It looks like nothing was found at this location. Maybe try a search or browse one of our posts below.

One of my regular correspondents — a career military officer and a man I respect, had this to say about one of the executive archetypes I described in last week’s column (“Jung at heart,Keep the Joint Running, 9/24/2007) — the General:

Do you think that actual military generals all think as you describe, or are you describing only generals in the business world?

… your picture of “The General” may be colored by those who are in the news: the political appointees, the frankly combat-only commanders, the high-level spokesmen (or mouthpieces), and the occasional battle hero. They’re the exception to the majority, workaday military generals.

… the good generals dislike war and battles. They’re ready to fight them if necessary, but would rather not. They see it as a messy, usually losing, business for all concerned. They’d rather bargain and maneuver than fight. They choose their battles carefully, and when they do fight, it’s for their troops, not necessarily against anyone or anything else.

To clarify: I was writing about the business archetype — executives who see business as war. While I have no survey data to support this, I doubt many business “Generals” have the military training and experience to know what real war looks like.

Speaking of archetypes whose correspondence to the actual day-to-day work might be strained just a bit, here are some more archetypical paths to the executive suite.

Sales Rep: Like the Visionary, the Sales Rep has bought into a big idea. Unlike the Visionary, the Sales Rep isn’t a deep thinker.

For Sales Reps, the one big idea is what matters. They sell it to everyone they meet, with boundless energy and enthusiasm, unifying their organizations and creating demand. They take operations for granted, though, as unimportant detail.

Kindergartner: Kindergartners learned a long time ago how to get what they want. It’s what they do and they’re good at it.

Kindergartners know when to whine, when to complain, when to bully, and when to throw a tantrum. That they are being childish would never occur to them. Those who are more mature think, “Fighting them isn’t worth it, and would bring me down to their level.” And so Kindergartners rise in the organization, acquiring reputations for getting things done when really, they’re merely getting their way.

Psychopath: To the Psychopath, all other human beings are things — objects. The Psychopath is as charming as the Salesman, as ruthless as the General (the archetype, that is), and as self-centered as the Kindergartner.

What is particularly strange about Psychopaths is that while they are devoid of empathy they understand human emotions at a deep enough level to use them to manipulate everyone around them.

Protege: The Protege’s primary skill is persuading someone higher in the hierarchy to become a mentor. In exchange for the Protege’s admiration, the mentor provides introductions, opportunities, and protection.

And yet, Proteges often think they are high achievers.

The Heir is a particularly annoying sub-type of the Protege. The Heir is the person who, to borrow a phrase from Jim Hightower, was “… born on third base and thought he hit a triple.”

Conductor: The Conductor leads the orchestra.

The only instrument the Conductor wields is the baton, and it makes no sound. If you’re in the audience you know that somehow the Conductor still has something to do with the quality of the performance: The same orchestra with a different Conductor sounds quite different, even though the musicians were the same musicians and achieved their virtuosity on their own.

In the world of business, Conductors start by conducting small ensembles. Those responsible for the music hear the quality of performance under their baton and put them in front of larger groups of musicians.

Conductors succeed when those in charge care about the music and understand how it happens.

Mechanic: The Mechanic looks for what’s wrong and fixes it. Then, he or she looks for something else to fix. If there’s nothing wrong, Mechanics will find something to fix anyway.

Mechanics are wonderful executives when a turnaround is required. They look at the world straight and don’t pretend the funny noise the right front wheel is making is normal.

The problem with Mechanics is that once they fix the organization they have no idea where to drive it. That isn’t what they do.

What to make of this: There are as many paths to the executive suite as there are executive archetypes. If you aspire to executive rank, recognizing which situations your natural tendencies fit best — and where they can limit you — will help you get there.

Unless you’re a Kindergartner. If that’s the case:

Grow up.

Revisionism is the art of waiting until everyone who knows better is dead, then interpreting events through your ideological filter.

Consider this response to my September 9th column, Crisis management: “Though FDR often erroneously gets credit for ‘putting people back to work,’ his successful efforts to expand the federal government past its constitutional boundaries is his real legacy. He should be acknowledged as a father of illegitimate government, and the resulting federal fiscal bloat.” It’s bad revisionism because not everyone who knows better is dead yet.

What bothers me isn’t that my respondent challenged my assessment. If everyone agreed with me I’d be bored stiff. No, what bothers me is how often people assume the worst about those who had to deal with a daunting situation without first learning the facts. FDR simply provides a convenient example: Many people today criticize his establishment of Social Security. I wonder how many of these critics have the slightest knowledge of why he did so, and why he made it a pay-as-we-go system instead of using a deferred annuity model. If you know the history and think you could have done better, I’d be interested in your solution to the problem. I know I don’t have one.

But, you may be grumbling, this isn’t a column about public policy — it’s about effectively leading IT. What does criticizing FDR have to do with that? Lots.

Someone who knows nothing about why FDR created Social Security as he did but is certain his unsavory purpose was an unconstitutional power grab will assume the worst about colleagues or direct reports whose solution to a business problem doesn’t line up with his or her preconceived notions. One of the many bad habits of highly ineffective leaders is a preference for ignorant criticism over informed discussion.

So ask yourself this: When an employee or task force reports back to you, do you assume incompetence if “your gut” doesn’t like their recommendations? Does the word “didja” — as in, “Didja think about this? Didja think about that?” — form a significant part of these conversations? If so it’s a danger sign. “Didja” puts people on the defensive instead of letting them tell their story.

So whenever you’re evaluating a solution, whether it’s to establish a federal retirement system or to upgrade to a new server platform, just ask, “Tell us the process you went through, what you’re recommending, and why.” It’s the logical sequence: Understand first, then criticize the results.

Or maybe you’ll find you don’t have to.