The tyrant executive.

In order to situate themselves on the power stage, tyrants do not hesitate to use whatever means are available to optimally serve their own interests. Whether they appear in the business or political arena, tyrants share three primary characteristics: a feeling of indispensability and self glorification, intolerance of opinions and acts which might deviate from their own, and a tendency to blindly or brutally resort to whatever actions they think necessary to maximize their benefits.

In its report "The Worst Bosses in America," bnet.com (October 9, 2008) recounted a story which one would normally assume could not to take place in today's organizations. The story is about an individual who was demoted from manager to assistant manager because he had organized an outing for the company's employees on the instruction of the head of the company. On the scheduled day it rained and that upset the head of the company. The manager, who had planned the event two months before, was accused by the boss of having intentionally scheduled the event to be on a rainy day. Obviously, the accusation was illogical, as no one can predict weather conditions with precision. The story serves as an example of a tyrant executive who levels accusations at those with whom he works and who does not hesitate to severely penalize those who might not conform to his will and instructions.

In his typology of American executives, Useem (2002) indicated that the tyrant executive was a product of an era in the nineteenth century. He argued that the tyrant embodies a kind of arbitrary one-man rule that is driven by the urge to be number one and ahead of his competitors. Despite initial short-run achievements, the tyrant eventually stumbles and violates accepted rules and norms. For example, John Patterson built the National Cash Register Co. and led it, in a short time, to a position of eminence. His ruthless business conduct and the harsh treatment of fellow executives resulted in various antitrust violations and eventual imprisonment.

Tyrant executives may display an over confidence and impatience which make them reckless competitors who not only ignore market conditions but also the necessity to adhere to competition games. More importantly, tyrant executives create a culture of fear and vengeance making it impossible for those employees who are intrinsically motivated to act independently and creatively. And because most tyrant executives are driven by personal rather than institutional power, their conduct may alienate a large segment of their employees and eventually stifle innovation and paralyze organizational renewal.

As noted earlier, John Patterson was a tyrant executive who made National Cash Register Co. a leading organization and the most dominating firm in its business. Indeed, he managed to capture about 95 percent of the market through aggressive campaigns to acquire competitors or drive them into bankruptcy. That is, he expanded the application of his urge to control and intimidate beyond his company and into the market place. This attitude, however, invited serious trouble well beyond his company and competitors' concerns. This is evidenced by the federal government's actions in putting an end to his monopolistic drive.

While only a few executives would like to be identified as tyrants, there are many whose subordinates and colleagues may not hesitate to define them as such. During the corporate reengineering and downsizing rush of the 1980s, some CEOs made extensive job cuts across the board, created strict rules, and demanded discipline. The objective was to increase efficiency and compete effectively. Their actions were viewed favorably on Wall Street, but intensified resentment and suspicion among their employees; the latter experienced anxiety and fear of an uncertain future, regarding their CEOs as living examples of tyranny and brutality.

These kinds of executives, however, are surprised when they are labeled tyrants or accused of acting brutally. Their feeling of indispensability and over confidence dispose them to project themselves as the ultimate saviors destined to only make good. Recent financial crisis and corporate scandals have repositioned tyrant executives, among others, on the center stage of the globe. These executives have not demonstrated a capacity to admit wrong doing or to assume responsibility. The current issue of Fortune magazine (October 13, 2008) reported that despite mounting evidence by the government and other institutions against the AIG's former legendary CEO, Hank Greenberg, he continues to spend millions of dollars on lobbyists, lawyers, and publicists to present himself to the public as a visible and highly credible voice concerning public issues.

Tyrant executives are endowed with different qualities. Some of them, in fact, are capable of keeping their urge to control and their feelings of indispensability in check. Consequently, they differ in their roles, contributions, and abilities to cope with adverse conditions. Some, because of their discipline and determination, can divert the attention of their employees from dysfunctional practices, and focus on organizational goals and improve productivity for some years. Others may not be successful in disguising their abusive qualities and immediately incite widespread resentment, becoming the source for disappointment and regrets.

Changing circumstances and certain conditions may be instrumental in positioning tyrant executives as achievers and with reputations of being task oriented. Their iron fist and their rigid control over their employees are overlooked by outsiders, as long as they maintain a reasonable return on investment and competitive market position and there are no major scandals unfolding. The employees, too, may go along and have their share of prosperity. However, once these executives stumble and other missteps are highlighted, these tyrant executives may find it impossible to steer events in the direction they wish. They might be forced to resign, as the alternative is not appealing and may lead to the demise of their corporations or at least put an end to their professional careers.

Tyrants, like passionate executives, are historical phenomena not limited to a particular time or geographical space. Their existence, evolution, and eventual demise are characteristically linked to societal and business development. They do not exist independent of economic and social conditions. Their rise and fall are part of the social and organizational process. As such, it is naive to assume they will disappear from the social and business scene in the foreseeable future. Like any human event, the presence and disappearance of tyrant executives must be understood in the broader context of societal development and they should, therefore, not be treated as abnormal or exceptional phenomena.

As Useem (2002) documented, and which was recently validated by current financial calamities and corporate scandals, tyrant executives have been part of the process of creating and squandering wealth, the rise and fall of corporations, economic progress, and setbacks. Tyrant executives almost always constitute a threat to employees' dignity and even under normal conditions the harm to organizations and societal welfare is intolerable. Corporations, in the short-term, may be able to neutralize this harm. In the long-term, however, the outcome is devastating.

References

Holland, C. (2008, October 9). The worst bosses in America. www.bnet.com.

Useem, Jerry (2002, November 18). Tyrants, Statesmen, and Destroyers. Fortune, 82-90.

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates