NO KID ASPIRES TO BECOME A WIDELY DISLIKED EXECUTIVE, SO WHAT HAPPENS

FIVE "CANDY LAND" PITFALLS THAT PROBABLY CREATE THOSE DISLIKED EXECS.

It's surprising how many executives break the ABCs of good management and become widely disliked ... This, despite all the highly admired execs who serve as exemplars, and the dozens of books about good management. Smart people fall victim to elementary mistakes – the kind you'd find in a game of "Corporate Candy Land." Here are five pitfalls I believe very often create these unpopular executives:

1) SHARK TANK: There's too much pressure on emerging talent to learn to “swim with the sharks” by becoming one. Instead we should inspire them to “swim with the exemplars” by emulating best practices. Let’s stop making being a shark a cool thing. It’s not. Strong is good. Being a high-value contributor is good. Earned excellence is good. Being mean, ruthless, and overly competitive are never good. Bullies are just as reprehensible in business as they are in schoolyards. Too many corporate cultures are based on fear and meanness because executives breed these traits as if they had merit.

2) BROKEN COMPASS: Magnetic forces in the executive forest, such as greed and self-centeredness, make people lose their “true north.” Temptations badly distort the directional headings of aspiring execs – resulting in bad decisions about what is morally right or wrong. Losing their bearings, they veer off-course from their vision toward surrogate goals, and spout core values while hypocritically living by opposite standards. Following a distorted compass, they wind up far from their original ideals. An effective system is needed to regularly assure executive behavior reflects the corporate values.

3) POLITICAL SWAMP: The political shortcut to authority and power takes execs through a swamp where they make hidden compromises to hasten their ascendancy. Backroom deals and decisions are easier than those requiring transparency and consensus. Political expediency circumvents inclusion and due process. Important qualities of being forthright, fair and ethical all suffer, and values begin to erode. Execs don't say what they really mean, they placate people, appeal to their weaknesses, and hold their own self-interest above business goals – no matter how critical. It's time for corporate insistence that execs practice transparency in decisions and operations.

4) COGS OF BUREAUCRACY: Many execs who seek power fear criticism. So they find safety among the cogs of bureaucracy. To them, zero-risk tolerance provides protection worth more than competitive forward movement. So they surrender urgency, first-mover advantages, and timely decision-making. Committees and processes erupt. Speak-up cultures are silenced. Executives become unapproachable. Mediocrity is the new normal. No real listening to employees takes place, and no follow-up is made. A follower strategy is adopted that demands precedents before innovating. This must be replaced by an entrepreneurial culture that attracts, unleashes and retains top talent.

5) FOG OF DISTRUST: Execs who have a difficult time earning trust like to hide in the ambiguity of fog ... especially when trying to justify something that doesn't pass muster based on merit. Trust, respect, transparency, and authenticity demand daylight. But in the fog, people can’t tell where execs stand or where they're going. There's a certain comfort in fog for less impressive execs. But it breeds distrust, which kills the rapport required to build good relations between audiences. In the fog, weakness can dodge deadlines and accountability. But fog doesn't last. Trust is paramount, and must be based on actions, not words. Earned trust builds respect and loyal relationships.

Executives I've admired shared these qualities: 1) They had a disciplined commitment to what is right and cared about people; 2) They were genuine and transparent; 3) They had a sense of urgency for progress, and accepted reasonable failure in that pursuit; 4) They were allergic to politics and bureaucracy; 5) They regularly listened to key stakeholders to collect candid input, and took action whenever sensible. All this builds trust. Without it, an exec's effectiveness devolves. It’s just like playing Candy Land.

Perhaps better ways can be devised to help "disliked-execs-in-the-making." I believe what's most important is to have consistent, visible exemplar behavior from a company's CEO and leadership team. Next, earlier identification of emerging problems so that constructive intervention can be applied in a timely manner. This could be by providing constructive feedback, such as aggregated input from direct reports. HR is also very helpful, and can arrange executive coaching with a specific, measured improvement plan. Good leadership is mission critical to any company's sustainable success.