From: Dov Frohman

To: Shmuel Rosner

Re: Leadership

Shmuel Shalom,

Your questions definitely strike at the essence of the book. Since I do not consider myself a leadership guru, I will answer them based on my personal leadership perspective.

Your questions and dilemmas are a strong indication as to why leadership has to be performed the hard way and why it cannot be taught. You can learn it only by doing it, it is counterintuitive and tested only in a crisis. Confronting a crisis is very personal and you will in most cases forget what you were taught and rely on what you have learned from your past experience i.e. intuition.

Let me start by pointing out that in my opinion Ehud Olmert is not a leader. He does Olmert: Botched leadership in Lebanonnot meet any of the attributes of a leader as reflected (but not listed) in the book. I will mention some of them without elaboration since they are obvious; integrity, driving change against the current, turning crisis into opportunity, people skills. He thinks peace talks are his lifeline, but he does not have the capability of driving a solution against the current (he did not have it before the Lebanon fiasco) or the coalition support to execute it. As a result let me answer your question by stating how a real leader would act and behave in a situation like this.

I believe that a leader who fails and does not take responsibility looses public support and the authority to act in the next crisis and becomes a lame duck leader. It is an integrity issue, he needs to resign and run again if he believes the nation cannot do without him or wait for people to go to the streets and ask him to stay... or else resign and run again like Rabin did.

I agree with you that "differentiating between the 'grandiose' and the 'talent,' between the 'personal' and the 'organizational' is a very tricky business," but I believe it can and should be done. The difference between grandiosity and talent is mainly in believing in the possibility of being wrong. Personal survival equates to not being accountable for failures, and pursuing a personal agenda. This is a major integrity and organization survival issue, because if you have "survived" once you will try to do it again. Every office holder has the human instinct of staying in office as long as possible. Real leaders differentiate between their wish to pursue a personal survival agenda and the organization’s long term interest and success (see addendum below).

While successful leadership may only be seen "in hindsight," leaders must take risks without knowing in advance what the outcome will be (it's easy to judge in retrospect) and be accountable when they fail.

As to your comment that "what you say may apply to a rare (and possibly extinct) type of leaders" --- I agree that they are rare today and this is probably why the world is in such sad shape. So if they are indeed extinct it may be time to reincarnate them!

And now to your summary question: Yes, it is definitely more important to make the leader accountable than to make him stay! Taking individual responsibility is a major Israeli problem due to the strong affinity between teamwork and group responsibility. The fact that there is no visible good alternative is not an excuse for a tainted leader to stay in office, since he does not have the authority or the trust of the people and is not capable of driving major decisions. If there is no alternative the next government will most likely be a balanced coalition like we had in the past, which will cause less harm than an impotent head of state. The country will definitely not be in worse shape than with a lame duck leader who tries to satisfy everybody in order to stay in power.

A leader needs to make room if not for a short term better alternative, then at least for a long term one.

People do not like elections, especially Parliament members who stand to lose their seat, but it is the only way in a democracy to decide the fate of leadership.

Have fun!

Dov

P.S. If I juxtapose the two quotes below, it looks like you do see the paradox:

I don’t see the paradox. It is quite clear even to a non-leader like myself that personal agendas can unhinge on organizations’ – or, more importantly, countries’ – chances to survive...They tend to think that for the organization to survive they need to stay at the helm.

Well, they simply confuse their personal agenda with the survival of the organization regardless of their performance. Which implies these leaders cannot see what is obvious to you.

From: Shmuel Rosner

To: Dov Frohman

Re: Leadership

Dear Dov,

I should first thank you for tolerating our differences with a smile. To be truthful, I was hardly expecting you to accept my interpretation of your book without protest, and it should come as no surprise to you that I still see your description of leadership as somewhat unique to the Israeli psyche – and even more so to the psyche of someone with your personal background as a Holocaust survivor.

But since we don’t want to bore our patient readers with the nuances of our different outlook on “leadership-survival” let me try and build upon both the book and your response as to raise another issue crucial to this discussion. You wrote:

I'm very skeptical about so-called leaders who have such a grandiose view of their own talents that they never imagine something going wrong.

And in the book you say:

If a leader is too focused on his own personal survival as head of the organization, he may end up, paradoxically, undermining the organization’s long-term capacity to survive.

My problem here is twofold: First, I don’t see the paradox. It is quite clear even to aThe disasters of failing to distinguish national from personal interest non-leader like myself that personal agendas can unhinge on organizations’ – or, more importantly, countries’ – chances to survive. Second – and this is where I see a more acute problem in your argument – what you say may apply to a rare (and possibly extinct) type of leaders. Most leaders I know – and I’ve been following mostly political leaders both in Israel and in the US – can hardly differentiate between their survival and the organizations’. They tend to think that for the organization to survive they need to stay at the helm. One can look at it as a questionable pursuing of narcissistic agenda, but I tend to think about it as human nature – as one of the things is inherent to the leaders’ mind.

I say all this, as I want to try and drag you to a discussion of Israel’s political leadership and how your book might apply to their skills and faults. Take, for example, the decision made by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert not to resign after the relative failure of the second Lebanon war. On the one hand – he was definitely pursuing what you might consider an agenda that’s “too focused on his own personal survival”. On the other hand he will say to you that for him to stay was the right thing to do for the benefit of the “organization”.

And here I go back to your response and to your “skeptical” view of leaders who have a “grandiose view of their own talents”. Does Olmert fall into this category when he decides to stay – or maybe he is right by assessing by staying he can help the organization – in this case the military, the country, the government – be better prepared for the next round, hence increasing its chances of “survival”.

My point here is this: in many cases, differentiating between the “grandiose” and the “talent”, between the “personal” and the “organizational” is a very tricky business. More often than not, this can only be done after the fact, in hindsight. I was making similar point writing about your decision to leave Intel Israel opened during the first Gulf War. It made you a leader, because no one was hurt.

That brings me to the point with which I will conclude this letter.

You write (again, in your response) that “leaders should be accountable for their failures,” hinting that had something gone wrong with your risky decision in the Gulf War you’d have paid the personal price. I’d suspect that you might say the same thing about the political leadership responsible for dragging Israel into Lebanon – a reasonable “calculated risk” in the eyes of most people when the decision was taken, that turned out to be not well enough calculated.

But here is the dilemma with which Israelis now must cope, and to which you do not give sufficient answer: is it more important to make sure that a leader is “accountable” – meaning, pay a personal price for the failure (or lack of success) in this war? Or is it more important to again take a “calculated risk” and let him stay – as the other options do not seem very attractive to most Israelis?

Best,

Rosner

From: Dov Frohman
To: Shmuel Rosner
Re: Leadership

Dear Shmuel,

Thanks for your message and interesting perspective about my book. It's fascinating to see what readers make of what I was trying to say.

The writer of this book naturally exposes himself enthusiastically to the readers’ interpretation. In a way tolerating with a smile the different interpretations provides both an opportunity to expand on the book’s messages and a humbling experience in dealing with critical interpretations and proposals for restatement of the essence of the book.

I believe that with a little bit of luck I will survive your critical insights...

That said, I have to disagree with your conclusion that my message about leadership is, in effect, 'paranoia plus luck.' I think it is too simplistic. Let me try to explain why.

On survival: I don't think insisting on survival can be reduced to mere paranoia. It's not necessarily paranoid to not take survival for granted or even to always be anticipating the worst in a situation. It's simply part of the responsibility of being a leader. I'm very skeptical about so-called leaders who have such a grandiose view of their own talents that they never imagine something going wrong; examples abound both in Israel and the US.

My childhood experience taught me that people with strong values who are willing to take risks can make a decisive difference in a survival situation. The same goes with what we did at Intel Israel during the First Gulf War. If the organization had just been "paranoid," we would never have been able to do what we did. In both cases there was a real life threatening danger which obviated the need for paranoia.

So stressing survival may be ‘against the current’ but it does not equate with paranoia.

On risk-taking: I believe that good leaders 'make their own luck’. Or as Seneca the Roman philosopher put it more succinctly “Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.”

A leader has to take calculated risks, if it works it is a success and if it does not it is a failure. In my mind there are no quasi successes or quasi failures; this is part of the essence of leadership the hard way. A success can always be interpreted by observers as luck and failure as circumstantial but leaders should be accountable for their failures. During the First Gulf War, I understood full well that there was some possibility that one of our sites would be hit by a Scud. But I judged that risk worth taking and made it clear to my people that I would take responsibility for that decision whatever happens.

On the future success of Israeli high tech: Admitting that the success and future of Hi Tech in Israel is not necessarily based on heroics and the Jewish genius but rather on a survival instinct that drives creativity and teamwork is not sad. It is rather an against the current observation that is important for long term success. While in many respects the 'turbulence' of the Israeli/Middle East environment has been enabling for our high-tech industry and helped make it successful globally, it is also possible to have too much turbulence and too much instability. It should lead to a sobering conclusion that Israeli Hi-tech is vulnerable.

I do believe that Israeli Hi-tech can survive in chaos and turbulence based on our competitive record, but in order to survive through success and flourish in the future it is strongly dependent on a stable political and economic environment.

In summary, a survival thrust should not be confused with paranoia. In this age of pervasive communication, networking and instant gratification the young generation tends to take survival for granted and ignore the turbulence, not only in Israel but worldwide. A wake up call may be in order.

Taking advantage of random opportunities does not equate to luck. The launching of Intel Israel was based on a vision, and not on either luck or paranoia. In fact not only the EPROM invention but most major inventions have a strong accidental element in them! Admitting that the invention was nearly accidental is ‘against the current’ and may offend some inventors but it was not based on luck.

This book in my mind is about learning and bootstrapping leadership the hard way through life experience and invisible mentorship; paranoia and luck are only observed side effects.

I am thoroughly enjoying this exchange, I hope you do too!

Have fun!

Dov

Dov Frohman is the founder of the Israeli branch of the Intel corporation. In a career spanning four decades, he invented the EPROM — the first reprogrammable read-only semiconductor memory — and was one of the driving forces in the high-tech boom in the Israeli economy. He has also served as visiting professor at the University of Science and Technology in Kumasi, Ghana, and as professor of applied physics at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel, where he directed the School of Applied Science and Technology.

We asked Shmuel Rosner, the chief US correspondent for Haaretz, to interview Frohman about his new book Leadership the Hard Way --- and the insights it contains about the qualities that define leadership, how they have been applied historically, and how they have yet to be applied to global and Israeli politics.

From: Shmuel Rosner
To: Dov Frohman
Re: Leadership

Dear Dov,

I think I should start our dialogue – dedicated to discussing your new book - with a confession. If it was not for the creative minds of Jewcy editors, I would have never read your book. I should thank them for this opportunity, as it was a pleasure reading it, and also a strange experience for someone totally unaccustomed to reading “how to” guides or “business” books.

But truth is, your book is not really about business. It is about leadership. You say that it can’t be taught but then goes on and try and teach us something anyway. “If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience," wrote George Bernard Shaw. But you seem to disagree: making us learn from your experience as a high-tech inventor, a Holocaust survivor, as businessman, manager, pioneer really, is what you’re trying to do.

This proves you to be an optimist at heart, although reading the book doesn’t give one such impression. It is not about the excitement of discovery, or the triumph of originality and dedication – but rather about the constant struggle for survival. You survived under Nazi rule as a child, you survived a deadly storm as a pilot, you survived wars as an Israeli, you survived the ups and downs of the rollercoaster that is the global economy. Survived – and started worrying again without even a pause to breath, to enjoy the moment.

In a way, your book can be read as a sad story about the booming high-tech industry of Israel. We would have loved to think that Israel’s success in that field is all about Jewish genius, or maybe about our youthful spirit, or about our unique organized-mess way of thinking. And it is – to a point. But if your book is to be believed it is not mostly about all those positive qualities of Israelis, but rather about their paranoid nature.

Here’s a quote from the second chapter, the one officially dealing with survival (the other chapters all deal with the same topic but under different names):

I realize that my preoccupation – some might say obsession – with survival is, at least in part, a by-product of my experience as a child during the Second World War.

And here’s one from chapter four, Leadership Under Fire, in which you describe your decision, as the head of Intel Israel, to leave your labs and offices opened as the first Gulf War was forcing factories, businesses and offices to close down because of the threat of Iraqi missiles:

I was convinced that a complete shut-down of our operations threatened the long-term survival of Intel Israel… The key stumbling block to further investment in Israel was the lingering impression of geopolitical instability in the region… I made quick decision. We weren’t going to take the easy way out. We would ignore the civil defense instruction. We were going to make our people come to work.

Here we have it, in full color: survival meets survival. The need to protect your employees, help them survive the Iraqi attack contradicts the need for the small Israeli branch of the world power that is Intel that it can operate under the conditions inherent to the Israeli neighborhood. The Israeli government chose to close the country down – you chose to spite the government and go to work.

This was leadership, you say, but as all leaders luck was on your side. Had a missile hit Intel, had dozens of workers been hurt, maybe severely, by your decision - this would have been considered an act of carelessness, of bungled priorities.

This is also a motive that runs through the book. Your had a great invention, the EPROM (and I’m going to refrain from getting into technical details here, but let me just use the quote from the book saying that this product has helped “Intel’s revenues grew seven-fold, from $9 million in 1971 to $66 million in 1973”) – and this invention came about almost by accident.

So there it is – my version of your recipe for successful leadership: the perfect mixture of paranoia and luck. The Israeli secret that lead the country to be one of the most successful high-tech communities in the word – “a tiny country” that “have more than 70 companies listed in the U.S. NASDAQ stock exchange – and attract twice that venture capital investment as the entire European Union”.

But let me ask you this: is it worth the price of such paranoia, such fear for survival?

All the best,

Shmuel