typically consisted of long briefings from project leaders, followed by the usual project updates from each of the consultants who reported on progress in their functional area. People stuck to their roles on the team. Whenone person was struggling, he or she usually just suffered in silence and pulled a few all-nighters rather than relying on help from colleagues. The job got done, but individual efforts were not acknowledged. The only visible recognition was kudos given to the project leader and an increase in the size of his or her organization. As for the destiny of the project members, they were almost certainly guaranteed a role on the next project that closely resembled what they had done on the last project.
In any organization, there are Talent Magnets, people who attract the best talent, utilize it to its fullest, and ready it for the next stage. These are leaders who have a reputation not only for delivering results, but for creating a place where young, talented people can grow. They are accelerators to other people’s careers.
Mitt Romney operated as a Talent Magnet. He accelerated the career of Meg Whitman, who went on to be CEO of eBay and lead an eighty-eight times increase in revenue. Not only did he have this impact on Meg, Mitt was a magnet and an accelerator in the careers of hundreds of people with a similar story.
Perhaps you are a Talent Magnet. Would your people describe you as someone who recognizes talented people, draws them in, and utilizes them at their fullest? Would they say they have grown more around you than any other manager they have worked for? Or would they describe you as someone who pulled them into your organization not as a talent to be developed, but more as a resource to be deployed and then left to languish? Or would they perhaps say that they were heavily recruited but not given a meaningful role—rather just a visible role, and served as a showpiece or hood ornament in your organization?
Some leaders are like magnets that draw in talent and develop it to its fullest. Other leaders acquire resources to build their empire. This chapter explores the difference in these two approaches to the management of talent and the impact that these leaders have on the people around them.
THE EMPIRE BUILDER VERSUS THE TALENT MAGNET
Multipliers operate as Talent Magnets. They attract talented people and then use them to their fullest; you might think of it as working at their highest point of contribution. They get access to the best talent, not because they are necessarily great recruiters, but rather because people flock to work for them. As Meg Whitman found Mitt Romney, people seek out a Talent Magnet. They do so knowing their capabilities will be appreciated and knowing their value will also appreciate in the marketplace.
In contrast, Diminishers operate as Empire Builders who hoard resources and underutilize talent. They bring in top talent and make big promises, but they underutilize their people and disenchant them. Why? Because they are often amassing the resources for self-promotion and their own gain. Empire builders accumulate people. They collect people like knickknacks in a curio cabinet—on display for everyone to see, but not well utilized.
Each of these approaches produces a self-perpetuating cycle. The Talent Magnet spawns a virtuous cycle of attraction and the Empire Builder spawns a vicious cycle of decline.
A Cycle of Attraction
In 1914, Ernest Shackleton, the venerated British explorer, embarked on an expedition to traverse Antarctica. His recruitment advertisement in The Times (London) read:
Men wanted: For hazardous journey. Small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in case of success.
Surprisingly, hundreds of men applied. Shackleton, with the wisdom of an experienced captain, staffed his crew with men of a certain orientation—men who were attracted to adventure and recognition