The 50th Law (16 page)

The Fearless Approach

WHEN I REACHED THE TOP IN BUSINESS, I ADJUSTED TO MY NEW POSITION—I BECAME BOLDER AND CRAZIER THAN BEFORE. AND I LISTENED EVEN LESS TO PEOPLE WHO TRIED TO SLOW ME DOWN.

—50 Cent

Throughout history we have witnessed the following pattern: certain people stand out from the crowd because of some special skill or talent that they have. Perhaps they are masters at the political game, knowing how to charm and win the proper allies. Or maybe they have superior technical knowledge in their field. Or maybe they are the ones who initiate some bold venture that has success. In any event, these types suddenly find themselves in leadership positions, something for which their past experience and education has not prepared them.

Now they are alone and on the top, their every decision and action scrutinized by the group and the public. The pressures can be intense. And what inevitably happens is that many of them unconsciously succumb to all kinds of fears. Whereas before they might have been bold and creative, now they grow cautious and conservative, aware of the heightened stakes. Secretly scared of being held accountable for the success of the group, they over-delegate, poll everyone for their opinions, or refrain from making the hard decisions. Or they become excessively dictatorial, trying to control everything—another sign of weakness and insecurity. It is the story of great senators who make lousy presidents, bold lieutenants who turn into mediocre generals, or top-level managers who become incompetent executives.

And yet among the group there are inevitably a few who demonstrate the opposite—they rise to the position, displaying extraordinary leadership skills that no one had suspected were in them. We find in this group people like Napoleon Bonaparte, Mahatma Gandhi, and Winston Churchill. What links these people together is not some mysterious skill or bit of knowledge, but rather a quality of character, a temperament that reveals the essence of the art. They are fearless. They do not shrink from making the hard decisions by themselves—instead they seem to relish such responsibility. They do not suddenly become more conservative, but in fact show a propensity for bold action. They exhibit tremendous grace under fire.

Such types come to understand in various ways that a leader has a unique power that generally goes untapped. Any group tends to assume the spirit and energy of the person on top. If that person is weak and passive, then the group tends to splinter into factions. If such leaders lack confidence, their insecurities tend to filter their way down the line. Their nervous, fretful moods put everyone on edge. But there is always the opposite possibility. A leader who is audacious, out in front, and setting the tone and agenda for the group sparks a higher energy level and confidence. Such a person on top does not need to yell or push people around; those below want to follow his or her lead because it is strong and inspiring.

In war, where leadership skills are more immediately apparent and necessary because lives are at stake, we can distinguish two leadership styles—from behind or from the front. The former type of general likes to stay in his tent or headquarters and bark out orders, feeling that having such distance makes it easier to command. This style can also mean involving lieutenants and other generals in important decisions, choosing to lead by committee. In both cases, the commander is trying to hide himself from scrutiny, accountability, and danger. The greatest generals in history, however, are invariably those who lead from the front and by themselves. They can be seen by the troops at the head of the army, exposing themselves to the same fate as any foot soldier. The Duke of Wellington said that the mere appearance of Napoleon Bonaparte at the head of his army translated into the equivalent of an additional forty thousand men. A kind of electrical charge passes through the troops—he is sharing in their sacrifices, leading by example. It has almost religious connotations.

We notice the same two styles in business and politics as well. The executives who lead from behind will always try to disguise it as a virtue: the need for secrecy, or their desire to be more fair and democratic. But it really stems from fear and it invariably leads to a lack of respect from those below. The opposite style, leading from the front and by example, has the same power in the office as it does on the battlefield. Leaders who work harder than anyone else, who practice what they preach, who are not afraid to be accountable for tough decisions or to take risks, will find they have created a well of respect that will pay great dividends down the road. They can ask for sacrifices, punish troublemakers, and make occasional mistakes all without facing the usual grumbling and doubts. They don’t have to yell, complain, and force their men and women to follow. People do so willingly.

In urban environments such as Southside Queens, respect is an extremely important issue. In other places, your background, education, or résumé might lend you some authority and credibility, but not in the hood. There, everyone starts from zero. To gain respect from your peers, you must repeatedly prove yourself. People are constantly prone to doubting your abilities and your power. You must show again and again that you have what it takes to thrive and to last. Big words and promises mean nothing; only actions carry weight. If you are authentic, as tough as you seem to be, then you will earn the respect that will make people back off and make your life that much easier.

This should be your perspective as well. You start with nothing in this world. Any titles, money, or privilege you inherit are actually hindrances. They delude you into believing you are owed respect. If you continue to impose your will because of such privileges, people will come to disdain and despise you. Instead only your actions can prove your worth. They tell people who you are. You must imagine that you are continually being challenged to show that you deserve the position you occupy. In a culture full of fakery and hype, you will stand out as someone authentic and worthy of respect.

The greatest leaders in history all inevitably learned by experience the following lesson: it is much better to be feared and respected than to be loved. As a prime example, look at the film director John Ford, the man behind some of the greatest films in Hollywood history. The task of film directors can be particularly difficult. They have to deal with large crews, actors with their delicate egos, and dictatorial producers who want to meddle every step of the way, all the while being under extreme time limits and with large amounts of money at stake. The tendency for directors is to give ground on these various battlefields—to placate and cajole the actors, to let the producers have their way here and there, to gain some cooperation by being pleasant and likable.

Ford was by nature a sensitive and empathetic man, but he learned that if he revealed this side of his personality he quickly lost control over the final product. The actors and producers would begin to assert themselves and the film would lose any sense of cohesion. He noticed that the notoriously nice directors never really lasted very long—they were pushed around and their films were lousy. Early on in his career he decided he would have to forge a kind of mask for himself—that of a man who was implacable and even a bit frightening.

On the set, he made it clear he was not the usual prima donna director. He would work longer hours than anyone. If they were filming on some location with harsh conditions, he would sleep in a tent like everyone else and share their bad food. On occasion he would get into violent fistfights on the set, most often with his leading actors, such as John Wayne. These fights were not for show; they were bruising and he engaged in them with all his strength, making the actors fight back with equal force. This would set a tone—an actor would tend to feel embarrassed by engaging in his usual prissy behavior and ego tantrums. Everyone was treated the same. Even the archduke of Austria—trying to carve out a career as a Hollywood actor—was yelled at and pushed into a ditch by Ford himself.

He had a unique way of directing actors. He would say only a few, well-chosen words about what he wanted from them. Then, if they did the wrong thing on the set, he would brutally humiliate them in front of everyone. They quickly learned they had to pay attention to the few words he spoke and to his body language on the set, which would often tell more. They had to raise their levels of concentration and bring even more of themselves into the part. Once, when the famous producer Samuel Goldwyn visited the set, he told Ford he just wanted to watch him work (a producer’s way of spying and applying pressure). Ford didn’t say a word. The next day, however, he visited Goldwyn in his office and just sat silently in the chair by Goldwyn’s desk, glaring at him. After a while Goldwyn, exasperated, asked him what he was doing. He just wanted to watch Goldwyn work, Ford answered. Goldwyn never visited him again on the set and quickly learned to give him his space.

All of this had a strange and paradoxical effect on the cast and crew. They came to love working for John Ford and would die to gain a place among his exclusive team of return staff. His standards were so high, it forced them to work harder—he made them superior actors and technicians. An occasional nice gesture or compliment on his part carried double the weight and would be remembered for a lifetime. The end results of his tough and unforgiving manner was that he managed to maintain a higher degree of control over the final product than most other directors, and his films were consistently of the highest quality. Nobody dared to challenge his authority and he lasted in Hollywood as the king of Westerns and action films for well over forty years—an unprecedented achievement in the industry.

Understand: to be a leader often requires making tough choices, getting people to do things against their will. If you have chosen the soft, pleasing, compliant style of leadership, out of fear of being disliked, you will find yourself with less and less room to compel people to work harder or make sacrifices. If you suddenly try to be tough, they often feel wounded and personally upset. They can move from love to hate. The opposite approach yields the opposite result. If you build a reputation for toughness and getting results, people might resent you, but you will establish a foundation of respect. You are demonstrating genuine qualities of leadership that speak to everyone. Now with time and a well-founded authority, you have room to back off and reward people, even to be nice. When you do so, it will be seen as a genuine gesture, not an attempt to get people to like you, and it will have double the effect.

Keys to Fearlessness

FOR IT IS A GENERAL RULE OF HUMAN NATURE THAT PEOPLE DESPISE THOSE WHO TREAT THEM WELL AND LOOK UP TO THOSE WHO MAKE NO CONCESSIONS.

—Thurydides

Thousands of years ago, our most primitive ancestors formed groups for power and protection. But as these groups got larger, they encountered a problem with human nature that plagues us to this day. Individuals have different levels of talent, ambition, and assertiveness; their interests do not necessarily converge on all points. When it comes to the important decisions upon which the fate of the tribe hangs, the members will often think of their own narrow agendas. A group of humans is always on the verge of splintering into a chaos of divergent interests.

For this purpose, leaders were chosen to make the hard decisions and end all the dissension. But the members of the tribe would inevitably feel ambivalence towards their leaders. They saw the necessity for them and the respect that should be paid to their authority, but they feared that their chieftains and kings would accumulate too much power and oppress them. They often wondered why this particular person or family deserved such a lofty position. In many ancient cultures, the king was ritually put to death after a few years to ensure he would not turn into an oppressor. In more advanced ancient civilizations, there were constant rebellions against those in power—much more intense and numerous than anything we have known in the modern era.

Of all the leaders in ancient times who had to deal with such difficulties, none stands out more than Moses. He had been chosen by God to lead the Hebrews out of slavery in Egypt and to the Promised Land. Although the Hebrews suffered in Egypt, they had relative security. Moses wrested them from this predictable life and set them to wander for forty years in the wilderness, where they were plagued by a lack of food, shelter, and basic comforts. They constantly doubted Moses and even came to hate him—some plotting to kill him, as the king who needed to be sacrificed. They saw him as an oppressor and madman. To aid his cause, God would perform regular miracles to show that Moses was chosen and blessed, but these miracles were quickly forgotten and the Hebrews kept resorting to their endless complaining and recalcitrance.

To overcome the seemingly impossible obstacles in his path, Moses resorted to a unique solution: he united the twelve constantly divided tribes around a single, simple cause—one God to worship, and the attainable goal of reaching the Promised Land. He was not there for power or glory but merely to lead them to this much-desired goal. Moses could not afford to absent himself for a day or two, or to ease up on his leadership. The tribes were continually prone to doubt him and forget the larger picture, the reason for their suffering. The Hebrew word for “lead” means to be out in front, to drive. He had to be out there constantly in the vanguard, unifying them around his vision of the Promised Land. This meant being ruthless with internal dissenters, putting whole families to death that stood in the way of the larger cause.

In essence, Moses learned to play a role for the Hebrews—the man who is possessed of a vision from God, indomitable in spirit, and acting for the greater good. A normal tribe member would have to ask him- or herself if this Promised Land was not something that existed merely in Moses’s mind. But the force of his conviction and the determination to lead people to the Promised Land made it hard to doubt him. He had to play this role to the hilt to convince them his top position was legitimate and sanctioned by God. His ability to lead such a fractious group for some forty years has to be considered the greatest masterpiece of leadership in history.