Essential Leader

Under Pressure: Learning to be a "Clutch" Leader

By Sean Silverthorne

In the sports world, a “clutch” player performs best when the pressure is on, backs are to the wall, and all eyes turned their way. Think Michael Jordan, Joe Montana, Martina Navratilova. When it was all on the line, they not only didn’t wilt, they got better.

Is there such a thing as a clutch leader? Do you know managers or CEOs who rise above when everything is on the line? A bigger question: Can you learn to be clutch?

The latest issue of Harvard Business Review is spun around the topic of military leadership, and there is an interesting blog post on HBR.org about how military cadets learn what it takes to be clutch.

New York Times business writer Paul Sullivan, author of Clutch: Why Some People Excel Under Pressure and Others Don’t recounts a talk he gave at West Point on the subject.

All clutch leaders display five traits, he said: focus, discipline, adaptability, being present, and fear and desire. Read his post for more depth on each of these.

Sullivan’s good news for the rest of us is that organizations can train their performers to respond well to pressure. Sullivan says there are three things business leaders can learn from cadets:

1. Focused on a goal. “When they graduate they will be deployed to lead a platoon, probably in Afghanistan or Iraq. They know the responsibilities and the risks. And everything they are doing is preparing them for that moment. Do you know what your primary mission is at work?”
2. Continuous improvement. “They work in an organization that is continually striving to be better. When a mistake happens, the Army tries not to let it happen a second time. Are you aligned with the right organization? Or if you’re leading that organization, are you prepared to change things that aren’t working, even if change could be hard or even a reversal of something you implemented?”
3. Practice for success. “These cadets are given the physical and mental training that will help them do their jobs at the highest level. They know you have to be able to perform a task perfectly under normal conditions before you can expect to do it in a stressful situation. Can you say the same thing? Are you able to do your job at a high level every day? If not, then you should not be surprised when you make the wrong decisions under pressure.”

Will following this advice make you the Michael Jordan of your business? Well, maybe not–some people are just hard-coded for success in tough situations. But working at focusing on the objective, adaptability to the environment and improvement of skills sure puts whatever natural abilities you have in the best position to succeed when the going gets tough.

Looking through history, who were the greatest clutch leaders? Churchill? Lincoln? Alexander the Great? (Photo of Michael Jordan by Flickr user Cliff1066, CC 2.0)

EI: A Means or an End?

            In their explanation of temperance as a virtue, Kolp and Rea (2009) assert that “The concept of emotional intelligence (EI), the ability to work with people effectively, is a means, not an end” (p. 198). While energized at the connection they made between temperance and emotional intelligence, my mind protested their restriction of EI with this question: Is it only a means and not also an end?

The bone I am picking derives from the same literature they cited, Primal Leadership (my chosen book on leadership). From what I’ve read so far, Goleman Boyatzis, and McKee (2002) affirm that EI incorporates significant physiological processes including highly complex neurological maneuvers. Goleman et al. (2002) explain that “The neural systems responsible for the intellect and for the emotions are separate, but they have intimately interwoven connections” (p. 27). Furthermore, EI can be cultivated over time through thoughtful, intentional practice guided by four domains of practice: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management (Goleman et al., 2002). This suggests that the capacity for EI—physiologically and psychologically—is a potential outcome for everyone.

But Kolp and Rea (2009) clarify their assertion that EI is a means rather than an end by stating that “To be a virtue it must point to the good” (p. 198). This is an important clarification and raises another question: Is the opposite of EI emotional dissonance? It seems to me that both describe a condition one develops. Certainly they are crucial factors determining how or if one expresses either temperance or prudence. As I see it, the development of EI goes beyond its prerequisite role for developing temperance and prudence. But as a stand-alone component of leadership, does EI point to the good?