Why you cannot pick leaders based on leadership characteristics | Managing Leadership

All hat, no cattle

We’ve spent the last couple of days talking about two distinct problems with the use of leadership characteristics lists to develop leaders. We noted that when advocates of superlative individual leadership attempt to raise the leadership persona to a level of self-referential virtue, they may actually be inadvertently promoting a harmful cult centered on personal loyalty, rather than the pursuit of organizational aims.

But, of course, we persist in trying to sort out this fundamentally flawed premise. So, today, we’ll briefly cover a third problem: the notion that we can use such lists of traits to identify people as (or as not) leaders, and safely assign or promote them on that basis.

In this context, let me mention that I am currently reading Team of Rivals, by Doris Kearns Goodwin, at the much-appreciated recommendation of Wally Bock, author of Three Star Leadership. The author provides an excellent explanation of Abraham Lincoln’s difficulties with the generals he initially relied upon to prosecute the Civil War.

She explains in brilliant detail how these officers so dramatically possessed one or another of the unmistakable marks of leadership. One inspired fabulous loyalty and “followership.” Another was intelligent and forward-looking. Yet another was renowned for technical competence. All were utter, even disastrous failures.

We all know who not only ultimately succeeded, but who literally triumphed as commander of the Union forces. It was Ulysses S. Grant. Moreover, he rose to notice not for his possession of any item in this class of personal leadership traits. In fact, he seemed to possess none of them. He never drew attention to himself and, indeed, seemed hardly ever to attract any; he even had a distinctly non-military bearing.

What he did do, is the job. Over and over again, with reference solely to accomplishment of his mission, rather than to the aggrandizement of his own reputation or career. His battlefield victories - not his personal characteristics - are what brought him to Lincoln’s attention and, ultimately, to successful command.

This is a strikingly problematic area. The idea that we can recognize leaders based on their personalities (and without meaningful reference to their results) seems to have quite a hold on people, even to the point where it flies in the face of contradictory facts, the existence of which they acknowledge.

We wind up getting people who are, as they say in Texas, all hat and no cattle. Moreover, we can be so seduced by form that we throw substance out the window. There can hardly be a better example of this than was provided in a timely and insigtful comment to yesterday’s post, made by Steve Roesler, author of All Things Workplace.

One of Lincoln’s own significant personal characteristics, and one that indeed contributed to his accomplishments, was the ability to stand outside the hysterically intoxicating passions that were swept up by the urgency of the issues, clouding deliberate consideration of them. He was always ultimately able to ground his actions in the higher purpose they were intended to serve, rather than in what he or others thought ought to originate from him as a person - and he had plenty of pressure to do the latter.

Moreover, he sought people for assignment to positions of authority who were, ultimately, able to do the same.

So should you.

—

Here are all the posts in this series:

—

Today’s tip: Yesterday’s Business Week included a timely piece, given our discussion here yesterday of the problems with the concept of inspirational leadership, about - you guessed it: inspirational leadership. It even has its own list of secrets, so please do take a moment to read it. Then come back to tell us what you think is really being described.

—

Did you know you can click on the green “Share This” icon below and uplink this post to any of the major social content sites, or email it to your friends and colleagues? Give it a try right now! (And, while you’re at it, don’t forget to subscribe, and encourage your friends and colleagues to do so, as well!)

6 Comments

Joe Raasch wrote:

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your writing on traits v. accomplishments! I’ve experienced similar outcomes in some of the companies where I’ve worked. Demonstrated competencies are a better gauge when a metaphorical Civil War isn’t available to test people. These competencies should reflect the type of leader the company wants, not an idealistic version from a book.

Oh, and that BusinessWeek article? They’re describing what managers get paid to do - performance management.

Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 6:08 pm | Permalink
Jim Stroup wrote:

Hello Joe,

Thanks for your visit and your comments.

Companies should infer potential from performance - not personality. And I agree, hopefully they can view that performance in an environment short of armed conflict - or any confict!

In pointing out my use of Goodwin’s book to use that metaphor, you touch on another topic of some importance here. Although I used a discussion of military leaders to illustrate my discussion, I used it to make a negative point about the leadership personality. Many efforts to discover and illustrate that putative personality are based on “studies” of great military commanders.

The point I wanted to toss into the mix here is that I consider that effort to be gravely misguided. The notion that civilian managers have anything of value to learn from individual commanders at war is beset with serious problems, and should be approached with the greatest caution - although they have a great deal to learn from the organizational dymanics of military units engaged in warfare.

I think you’re right to identify the capabilities promoted in the article as those of a manager. In particular, I think they represent the “sales” side of management - anyone who has worked in sales or read books about that field will recognize almost every recommendation made in that article. And it is a useful set of capabilities for managers to have to promote productivity and performance.

Thanks so much for your thoughtful comments - I may have to do a post or two about some of the ideas you have provoked!

Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 8:22 pm | Permalink
Cam Beck wrote:

All accounts of McClellan state that we was well regarded, which I’ve always interpreted to mean he possessed a lot of personal qualities people expect to see in leaders. But when the rubber hit the road, he was indecisive, self-aggrandizing, and even vindictive. Between McClellan and Grant, the greatest difference was their character, as it is measured through dedication to a cause greater than themselves. Grant stood up for it. McClellan stood up for himself.

“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” - Abraham Lincoln

Friday, October 12, 2007 at 5:55 pm | Permalink
Jim Stroup wrote:

Cam, McClellan is the prime example of the problem among Grant’s predecessors, and you used one of my favorite Lincoln quotes in a management context. Great minds!

Thanks for your visit!

Saturday, October 13, 2007 at 1:49 pm | Permalink
Eric Brown wrote:

Jim - Great series you have going here.

I’ve been re-reading Warren Bennis’ “Managing the Dream” and couldn’t help be think the posts I’ve been reading over the last few days/weeks. In this book, Bennis outlines very defined characteristics of ‘Leaders’ and makes it seem that only leaders with those characteristics will be able to lead.

Leadership isn’t something that can be defined so narrowly as many researchers and writers try to do. You can’t check to see if someone has a ‘leadership trait’, and if they do, expect them to be successful in any position because they ‘fit the leadership model’.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 at 5:36 am | Permalink
Jim Stroup wrote:

Hello Eric,

Thanks for your visits and your kind comments.

The modern leadership movements gurus come principally from academia and the consultancies, and the reference you provide is a good example of what they offer.

I think you are exactly right: it is far too narrow an approach which manifestly fails to fit the uses to which it is actually put, and the avenues of expression it generally finds, by and among real people at real work.

Thanks so much for your insight and (I’ve been reading your blog, too!) your work - keep it up!

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 at 11:12 am | Permalink