Dilbert.com originally printed November 8, 1988

When it comes to office politics, there is nothing that will cause more office drama than having discussions over offices and cubicles. The day I was promoted to a regional manager, I was promptly assigned an office. Some coworkers were not happy because office space was at a premium and until the formal announcement of my promotion went out, there was speculation as to why I had been moved to an office. All vice-presidents in our location received a private office, however, as a corporation, the culture was transitioning toward a more open concept. In our corporate headquarters, only c-level officers retained private offices, but that was also indicative of our corporate culture. Office space has transitioned over the years to become more communication friendly, and the walls have literally come down. While traditional offices may symbolize power and provide much valued privacy, sometimes a leader needs to literally think “outside of the box”.

Office trends have evolved over the last thirty years including traditional private office space, cubicles, open office environments and everywhere in between. Private offices convey a higher status than open office plans, and people that are required to move from a private office to a cubicle often times perceive it as a loss of status and benefit (O’Neil, 2008). This can be a challenge to any leader when trying initiate organizational change because they do not want to alienate valued employees. Retaining key employees has to be balanced with transforming corporate culture because symbols of executive privilege such as private offices, reserved parking spaces, unlimited expense accounts, etc. can send conflicting messages when leadership is trying to communicate that “we are all in this together” (Goman, 2008).

Offices are generally a reflection of the overall corporate culture and can be somewhat reflective of the personality of the executive leadership. According to ING Direct CEO, Peter Aceto (2012), “At the office, we are all associates. We lead without titles…we have fostered a culture that mirrors who we are as a business”. Besides foregoing titles, all ING Direct employees work in cubes, including the CEO. The office design helps to enhance the corporate culture of collaboration and teamwork, with little emphasis on personalized power motivation, which is identified by selfish people that exercise power for their own needs and not for the good of the organization (Penn State University, 2012). In other words, the leadership at ING does not utilize status symbols or executive perks to display power, but rely on a less materialistic means to benefit the overall good of the organization.  At Canadian marketing firm, AdFarm, their most senior executives offices are situated on the interior of the building without a view or windows. Regular employees are assigned spaces with light and views and no one has corner offices because those spaces are all turned into common space or conference rooms. “Using space like this is one way we communicate our values (in which relationships are primary) to employees and clients” (Goman, 2008).  Incidentally AdFarm was voted as one of the best companies to work for in Canada (Great Place to Work, 2009). Again, by placing the overall good of the organization above their own needs, leadership identifies with socialized power motivation (Penn State University, 2012).

According to Forbes Magazine, several high profile CEO’s have moved from the corner office to a cubicle including eBay, Zappos, Alcoa, ICG Commerce, Travelocity, and Morningstar. New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg is also among those that eschewed the traditional office for a bullpen set up in City Hall (Coster, 2010). For leaders, the decision to sit in a cubicle is somewhat symbolic and is a reflection of referent power because it helps to demonstrate a sense of camaraderie (Penn State University, 2012).

Giving up the fancy corner office in order to sit with employees can provide better overall communication and collaboration because there are more opportunities to have informal or “water cooler” exchanges. Bill Boyd, CEO of Muzak was the driving force behind a more open and inclusive office space. He envisioned office space that was open and equal, a place where management was approachable and communication flows more freely.

When upper management has those large offices, they begin to

believe the office is who they are. I think everyone respects me

 more because we all have the same type of space. The energy

is dramatically better. We would not normally know each other,

but we do now with this plan (Bouknight, 2003).

Informal communication can provide leadership with office intelligence much quicker, and in some cases solve a problem before it ever becomes one.

While the elimination of offices will not work in every situation, it is up to the leader to decide how to leave his or her mark on the corporate culture. Leading by example is a great way to encourage change, but leadership has many ways to influence employees and there is no one base of power that can or should be used in isolation. Leaders that choose personalized power as motivation may achieve a high degree of satisfaction, but the organization is likely to suffer.

References

Aceto, P. (2012, August 22). Breaking down the CEO stereotype. Retrieved from http://blog.ingdirect.ca/2012/08/22/breaking-down-the-ceo-stereotype/

Bouknight, D.C. (2003, March). CEOs in Dilbertville. Plants, Sights, and Parks. 30(1). Retrieved from http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/docview/202934238?accountid=13158

Coster, H. (2010, June 9). CEOs who work in cubicles. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/09/ceos-cubicles-communication-leadership-careers-collaboration_2.html

Goman, C.K. (2008). What does your office say about you. Retrieved from http://www.hodu.com/office-space.shtml

Great Place to Work. (2009). Best workplaces in Canada for women. Retrieved from http://www.greatplacetowork.net/best-companies/north-america/canada/best-workplaces-in-canada-for-women/576-2009

O’Neil, M. (2008). Open plan and enclosed private offices. Retrieved from http://www.knoll.com/research/downloads/OpenClosed_Offices_wp.pdf

The Pennsylvania State University. (2012). Lesson 7: Power and influence. Retrieved from Penn State World Campus Psych 485: Leadership in Work Settings website https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa12/psych485/001/content/07_lesson/printlesson.html

In the heyday of the psychometric and behaviorist eras, it was generally believed

that intelligence was a single entity that was inherited; and that human beings –

initially a blank slate – could be trained to learn anything, provided that it was

presented in an appropriate way. Nowadays an increasing number of researchers

believe precisely the opposite; that there exists a multitude of intelligences, quite

independent of each other; that each intelligence has its own strengths and

constraints; that the mind is far from unencumbered at birth; and that it is

unexpectedly difficult to teach things that go against early ‘naive’ theories of that

challenge the natural lines of force within an intelligence and its matching

domains. (Gardner 1993: xxiii)

Have you ever met someone who is “book smart,” yet has absolutely no common sense? I had a roommate in college that epitomized this statement. We used to be amazed how she would get A’s in class, but had issues relating to “real life.” One of my favorite laughable memories was going to the supermarket and seeing bags of manure outside of the store (clearly labeled manure). They did not smell very good and she turned to us and said, “I hate that stuff. It smells like shit.” My friend has gone on to become a high level executive at a prestigious hospital. In another example, the quarterback at my high school was the stereotypical “dumb jock.” He was helped along in high school and spent two years at prep school before becoming the starting quarterback for Virginia Tech, and later being drafted into the NFL. He was able to run the west coast offense, yet he was not able to write a basic research paper unassisted.

These examples provide insight into a very important question; can people be “smart” in ways other than traditional intelligence? Intelligence is considered a major leadership trait that allows complex decision-making and social judgment skills to occur. (Northouse, 2013,  p. 23,-24). Traditionally, relative intelligence has been measured by an intelligence quotient test, better known as IQ. While IQ is an important quantitative measure of our ability to learn and solve problems, there is growing support that intelligence is multi-faceted (Co-intelligence Institute, 2012). The intellectual complexity that is proposed to exist is not able to be measured by IQ tests because they are thought to measure only that part of intelligence that is innate and can not be improved or changed with training (Gardner, 2006,  p. 6). This sense that intelligence is a singular, stagnant part of the personality versus plural and dynamic has been challenged by new theories such as those proposed by Howard Gardner, PhD.

Gardener believes that there are multiple intelligences that do not function in isolation, but rather each intelligence has a core operation or set of operations that react to internal and external triggers or stimulus (Gardner, 2006,  p. 7). He initially came up with seven distinct intelligences and has added several more as his theory and research have evolved. The first two have been typically valued in schools; the next three are usually associated with the arts; and the final two are what Howard Gardner called ‘personal intelligences’ (Gardner, 1999,  pp. 41-43). The original seven include: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, bodily kinesthetic, spatial, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. More recently, he has included naturalist, spiritual, existential and moral (Gardner, 2006,  pp. 8, 21). Every individual has a “blend” of these intelligences that is unique and helps to explain why certain individuals excel or are extremely accomplished in one area, while being deficient or weaker in another.

freshmanmonroeblogs.wm.edu

This theory is not without controversy because it is extremely difficult to quantify through testing. Many academic psychologists have not supported this theory, while it has become popular with many educators because it stresses the “conditions under which education takes place” (Smith, 2008); meaning emphasis is given to the strengths and weaknesses of the individual in order to maximize learning. This is important when it comes to leadership because the situation will dictate who will be the most successful, not necessary the person with the highest IQ.

While there is still validity in the traditional thought that a person with a higher IQ will have the capacity to lead because they are “smart,” the theory of multiple intelligences helps to explain how some people that fall out of the norm succeed in certain aspects of their lives. A gifted musician may have low “academic” test scores and high musical intelligence, while a person like my friend may have high logical-mathematical intelligence and low interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences. The quarterback that I spoke about in the introduction is likely to have high spatial and bodily-kinesthetic intelligence. The quarterback would make a poor CEO candidate for an organization, but was a great leader and motivator on the football field. It is all about identifying a person’s strength’s and capitalizing on them, while recognizing that the person with the highest IQ is not always the smartest. This theory finally advocates a means to take IQ outside of the box and consider all of the possibilities that lie within. 

References: 

Co-Intelligence Institute. 2012. Retrieved from http://www.co-intelligence.org/WhatIsIntelligence.html

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1993, 2006). Multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice. Los Angeles: Sage.

Smith, M. K. (2008). Howard Gardner and multiple intelligences. The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm.

Theory of multiple intelligences and studying blog. (2011). Retrieved from http://freshmanmonroe.blogs.wm.edu/2011/08/14/theory-of-multiple-intelligences-and-studying/

       Most people would quantify both the President of the United States and a corporate CEO as “leaders”. Politicians, for the most part are a necessary evil. We need them to provide leadership and guidance, determine and set policy, and make the various parts of our government run. We need them to do what they say and say what they mean, unfortunately but the opposite happens. Rarely does a politician make a campaign promise that is enacted, although sometimes it is not for a lack of trying. Political leadership is a beast unto itself and has a set of challenges unique to public office because there is a formalized balance of power. In other words, the President is not able to do a whole lot without the other two branches of the federal government agreeing. On the other hand, a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is hired to run a company and make decisions with the reasonable expectation that implementation will occur or people will be fired. Being an election year, the public is bombarded with news and advertisements regarding the candidates. Both men are leaders, but only one candidate has corporate leadership experience. Is this type of leadership necessary? Helpful? Harmful? This year’s election poses a very interesting question: do successful business leaders make successful political leaders?

 

       Both jobs require traits that are consistently identified with leadership potential, but the individual is paramount to the actual process of attaining a leadership role in either the private or public sector (Kirkpatrick, S.A. and Locke, E.A. 1991. pp. 58-59). A person that doesn’t have leadership-oriented traits is not going to make a successful leader, however, just having those traits does not mean that individual will become a CEO or the President of the United States. The leadership traits provide an aptitude for acquiring skills or knowledge that are necessary to attain leadership positions at a high level. People that are clearly leaders in one situation do not necessarily translate into leaders in a different situation (Redmond, 2012).

 

       Both candidates encompass the five traits including: intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability to be successful (Northouse, P. 2013. p. 23). It would also be fair to assume that both Romney and Obama have different areas of strengths and weaknesses if they were given a Leadership Trait Questionnaire, but would Romney’s areas of weaknesses be bolstered by his additional business acumen and conversely, would Obama’s weaknesses undermine his ability to lead? Both candidates are highly intelligent and self-confident. In rating the five traits, I would identify sociability as one of Obama’s greatest strengths, as he has superb social skills and is extremely articulate. On the other hand, I define integrity as one of his weaknesses because he has had difficulty taking ownership of his actions on a consistent basis (Northouse, P. 2013. p.25). This is evidenced by the continual blaming of former President George W. Bush years after Obama’s own policies failed to have a positive economic impact. As for Romney, I would consider determination to be one of his greatest strengths because his approach is more proactive and he is not prone to quitting. Sociability is definitely his area of weakness, and may ultimately cause him to lose the race. While Romney appears to be friendly, cheerful and outgoing, he has been criticized for failing to connect with people that are not in his social class, and in some instances alienating them. When asked about income equality on the Today Show, which aired January 11, 2012, Romney stated, “You know, I think it’s about envy. I think it’s about class warfare” (Sargent, G. 2012). Instead of trying to help close the discussion of class warfare, he perpetuated it and answered the question in a very non-politically correct way.

 

       In business, a CEO does not need to worry about hurting feelings or being politically correct at all times as long as the company is producing favorable results, whereas, in politics, a gaffe can kill a career. Political experience seems to be an important step between the private and public sector. No President has ever made the transition from the private sector directly into the office of the President of the United States (Mataconis, D. 2012). While this does not appear to be earth-shattering news, it is a rather important detail to consider when deciding if business experience will enhance a President’s leadership ability. All former Presidents have had some sort of governmental experience prior to being elected, including the two candidates that are running in the 2012 election. That is important fact because political skills are important to navigating Washington D.C. and having success a President. Barack Obama was a senator prior to being elected as the 44^th President of the United States. Mitt Romney was the Governor of Massachusetts after being the CEO of Bain Capital.

 

       Every President has held political office or had public sector experience in some way prior to getting elected. This demonstrates that it would be more difficult to get elected President without any political knowledge, than to be elected President with business experience. Several former Presidents have had a business background in addition to political experience before getting elected, but that does not mean that they performed any better or worse than those without (Mataconis, 2012). Performance is dictated by the individual’s strengths and weaknesses of leadership traits, skills, and experiences. Romney wants voters to believe this business acumen gives him a unique understanding of economic change that needs to occur in America, but will voters buy it? I guess we will find out on November 6, 2012.

 

References:

 

Kirkpatrick, S.A. and Locke, E.A. (1991). Leadership: do traits matter? The Executive, 5.

 

Northouse, P.G., (2013). Leadership: theory and practice sixth ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

 

Mataconis, D. (2012). Do businessmen make good Presidents? Retrieved from http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/do-businessmen-make-good-presidents/.

 

Redmond, Brian (2012). Lesson 1: Introduction to Leadership. Retrieved from Penn State World Campus Psych 485: Leadership in Work Settings website https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa12/psych485/001/content/01_lesson/01_page.html.

 

Sargent, G. (2012). Romney: questions about inequality and Wall Street driven by envy. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/romney-questions-about-wall-street-and-inequality-are-driven-by-envy/2012/01/11/gIQAJ6L2qP_blog.html