this, but often need
some help. And this is where leadership comes in.
One of the most important, but least appreciated, leadership roles involves getting the
team members to see that the enemy is not sitting across the table, or in the other
department, or upstairs, but rather outside in another company. So much of
organizational effort is wasted on bickering and in-fighting among its members over
petty turf wars, resource squabbles, and power plays.
This is so common because our lives play out in two arenas: within the tribe, and
between tribes. As individuals, we compete with our peers for power and status within
the tribe. But we also need to pull together to collectively outperform rival tribes. The
problem comes up when we are so focused on competing with our peers in our own
tribe that it gets in the way of our cooperation and creates discord, making our group
weaker than the competition. You know what we called the strongest member of the
weakest tribe? Desert--he got eaten last! It is far better to be a role player on a winning
team than the captain of the losing team.
So the very first, most important part of building a team is helping people to identify with
the team and to transcend their short-term selfish agendas and focus on cooperating in
the service of the long-term group purpose. But this cannot be just words and nice
things a leader says. It has to be very real, and the most important way a leader
conveys this is through role modeling. For instance, leaders who emphasize shared
values and what we all have in common, who refer to "we" rather than "me," and who
are willing to sacrifice for the greater good. It also helps to emphasize who the real
competition is; nothing brings people together like a common enemy.
And I should add that this job is never done. A leader is always playing the sheriff role,
resolving disputes among team members, holding people accountable for carrying their
weight and contributing to the team, and reinforcing the group's values by taking action
with those who violate the team's norms and undermine cohesion. There is such a thing
as a “team killer”—one bad apple really can spoil the barrel. Their bad influence can
spread like a cancer. You have to take swift action with these people. It is a thankless
job, but utterly essential to the team's well-being and performance.
WG: So what does it take be the kind of leader who can bring people together and
mobilize their efforts?
RK: This is an interesting question. It starts with Peter Drucker's insight that a leader is
someone who has followers. It almost sounds like a joke or circular reasoning or
pointing out the obvious. But most discussions of leadership put the focus on the leader,
Kaiser, R.B. (2011, December). From Chimpanzees to Communists to Capitalists: Advice to Polish Leaders. Guest lecture
delivered to the Warsaw University of Technology Business School Leadership Academy. Warsaw, Poland.
2
and this is the wrong place to start. The better perspective is from the eyes of the led
because there is no leadership without willing, committed, and engaged followers.
There has been a lot of research on what followers look for in a leader. These studies
identify the personal qualities and attributes we look for to decide whether someone is
worth following. It turns out the findings are remarkably consistent across studies,
across cultures, and across settings. Some of us believe that at a very basic level
people have a universal evolved leadership psychology: that is, leadership was so
important in our ancestral past, that human beings have evolved cognitive prototypes,
mental categories for recognizing who will make a good leader, versus who is not worth
following. You see, the status and power that comes with a leadership role makes it
very attractive; however, only some of those attracted to a leadership role are actually
well-suited to lead the group to success. We believe that the universal factors that most
people in most cultures use to define who is leaderlike represent evolved preferences
for indicators of good leadership.
There are four key factors that show up time and again:
- Honesty and Integrity: by far and away the most important factor. We have to trust
someone before we will follow them. The first question we ask of a would-be leader: can
I trust you not to exploit your power and position for personal gain. This is a big problem
in the United States right now: many people don't trust their leaders--in business or in
government.
- Competence: we also have to believe that the person knows what he or she is doing
and will make good decisions. So the person has to know the business, or industry, or
technical knowledge to exercise good judgment.
- Decisiveness: we prefer leaders who cut through the ambiguity and take decisions, as
opposed to dither and hold things up. Indecision can be one of the most frustrating and
disengaging qualities in a leader because it stalls progress and productivity. Managers
face a multitude of decisions everyday--people decisions, production decisions,
resource allocation decisions, and so on.
- Vision: finally, we prefer leaders who can paint a picture of a better future and explain
how we fit into it. Vision gives meaning and purpose to a team's work. Napoleon once
noted that leaders are "Dealers in Hope." I would say that vision is their currency. I
believe that most people are basically good and want to contribute. But they may need
some help in understanding their role in the larger group effort. It takes vision to paint a
compelling image of the big picture and help people see their part in it.
So the basic requirements of those who would lead involve Honesty & Integrity,
Competence, Decisiveness, and Vision.
Kaiser, R.B. (2011, December). From Chimpanzees to Communists to Capitalists: Advice to Polish Leaders. Guest lecture
delivered to the Warsaw University of Technology Business School Leadership Academy. Warsaw, Poland.
3
WG: To what extent in the context of leadership does thinking and acting in
“military terms” work well? That is, can we rely on the command-and-control
style of leadership?
RK: I think it really depends. Sometimes strong, directive, and unilateral leadership
works really well. Think about the last century, in the heyday of the Industrial Age where
we used hierarchy and a clear chain of command to realize efficiencies. Command and
control seemed to work well in those times of relative stability and predictability.
Strong, centralized authority also works well in times of crisis, when swift, decisive
action is called for and there is no time for dialogue and debate or participative decision
making. There is some really interesting research that shows how people seem to
actually prefer this authoritarian type of leadership when they are facing threat and
uncertainty. These studies show how when people are reminded of their own mortality,
they respond favorably to strong, unilateral authority. This happened in the United
States after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 when there was overwhelming support for
President George Bush and his counter-terrorism policies, policies that clearly violated
civil liberties and individual rights to privacy, but were enacted through fiat and
executive orders and with basically no resistance. I think something similar was at play
in the early days of Polish Communism following the economic and physical destruction
caused by WWII. A very hierarchical and authoritative kind of management culture
evolved, where Polish workers came to expect their bosses to know the answers and to
provide very clear instructions and direct orders. They did not expect to be delegated
authority and responsibility.
But generally speaking, in more mundane, everyday situations, a directive, commandand-control style of leadership can work well. For example, when followers are unskilled
but highly motivated, this style is both welcomed and effective. Similarly, the military
model works when the task is ambiguous or roles are unclear and need to be sorted
out.
In recent times, the command-and-control style of leading has gotten a bad rap, and is
seen as undesirable. This probably has something to do with what happens when it is
overused. For example, consider Steven Jobs—the founder of Apple and inventor of the
Mac, iTunes, iPod, and iPad, who was a legendary control freak who ruled his company
absolutely. His recent biography describes how in his last days he was reflecting on his
life and career and concluded, "I probably didn't need to be so hard on people."
So, although there is danger in overdoing it, there certainly are some times when a
command-and-control style is absolutely essential.
WG: What would you suggest to contemporary leaders: use a tough hand or be
more like a coach in sports?
RK: I would say, "Yes"--yes to BOTH. It is just like parenting. The healthiest, most welladjusted and productive kids are those who are raised with both loving support and firm
Kaiser, R.B. (2011, December). From Chimpanzees to Communists to Capitalists: Advice to Polish Leaders. Guest lecture
delivered to the Warsaw University of Technology Business School Leadership Academy. Warsaw, Poland.
4
discipline. Same thing in leadership--both approaches are needed, and each has its
use. Leaders who can only lead with one style or the other are limited. They are like a
basketball player who can only dribble and shoot with one hand; they are limited and
less effective than ambidextrous players who can use both hands.
I say, though, the way you framed the distinction kind of hints at the bad attitude toward
command-and-control leadership we just talked about. A "tough hand" doesn't exactly
sound like something we want. So I would reframe it in terms of the virtues of the
directive style--clear authority, decisiveness, and accountability for results.
But it may be important to put an emphasis on the supportive, coaching style of
leadership--especially if that is something that has been missing. For example, in
Poland you are an economy in transition. You are moving out of the Communist days of
centralized control and layers of bureaucracy and into a more Free Market structure that
encourages innovation and flexibility. The kind of management and leadership common
to the old state monopolies works against the needs of these newer, fast-paced
entrepreneurial organizations. And especially with the younger workers in Poland today,
they have different expectations. They show more initiative and are eager to express
their creativity to capitalize on emerging opportunities. They will often find the old style
of command-and-control leadership stifling, and may respond better to a coaching style
that nurtures their initiative and drive.
I should also say that just like we talked about certain conditions where directive,
command-and-control leadership is needed, there are certain conditions where the
supportive, coaching style is needed. One good example is when workers are
competent and have the knowledge and skill to do the work but may not be fully
motivated. Here a coaching style works well because it gives them ownership for
performance. A related style--using a participative approach to involve people in
decision making—is recommended when you need high quality decisions that are
readily accepted and you have the time to get everyone’s best thinking. Finally, it is also
important to remember that sometimes no leadership is best--when people are
competent and motivated and know what they are doing, the best leadership is just to
get out of the way!
So, I suggest that contemporary leaders develop skill with both styles of leading--to
cultivate the versatility needed to be firm and directive when needed but also supportive
and inclusive when needed.
WG: How does the versatile leadership model apply in times of crisis?
RK: Versatility is absolutely essential in a crisis, because you have to move fast, take
lots of quick decisions and decisive action while also learning on the fly about the nature
of the crisis. Crisis situations are ambiguous, high pressure, and often high stakes
situations, and one of the prototypical situations in which we humans seem hard-wired
to look for leadership.
Kaiser, R.B. (2011, December). From Chimpanzees to Communists to Capitalists: Advice to Polish Leaders. Guest lecture
delivered to the Warsaw University of Technology Business School Leadership Academy. Warsaw, Poland.
5
In brief, let me describe the versatile leadership model I developed with Bob Kaplan.
First, we consider two opposing but complementary pairs of leadership styles. In terms
of the interpersonal part, or how one leads, we contrast a forceful, command-andcontrol style with a more participative and supportive enabling style. In terms of the
organizational part, or what one leads, we contrast a short-term, tactical focus on
operations and execution with a longer-term, strategic focus on the big picture and
positioning for future success. The two pairs of opposites—the forceful versus enabling,
and the strategic versus the tactical—represent the tensions and trade-offs that make
management a balancing act.
Leaders need to master these opposing approaches to develop skill and facility on both
sides in each of these dualities. Trouble comes up when leaders rely on one side at the
expense of the other. For instance, the command-and-control leader who does not
blend in the supportive and coaching style will be seen as bossy and overbearing. Or
the great tactician who is obsessed with details and relies on technical knowledge but
can’t see the big picture or recognize when to change course. This is what we call
“lopsided leadership” because leaders lean to one side and away from the other, which
reflects a bias for their favored approach and a prejudice against the complementary
approach.
This ability to flex and bend and draw from opposing leadership styles is critical in a
crisis because you have to move fast, make lots of decisions, and then course-correct in
real-time. Some have argued that in a crisis, the strong centralized command-andcontrol approach is all you need. But this is just not correct. The best research on this
question comes from studies of flight crew performance. This research found that when
unexpected problems come up, those crews with strong, authoritarian captains were the
least responsive, sometimes making catastrophic errors and failures to fix the problem.
Crew members had learned to not question the captain, to always defer to his judgment,
even when he was obviously not seeing the whole problem. These lopsided leaders
were unable to get their people’s best thinking involved, with sometimes disastrous
results.
So, extreme problems call for extreme responses—sometimes very controlling,
sometimes very supportive, sometimes deeply detailed, and sometimes radically
redefining the problem. It takes wisdom to know when to do what and versatility to be
able to draw on these opposing extremes in a tightly integrated and coherent way.
WG: Will every leader, like an alpha male, sooner or later be dethroned?
RK: This is a great question, and one that leaders often overlook. My good friend Robert
Hogan, the world leading authority on personality in leadership and the workplace, has
a relevant saying: “All political careers end in failure.” His point is that politicians often
don’t know when it is time to step down, and inevitably someone comes along and
replaces them.
Kaiser, R.B. (2011, December). From Chimpanzees to Communists to Capitalists: Advice to Polish Leaders. Guest lecture
delivered to the Warsaw University of Technology Business School Leadership Academy. Warsaw, Poland.
6
The hard reality is that, yes, sooner or later a leader’s time will be over. This is just a
fact of life: we are all mortal and life is finite; time is the great equalizer. But there are
also natural power dynamics at play.
Franz de Waal, the great Dutch primatologist, has studied chimpanzees at the Arnhem
zoo in the Netherlands for insights into the primate roots of human nature. One of the
things he has studied carefully is power. His observations support Hogan’s brutally
realistic assessment of political careers: sooner or later, the dominant alpha male’s
power will start to wane, and when it does there is usually a small coalition of younger
males plotting to depose him. Sometimes this goes smooth, and the alpha accepts a
lower rank. More often though it gets settled through a violent conflict, where inevitably
the younger and stronger chimps overpower the aged alpha.
We see this all the time among humans. A good recent example is the troubled power
relations between Vladimir Putin and Demitri Medvedev. Once Medvedev acceded to
power and solidified his base, he began to defy Putin and assert his autonomy. Which,
of course, Putin did not like. This one is still playing out, but time is on Medvedev’s side.
My best advice for leaders is to accept that their time in power is limited, and use this as
inspiration to make their mark and leave a legacy. Holding on to the delusion that your
reign and power will last forever diverts attention away from making the most of your
tenure.
The best case is to anticipate your legacy and how you will pass the baton to the next
generation. My colleague David DeVries, who advises Chairmen and CEOs, likes to tell
his clients that their first job is to identify a successor. The problem is one of selfabsorption: inability to see beyond yourself, to imagine a world where you are not
centrally important. It takes courage, humility, and transcendent wisdom to see beyond
oneself. But if we go back to what leadership is all about, it is about the group’s longterm welfare—not the leaders access to status and power. The closest a leader can get
to cheating death is by leaving a legacy that embodies his or her values for generations
to come. And the best way to do that is by picking a successor and grooming that
person, learning how to take pride in measuring your success in that person’s success
long after you have left the seat of power.
WG: What would you suggest that executives do to avoid a “distorted ethics”
trap?
RK: This is a very timely and relevant issue, and one I think does not get nearly the
attention it deserves. But we are becoming more aware of the problem, especially given
all of the morale lapses and questionable ethical behavior of leaders in the business
world, government, and even religious circles over the last decade.
Kaiser, R.B. (2011, December). From Chimpanzees to Communists to Capitalists: Advice to Polish Leaders. Guest lecture
delivered to the Warsaw University of Technology Business School Leadership Academy. Warsaw, Poland.
7
There are lots of theories about how unethical cultures develop and how a few breeches
of ethics lead down a slippery slope to the point where illegal, immoral, and unethical
behavior gets normalized. But at the core may be the corrupting influence of power. We
all know Lord Acton’s famous quote, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely.” But we often forget the second part of his quote: “Great men are usually
very, very bad men.”
A series of studies by Adam Galinksy shows just how insightful Lord Acton was. This
research shows that status and power have a distorting effect on one’s outlook, making
it harder to see matters from another person’s point of view and easier to rationalize and
justify self-serving actions and decisions. For instance, with simple primes such as
asking people to recall situations in which they had power over others versus those in
which others had power over them, or arbitrarily assigning individuals to high or low
status positions in a brief role play, these researchers found that subjects in the high
power conditions were more likely to lie, believe that they were entitled to cheat on
taxes, and that their own morally deviant behavior was more acceptable than a
hypothetical other doing the same behavior. Another experiment showed how power
literally increases the tendency to view the world from one’s own perspective. Subjects
were told to write the letter “E” with a marker on their foreheads. Those in the high
power condition were three times more likely to write the letter so it appeared normal
from their perspective, but backwards from an observer’s perspective. Not surprisingly,
subsequent studies showed how subjects in a high power condition were more likely to
objectify other people and see them as an instrumental tool to be used for one’s selfinterested purposes.
The research by Galinsky and colleagues is startling. Although each study used a
somewhat different manipulation to create high and low power conditions, they each
represent relatively simple and temporary inductions of mental states or brief
differences in social status in low-stakes situations. Moreover, subjects were randomly
assigned to conditions. However, when generalizing the findings to leadership in
organizations, the experience of power for, say, executives is greatly amplified. Statusseeking individuals who desire power self-select into these positions. Moreover, the
greater pay, prestige, and control of resources in an executive career represent a
relatively permanent change in social status and power. This increase in status is
reinforced by the acquisition of material objects and a privileged life style, deference by
subordinates in the organizational hierarchy, and respect from one’s community. As
Kenneth Lay famously remarked at the sentencing trial for the Enron scandal, “It's the
type of lifestyle that's difficult to turn off like a spigot.” If college students can be easily
manipulated by a brief experience of power to feel entitled to special privileges, see
themselves as above the law, and ignore other people’s rights and objectify them, how
strong might be the effects of the kind of power provided to individuals at the highest
levels of organizational status?
Kaiser, R.B. (2011, December). From Chimpanzees to Communists to Capitalists: Advice to Polish Leaders. Guest lecture
delivered to the Warsaw University of Technology Business School Leadership Academy. Warsaw, Poland.
8
Field research has produced results consistent with the idea that these effects are
pervasive and operate in the real world of organizations, although it is important to bear
in mind that this research does not indicate that all executives are bad people.
Nonetheless, the pattern of naturally occurring trends distinguishing executives from
lower-level managers suggests that, as a population, many senior managers in
organizations do resemble to some degree the subjects who experienced the corrupting
influence of power in Galinsky’s experiments. For example, De Meuse and colleagues
at Korn/Ferry compared competency ratings between middle managers and executives
from a variety of corporations. The executives were rated higher on competencies
having to do with business strategy and financial acumen, but were rated lower on
competencies concerning relationships and people skills. In particular, the executives
were rated lower on the competency, Integrity and Trust. In a study of critical incidents
of destructive leadership behavior reported by subordinates, Joyce Bono and her
students at the University of Minnesota found that out of the nine categories of bad
behavior they identified, the one that had the most toxic impact on staff morale was
"Failure to consider human needs." More to the point, the frequency of this behavior
increased with organizational level; the more senior the manager, the more likely the
neglect of the needs and wellbeing of other people.
The important implication of this research concerns a dark side to ascendancy and
success: the higher a manager rises in an organization or career trajectory, the more
power and status may encourage a selfish bias and decreased concern for other
people. This dynamic may promote destructive leadership by corrupting judgment and
disrupting relationships, and its potential effects are most likely at the top of
organizations, where influence is greatest and much is at stake. However, warnings
about these hidden dangers are rarely made explicit or dealt with in management
training and development, mentoring, and career guidance efforts.
So what do executives do to avoid this trap? First, you have to maintain a sense of
ironic detachment from your success. Reading your own press clippings will go to your
head. Rather than read your own press, ask your spouse for regular feedback about
your flaws—she will know!
Second, you have to learn to look at leadership from the bottom up. Years ago I
remember a Business Week cover that had a picture of IBM’s CEO, Lou Gerstener, and
a headline that read: “How Lou Turned around Big Blue.” And I thought, “Really? He did
that all by himself?” The great leaders, the ones who have a lasting positive impact and
leave a lasting legacy, are the ones who are humble enough to recognize that it took a
team. They see beyond themselves and keep it all in perspective.
Finally, systems of checks and balance are absolutely essential. Every leader needs an
inner circle of trusted advisors who are empowered to be honest and candid. A loyal
opposition within the tent. Some of the better governed courts of Europe used to have a
role for an insider—sometimes the “Joker,” sometimes another figure—whose job it was
Kaiser, R.B. (2011, December). From Chimpanzees to Communists to Capitalists: Advice to Polish Leaders. Guest lecture
delivered to the Warsaw University of Technology Business School Leadership Academy. Warsaw, Poland.
9
to point out the folly of the royal family, as a kind of mirror for keeping them honest.
Power will go to your head if you don’t put in place mechanisms to keep you aware of
this temptation. It is all too human.
WG: What would be your suggestions/wishes/advice to the Polish managers?
RK: Well, these are certainly exciting times in Poland. Even though the last year has
been difficult, it is important to keep it in perspective: relative to many countries of
Europe, Poland has done well, and over the last decade, Poland is one of the success
stories. I think this speaks well of the resilience and resolve of the Polish people, the
investment to support innovation and technology, the entrepreneurial spirit of the
younger generation, and an overall ability to adapt.
Maybe the one thing I would like to say, as an outsider looking in, is just to remind you
of your history. Not to look backwards, but rather to appreciate the trajectory. Poland is
an economy in transition. You are coming out of a communist structure that was very
hierarchical and paternalistic and workers didn’t have to think for themselves. Now you
are emerging into a free market structure that demands innovation, entrepreneurialism,
creativity, and initiative. There is great freedom of opportunity. But freedom is both a
blessing and a burden.
Remember the human tendency toward overcorrection. The danger is to see the
pendulum swing too far into this more modern direction. Try to avoid the trap of either/or
dualistic thinking. It would be easy to try to define the strong, directive command-andcontrol style of leading as bad and the supportive, democratic, and participative style as
good. There are virtues in all leadership styles, and they become vices when taken to
the extreme. So my hope for Polish managers is that they can retain the best of their
tradition and recent history as they add on the more progressive and inclusive attitude
that facilitates the entrepreneurial spirit. Finding this versatile balance is elusive and
challenging, but a worthy goal.
Kaiser, R.B. (2011, December). From Chimpanzees to Communists to Capitalists: Advice to Polish Leaders. Guest lecture
delivered to the Warsaw University of Technology Business School Leadership Academy. Warsaw, Poland.
10