We’re all supporting actors, in business and in life

Two of the awards most eagerly anticipated by movie fans at the Oscarswhich this year takes place on March 27, are for best supporting actress and actor† The prize recognizes the decisive contribution of these performers to a film’s plot and storyline, and how they provide depth, context by interacting with the other characters. There are few entertaining or successful films with only one main character: long monologues can be monotonous, and most of the time we only bother paying attention to them the once; a small cast usually means less color, nuance and tone; after all, films reflect our lives, which are social by definition.

In television and film, whether drama or comedy, there have to be connections between characters; supporting actors enhance and underpin the performance of the main characters. Their role in driving the action and providing exposition through dialogue underpins the stars’ leading position. indeed, the better supporting actors frequently help mediocre leads and provide the gravitas needed to save a film† this is typically the case with movies where there are nominations for supporting actors and none for the leads.

I am often reminded of British actor George Sanders‘performance in the 1950 movie All About Eve† where he plays a cynical theater critic who drives the career of supposed ingenue Anne Baxter †the scene below, from mentioned film, portrays George Sanders, a debutant Marilyn Monroe and the inimitable Bette Davis†

Providing a female counterpoint in the same film is Thelma Ritter’s peerless performance as aging star Bette Davis’ devoted assistant. In fact, Ritter was one of the most nominated actresses in Hollywood history, but never won an Oscar. †the scene below from same film portrays Thelma Ritter, Anne Baxter and Bette Davies†

Perhaps this is the fate of supporting actors: their role is fundamental, but they never get the recognition they deserve.

nevertheless, some Oscar winners in the best supporting actor category have also won best actor† notable examples include Meryl Streep† Jessica Lange† Denzel Washington and Jack Nicholson† Indeed, some critics have argued that the litmus test of acting is to be able shine in supporting roles, rising to the challenge of stealing scenes from the star, who will have more screen time.

Before the movies, novelists would create depth and perspective by creating secondary characters. Some of the great 19th century writers, who often published in installations, such as Leo Tolstoy or Charles Dickensexcelled in counterpoint, alternating the stories of the protagonists and the secondary characters, which typically converged towards a common denouement. The secondary characters contributed credibility and realism to the plot, in addition to supporting the lead figure† without Doctor Watson† Sherlock Holmes is arguably little more than a pedantic autocrat; similarly, Sancho Panza provides an anchor to Don Quixote‘s flights of fancy.

The analogy of performers or supporting characters in movies and literature can also help explain the role we play in organizations. In the first session of my Strategy course I usually advise my students, young managers typically aged around 30, that not all of them will go on to become CEOs; regardless of their skills and hard work, luck always plays a fundamental role in reaching that position.

We generally accept that the success of a company does not depend solely, or even primarily, on the CEO, but instead on the mix of workers and managers that make up the company. However, the management literature has given primacy to the analysis of leadership from the CEO’s perspective, with far less attention paid to the rest of the team, who in reality create most of the value in an organization. Public opinion, and even economic analysts, also attach special importance to senior managers, and the departure of the CEO of a public company can spark panic in the stock markets.

In reality, large corporations and well-managed companies are based on governance systems, with their checks and balances, along with systems that manage the distribution of power and succession, thus guaranteeing continuity, regardless of the wishes of individuals. Excessive concentration of authority in a single person should be limited by a company’s stakeholderseven if we inevitably tend to stamp institutions—from governments to multinationals—with the imprimatur of their leaders.

Business studies literature often talks about work teams as the generators of success in companies, but I prefer to speak of shared leadershipor even or leaders and followers, because in every team, a leader emerges who decides, while the rest implement; even if there is debate and diversity of opinion. The emphasis on the group is a mystification of what in reality are people who contribute in different and often unequal ways. Praising the team as an idea-generating entity can engender “groupthink”which in turn can suffocate critical capacity, innovation and renewal.

As most of us who work for organizations will know by now, we are part of the cast, followers, employees, because even if we reach the highest position, it is usually only for a limited period. what’s more, subordination to others is not in itself a negative thingand the elevation of the role we are given or choose to play in an organization depends on us, on how we take advantage of it and turn it into the best possible supporting role.

I believe that as professionals, we can learn a lot from the poise of the great supporting actors, embracing the secondary roles we are destined to play. When we are younger, it is best to accept that we still have much to learn, expertise to acquire, intelligence to be strengthened and common sense instilled; these are the gifts we will treasure with the passing of the seasons of life. Impatience is a poor mentorand has nothing to do with the healthy and prudent ambition that can lead us to undertake important missions.

For this reason, I would question the wisdom of some younger people to change companies if they are not promoted within three years; even if they are simply be following the mistaken advice of some experts and coaches. in fact, the research shows that staying with the same company generates better chances of promotion and access to the top than moving continually† The research is supported by the data, and I often advise my students to try to break out of such patterns, to think and act “outside the box” or better still, never to find themselves in a box in the first place.

But it is arguably in the later stages of our careers when we can learn most from the approach of supporting actors, especially for those who have held the highest positions, whatever their profession. after all, it is hard to abandon the throne, to adapt to being treated like a mere mortal after a few years at the top†

Many years ago, some of the more traditional universities would bring an end to a rector’s mandate with a public ritual. The institution’s teaching staff was assembled, and the outgoing president was stripped of his (it was always a man) black robe and the adornments of office as an expression of his loss of power and returned to teaching duties. Fortunately, this ceremony no longer exists, although its meaning could be related to the temporary nature of leadership, which is not unhealthy for institutions.

Some people think that having held positions such as CEO, president or general manager, seemingly lesser responsibilities will not be as satisfying or provide the recognition top jobs bring. Which is why it is all the more advisable to prepare and accommodate to the new situation, preferably before formally leaving one’s position.

Over the course of my career, I have met CEOs and managers who, for whatever reason, have not come to terms with vacating positions of power. Artists and actors are not the only divas; such behavior is common among many who have exercised active leadership, especially in business. The vacuum left by responsibilities over people and resources is usually filled by dedication to the family, or to other interests. But there is always a tendency to perform functions similar to those that were occupied in the past. For that reason it might not be a bad idea in the run up to leaving high office to consider the following recommendations:

• firstly, our later years provide new opportunities to shine more brightly than ever† One example I often cite is Immanuel Kantone of the most influential philosophers in history, who published his most important work, The Critique of Pure Reasonat the age of 63. In the business world, the impact of leaders such as Jack Welch or Richard Bransonor in management thought, figures such as Peter Drucker or Charles Handy, stand out. In the world of cinema, where longevity traditionally comes at a cost, veteran Welsh actor Anthony Hopkins won his first Oscar last year at the age of 83.
• Humility is a fundamental virtue if we are to continue learning, at any stage of life, especially when occupying the highest positions† It is deeply satisfying to know that we can study new things, and besides, such an approach is beneficial for the brain, for our physical and mental health. Frequent restarts help keep us feeling younger, a healthier frame of mind and enable us to better accept disappointments.
• Furthermore, embracing the ups and downs of life makes us more attractive people, projecting self-confidence and strength† In contrast, refusing to accept the inevitable demeans us, making us appear insecure and weak.

In short, moving from the limelight to being a member of the cast doesn’t have to be the twilight of our careers. As Robert Kelley wrote in his seminal 1988 HBR article, In Praise of Followers† “the reality is that most of us are more often followers than leaders.” To support others is far from being an also-ran: just ask the eight men and women who will be hoping take home an Oscar this year.

†

You may visit my INSTAGRAM account here