The Golden Rule

"First Who... Then What" happens to be one of my favorite management mottoes.

Good to Great, by Jim Collins, defines it in the following way: "They (the executives) first got the right people on the bus, and the wrong people off the bus, and then figured out where to drive."

This is the wisdom shared by our great ancient philosopher, Confucius, who made similar points on quite a few occasions. Once he explored the reason for the laissez-faire ruling style of an ancient model king called Shun; he found that Shun was lucky to have five able ministers responsible for major administrative jobs. When Confucius was asked why a small state ruled by another immoral king called Wei Ling Gong was able to survive for so long, the answer, according to Confucius, lay in the fact that Wei Ling Gong at least was able to fill the right places with the right people. The advice he offered to his student who was ready to serve as a local governor was to get the right people in the first place. Indeed, the idea of "First Who Then What" is a twenty-five-century-old management practice.

Three key elements are included in this practice. First of all, some people are "getting on" the bus. One vital job for a leader is to pick out suitable team members. Whenever and wherever he finds an excellent candidate, he should recruit that person instantly, even though there is no well-defined position yet. The second key element has to be the concept of "right". The common saying that "People are the most important asset of an organization" is very wrong; rather, it is "the right people" that should take the credit. What are the metrics of the "rightness"? None other than the candidate's character, capability and mindset. More essentially, their strength, not their weakness, should be given plenty of room for full play. The third element is to get some people "off" the bus. A bottom line has to be made known to all team members, especially those with poor performance. To tolerate the latter is the worst injustice for those who work hard. Surely, it by no means encourages the leader to become "cruel". Warnings should be given, at most three times, before the leader takes action to get lousy members off the bus.

These are three fundamental principles of "First Who Then What": Keep looking for the right people, recruiting the right people and letting go those who don't fit. Once the right people are gotten, the leader should create the right environment in which these people will work together to figure out the right direction, to map the right route, and finally to drive the bus to somewhere great.

Two Leadership Models

There are two models of leadership, one we may call "coach" and the other "star". The former leads the organization in a pattern of "one coach with a thousand stars", whereas the latter "one genius with a thousand helpers". The following table from Good to Great sufficiently illustrates the point:

Coach vs. Genius

A Coach with a Thousand Stars A Genius with a Thousand Helpers
The leader as a coach The leader as a star
First Who
Get the right people on the bus. Build a superior executive team. First What
Set a vision for where to drive the bus. Develop a road map for driving the bus.
Then What
Once you have the right people in place, figure out the best path to greatness. Then Who
Enlist a crew of highly capable "helpers" to make the vision happen.

Admittedly, there are numerous outstanding leaders in the model of "First What Then Who". They usually offer a clear orientation. In my view, this model proves very useful in the right situations. For instance, a commander must have absolute authority during a military action. Other applicable cases can be found in some companies which are in their initial stage of development, when the victory is indeed relying on the gifts of the leader. However, if he keeps the pattern instead of learning to trust others, his success won't last long.

The reason is that if you are a genius leader, seeing yourself as a winged steed, then you will be very conscious of your leading position. You will resent anyone who might overtake you, and try your best to guard the status-quo. But what if you are a coach, teaching others to swim? Will you fight with your trainees to win the championship? Will you be dismayed when your trainees surpass you? Of course not. Every coach in the world is aspiring to ultimately get their pupils to do better than they themselves. So, a genius prefers others to follow him, whereas a coach encourages others to become the best, run the fastest and to win first place.

In ancient China, a famous imperial advisor once compared the relationship between the king and his ministers to that between the head and the body, which in some way reveals a truth. In his view, the head functions through the body and in the same manner, a king has to govern his kingdom through his helpers. If the head of a country has to take care of everything in person, it is a worrying sign showing that his ministers are not working properly and that serious problems are looming.

Two examples of this leadership style in Chinese history are Qin Shi Huang, China's first emperor, and Sui Wen Di. Despite the great commitments of both of these leaders, they are ridiculed by history for their efforts in vain. In the days when Qin Shi Huang reigned paper was not yet invented, everything was documented on bamboo strips. This meant that the cumulative official reports that the Emperor had to read and address every day were quite heavy. Qin Shi Huang measured his day's accomplishments by the sum of the weight of the official reports read and addressed. Being a hard-working emperor, Qin Shi Huang would feel too guilty to sleep at the end of the day if the weight of the documents he handled could not reach the standard he set for himself. His empire did not last beyond the second generation (221- 206 BC). Qin Shi Huang was a typical genius leader who saw only himself as capable. Sui Wen Di successfully ended the chaos and restored a united empire of China (581 AD). It is reported that he had meetings for a whole day without meals. On one such occasion his ministers and guards were so hungry that they had to steal some sweet potatoes and pass them around to feed everyone. But even with such a diligent leader, the empire existed for merely 37 years. These two examples illustrate that it is not enough that the head act with diligence and commitment, it must act through and with the body to achieve the type of sustainable leadership needed to achieve greatness.

In contrast to these two examples, the Americans don't seem to care about how frequently President Bush takes vacations, as long as his administration can run the nation reasonably well. Every president in US history makes it a top priority to find the right advisers, so the first thing a new president would do is to form his own cabinet.

Case Studies from the History

Since historical evidence is the best proof for a management theory, I would like to cite the following cases of the battles between ancient kings to further expound the truth of "First Who Then What".

Case 1: Liu Bang (the first emperor of Han Dynasty) vs. Xiang Yu. (These two are contemporaries in early 3rd Century BC)

When Xiang Yu defeated most of his enemies, he was a young man of only 27 years, with great prospects. One adviser suggested that he should go further to occupy more land and consolidate his dominion. But Xiang rejected arrogantly, for he preferred to go back home and give a big show of his victory. Thus, he missed the best opportunity of his career. Years later when he lost his last battle he killed himself. Even during the last minutes of his life, he lamented over his earlier misfortune, still failing to see his own fault. Though often depicted as a great hero, Xiang Yu is no more than an embodiment of the individual ego, whose destruction is inevitable.

Xiang Yu's contemporary, Liu Bang offered a model just the opposite. Liu Bang was almost 50 when Xiang reached the pinnacle of his career. But he knew how to make the best of others. After he eventually uprooted Xiang Yu's power, he revealed the secret behind the victory: he had Zhang Liang, who was the strategist, making all key plans and schemes; he had Xiao He, who was a logistics expert, preparing the battle supplies for every mission; he had Han Xin, who was the best military commander in China at that time. Liu admitted that these three people were the very reason why he could defeat the most formidable enemy, Xiang Yu. Upon his victory, a Confucian scholar approached Liu to offer some proposals of national reconstruction. Out of complacency, Liu dismissed the scholar, "I got the world on horseback. What do you guys know about the world?" The scholar retorted, "True indeed, Your Majesty won the world on horseback, but you cannot rule it on horseback." The story goes that Liu instantly humbled himself and accepted the proposal to launch the reconstruction, which secured the long-term stability and prosperity of his empire. A famous song authored by Liu Bang expressed his anxiety for more "warriors" to guard his land. In his last days, he was still earnestly looking for the right people!

To conclude, Liu Bang was good at getting the right people on the bus and always willing to take advice. This laid the very foundation of his success.

Case 2: Tang Tai Zong (the second emperor of the Tang Dynasty) vs. Sui Yang Di (the second emperor of Sui Dynasty). (These two are also contemporaries in early 7th Century A.D.)

Sui Yang Di is an infamous figure in Chinese history, often seen as a prototype of a bad king who was simultaneously a squanderer and an idiot. As a matter of fact, this is an absolute distortion: Sui Yang Di was a true genius, a star leader.

He was, first of all, a cultivated writer. According to the official historical record of the Sui Dynasty, he was "talented" at a young age. Mao Zedong, whose poetic gift found no equivalent in modern China, gave Sui Yang Di much credit, regarding the latter as a true essayist and poet. Tang Tai Zong, Sui Yang Di's contemporary as well as his biggest enemy, once happened to get hold of a copy of "The Collective Work of Sui Yang Di". After reading it, he was surprised by the sharp contrast between the beauty of the writer's words and the evils of his deeds.

Sui Yang Di also had every reason to boast about his military talent. He was appointed general at the age of thirteen. When his father, the first emperor of the Sui Dynasty conquered North China, he accepted the mission to lead the army southward to realize the vision of a reunited China. This was successfully done in his twenties. Later he went on to crush the rebellion in the South and repulse the barbarian invasion in the North ? even his father acknowledged his great contribution to the empire. He was very innovative in boosting the economy; the Great Canal was his idea, which became one of the greatest landmarks in China.

Nonetheless, Sui Yang Di died a horrible and disgraceful death, totally defeated by his enemy. Why did such a genius suffer such a doomed fate and even leave such a notorious reputation? The root cause lies in the fact that he violated the principle of leadership. He never cared about the people "on the bus", for there was only one star in his eyes ? himself. Hence, he was extremely narrow-minded, rejecting any counseling.

Gao Ying, the prime minister of Sui Yang Di's father, was respected by the royal court as a "true prime minister", because he always offered wise advice. But Sui Yang Di could not put up with him and finally got an excuse to kill the old man. By doing this, he achieved what he desired: hardly anyone dared to give any advice after the death of Gao Ying.

Sui Yang Di was a typical narcissist, loving to boast of his talents and to compete for honor and praise. For example, royal announcements were usually drafted by appointed scriveners, but Sui Yang Di was so earnest to show off his own literary skills that he wrote them all by himself and then proudly exhibited them before all ministers. Not surprisingly, he could not tolerate anyone who might excel him. In two cases, where there emerged gifted writers receiving common praises, he felt challenged and resolutely murdered them.

So, eventually he had no one "on the bus" and was deserted by all helpers. When the empire was swept away by the upheaval, he had to run away and hide himself in a southern city. The legend goes that even during those days, he spent much time gazing at his own image in the mirror, wondering "Who would bear to cut off such a noble head". At last, he was sought out by his own officials and servants, who strangled him to death.

It is Tang Tai Zong who led the subversion and overthrew the Sui Dynasty. He was widely accepted as the model ruler in ancient China, the best of its kind. He shared with Sui Yang Di the same level of excellence. He showed amazing intelligence at an early stage of life; he helped his father to plan the uprising, to win the battles, to conquer the land, and best of all, to establish the great empire of the Tang Dynasty. He was a born poet and calligrapher, having a fine taste of literature and art; this was directly linked with the outstanding achievements in these areas during the Tang Dyansty. He was a broad-minded statesman, tolerating different religions. It was he who welcomed the Nestorian Christianity into China. His originality was powerfully demonstrated in the efforts to institute novel political and social systems, which had a far-reaching impact on Chinese society. It is fair to say that very few emperors in Chinese history could compare with Tang Tai Zong.

If following Sui Yang Di's logic of a genius leader, Tang Tai Zong would have needed no other stars to achieve a great cause. Or, more moderately, some lousy helpers would do with such a wonderful star as their leader. But interestingly, instead of getting a batch of "robots" on the bus simply to obey his commands, Tang Tai Zong set up one of the finest teams in the whole of Chinese history. It was a team without parallel, including people with all sorts of gifts and gathered from every possible source: some were his relatives, some surrendered generals and some even old enemies. All of these people were well protected and highly respected by the emperor; and most significantly, they were put into the right places and given a full play of their talents.

Tang Tai Zong concluded his HR success formula with five principles: First, look for those who are more specialized than you yourself. This requires an open mind, a willingness to accept variety and disparity. Second, make the best of one's strength while forgiving his weakness. It requires shrewdness to identify real gifts in a person. Third, find right positions for the right people, an art of matching jobs with personalities. Fourth, tolerate different opinions even when they are proposed in an offensive way. This requires the tough job of self-control, and moreover, an ability to grasp the key point and make the right judgment. And last but not least is fairness, i.e., treating different people "on the bus" with the same respect. Without moral power or grand vision, it is impossible to combat the human nature of prejudice and bias.

In a word, Tang Tai Zong knocked out Sui Yang Di, not because he was more intelligent than the latter, but because he adopted a winning leadership model which focused on getting the right people on the bus.

What to Do Now

The modern business arena may vary sharply from the ancient battlefield. But one thing remains unchanging: people yearn for the glory of success. Hence, it is worthwhile learning lessons from our forefathers and applying them creatively. Look at the contemporary entrepreneurs, who have done a good job in the fierce competition of the market, you will see the core principle of their leadership style ? "First Who Then What".

So, it is time for you to open your mind, set off to look for the right people who might surpass you in various ways, and offer them respectable positions as well as good pay ? then off you go, driving the bus towards the greatness!

 

The author is CEIBS EMBA02 graduate, previously working as Senior Vice President and Chief Editor of SOHU. Com Inc.
The article, originally put on Mr. Li's personal blog in Chinese, now is published in the Link with his approval.
The English version was an abridged and revised version, translated by Cherry Zhong and edited by Suzanne Updike.
Mr. Li Shanyou's blog:likevin.blog.sohu.com