Need to shake things up? A bullying boss may be best

Nobody likes a bully in the corner office.

But to rouse a sleepy organization, spur employee performance, and drive internal change in response to changing business conditions -- simply put, to run a company successfully today -- pats on the back from empathetic leaders might not suffice.

Such is the view from the Stanford Graduate School of Business, where Roderick M. Kramer, professor of organizational behavior, has lobbed a rhetorical grenade into the ranks of academic theorists who lionize emotionally intelligent managers. Kramer's recent article in Harvard Business Review, titled ''The Great Intimidators," advances the heretical notion that fear and coercion, when applied strategically, can be better motivators than positive reinforcement.

''In all our recent enchantment with social intelligence and soft power, we've overlooked the kinds of skills leaders need to bring about transformation in cases of tremendous resistance or inertia," Kramer writes. ''It's precisely in such situations, I'd like to propose, that the political intelligence of the intimidating leader is called for."

Kramer offers several examples of effective intimidators: Motorola Inc. chief executive Ed Zander, a Data General alumnus, pulled his company out of a steep decline by firing dozens of vice presidents and espousing the philosophy ''whack yourself before somebody whacks you." Hollywood heavyweight Harvey Weinstein used high-pressure tactics -- jabbing a finger in the face of associates -- en route to establishing Miramax as a recognized brand name. Martha Stewart, demanding, impatient, and brusque with subordinates, prodded them to keep up with her and build a homemaking empire.

Intimidators can be found in any field but gravitate to government, technology, and entertainment, Kramer suggested in an interview, citing such leaders as Lyndon Johnson, Margaret Thatcher, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Carly Fiorina, and Rupert Murdoch. ''Those worlds have a winner-take-all structure, and the jockeying for spots at the top is intense," he said. ''Leaders willing to engage in intimidating behavior often have advantages over those that don't."

Kramer, a social psychologist who has taught courses at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, said he began his research by seeking to document negative experiences with abusive leaders.

But as he interviewed seasoned executives, he found that many reported having had positive relationships -- educational and sometimes transformational -- with combative bosses. At that point, he re-examined his assumptions about the virtues of humble leaders with good bedside manners and started exploring the ''neglected upside" of leaders with rough edges.

''The more people I interviewed, the more I heard that these people did some good," Kramer recalled. ''They got rid of dead wood, they refocused companies, they made things happen."

Kramer runs through intimidators' toolbox of tactics, from getting angry, up close and personal, to keeping others guessing, to mastering facts and wielding them as weapons to cow opponents into silence or submission. But he cautions that intimidators can overplay their hand, thwarting their efforts to shake up organizations. Exhibit A: Harvard University president Lawrence H. Summers, who recently said he'll step down on June 30 because of clashes with the faculty.

Summers ran into trouble partly because he couldn't run Harvard in the command-and-control fashion tough-guy CEOs such as Jack Welch at General Electric used when pushing managers to continually boost profits. In the business world, ''there's a high tolerance for such behavior" because of the premium put on financial results, said Lauren Mackler, an executive coach and corporate consultant in Newton.

Mackler agrees the intimidators' playbook can be effective, especially with organizations that have become lazy and complacent, but she warned that the gains achieved often have a short shelf life.

''These intimidating CEOs get quicker short-term results," she acknowledged. ''But if you use coercive power in getting your results, that has a high cost. Word gets around, and then you can't recruit good talent, you can't retain good talent, you get low productivity, and you get an apathetic workforce that's not engaged. There's also a cost to the intimidators themselves. They're not happy people."

But the managers reporting to them might be even less happy unless they learn how to manage the intimidators, Kramer says. Those who survive and even thrive under intimidators learn to do their homework, keep their perspective, laugh at their bosses' antics, and occasionally call their bluff. Kramer says using such techniques, and sticking around long enough to earn their respect, can yield benefits.

For many executives, the benefits include a crash course on toughness and forcefulness, qualities they often feel they lack.

''People like to work for great intimidators because of what can be learned from them and because they inspire great performance," Kramer writes. ''Many of the people I spoke with said they did their best work ever when working for a great intimidator. But the appeal goes beyond that. A lot of the people are fascinated by difficult leaders because they want to possess a little 'inner intimidator' of their own."

Robert Weisman can be reached at weisman@globe.com.