The extraordinary characteristics attributed to putatively great leaders continue to attract supporters and vast amounts of commentary. Since this happens in an evidential vacuum, however, they inevitably tend to take on increasingly distorted features.
They seem to begin reasonably enough, describing personality traits we might be expected to associate with leaders – intelligence, technical competence, and focus. Then they expand into martial virtues such as courage and willpower. Soon enough we find ourselves in spiritual territory, talking about moral compasses and the like.
At this point, discipline – such as it ever was – breaks down completely. In short order we are talking about essentially mystical, characteristics that real leaders in our impenetrably confusing modern times must have.
Then, when all of that has lost its novelty, we start over again, only more so. We begin to insist that there are actually special, previously undiscovered or imperfectly appreciated features of ground we’ve already covered, that must be worried over yet again.
And so, characteristics that started out life as more-or-less plausible pointers to leadership now come to describe beings of larger-than-life, mythic proportions. And with that, these leaders can seem to overshadow the very organizations in the service of which they are nominally appointed – however improbable, mind you, such an idea may actually be in the “real world.”
Indeed, we twist and torture these traits around until one might be forgiven for experiencing concern at the prospect of confronting such a being as could actually possess them. What sorts of persons might such as these be?
After all, they take their inspiration from imitating saints and warriors. They examine genius in its many forms throughout history. They are admonished to study even themselves, through deep contemplation of everything from Japanese rock gardens to – really – the contents of their childhood toy boxes.
What big shoes they fill! But, then, clowns wear big shoes, too.
—
Today’s tip: When all is said and done, it might be more helpful if CEOs regarded the aims and reputations of their organizations with greater attention than their own. And it would appear that those who do serve both better. Please see this eye-opening piece from the WSJ by George Anders on the effects of “hard” versus “soft” leadership traits.
—
Why not try out this feature provided here by Answers.com: If you double-click on any (non-hypertext-linked) word on the main page of the site, a window will open providing definitions or encyclopedic material about that term, together with links to additional sources of information. Try it out - it’s interesting and fun.
And, of course, while you’re clicking around, don’t forget to click on your choice of an email or RSS-feed subscription to these pages - we’ll be proud to have you join us!
Similar Posts:
- The natural-born leader
- Vices and virtues
- Leadership and organizational purpose
- Will lead for food
- Sins and sanctimony
Technorati Tags: characteristic, leader, personality, trait, intelligence, competence, focus, virtue, courage, willpower, moral, discipline, leadership, organization, service, saint, warrior, genius, CEO, reputation, WSJ, George Anders
Sphere: Related Content
7 Comments
A relentlessly interesting topic, Jim. Thanks for your provacative post.
My own bias is to see organizational leaders as reflections of our culture. They’re “us” - good and bad, warts and all.
We want our leaders to be brilliant, folksy, visionary, down-to-earth, bold, humble, tough, tender – it goes on and on. We want it all, but we’re quick to criticize failings in all directions. Too authoritarian or scary, too narcissistic? Pull the plug. Too much the regular guy, too low-key, not tough enough? You’re gone. It can be unbelievably volatile: we worship you, but reserve the right to turn our backs on you when it all goes south.
I don’t see a pattern beyond the obvious – bottom line success brings converts to that approach to leadership. Suddenly the leader’s attributes are magnified, even sanctified.
My own preference, as a consultant, is toward quietly confident leaders who are comfortable inside their own skins, which results in a reasonably relaxed - but focused – cultural environment. At the human level, there are fewer energy-draining crises, less nonsense, less illness, and that’s because a good workplace atmosphere is “contagious.”
Yes, sometimes the leadership task is precisely the other way – to shake things up because the organization faces extinction if it doesn’t rise to a challenge. But an atmosphere of continuous crisis is only good for a few, the ones with the most competitive, combative temperament to survive, even thrive in those circumstances. It chews the rest of the people up.
But solutions aren’t obvious. De-mystifying leadership is a blood sport for some, no doubt fuelled by the ridiculous compensation going to Superstar CEO’s.
It’s just that I wish I could see evidence on the ground that leadership is just a “slot” to be occupied by a competently trained manager. Increasingly, my experience tends me toward an anthropological view of human behavior. People partially know their own motivations, but it’s still more visceral than we all wish was true.
.Leaders who somehow fill the bill, one way or another, help the others settle into their own comfort zones. We need to project pieces of ourselves onto the leader. Disarray or confusion at the top activates anxiety, aggression, and nudges things toward dysfunction.
It’s a truism to say that leaders, like NFL Quarterbacks, get too much credit for wins, and too much blame for losses – and the big money they get reinforces and compounds the easy cynicism and distortion of a more nuanced reality.
We seem to need to admire and resent the people who lead us, and they give us plenty of ammunition to do both.
Congratulations! This post was selected as one of the five best business blog posts of the week in my Three Star Leadership Midweek Review of the Business Blogs.
http://blog.threestarleadership.com/2008/07/30/73008-a-midweek-look-at-the-business-blogs.aspx
Wally Bock
Hello Shaun,
Thanks for this wonderful commentary, loaded with the sort of insight that comes from carefully considered experience.
I think one of the biggest problems with the modern leadership dialogue - both the supply and demand sides of it - is summed up in your observation: “. . . bottom line success brings converts to that approach to leadership. Suddenly the leader’s attributes are magnified, even sanctified.” If you’re the boss, you certainly will attribute the success to nothing other than your personal sterling leadership characteristics. If you’re the board or staff, you’re likely to buy into anything that seems to promises more success.
You also note, “We need to project pieces of ourselves onto the leader.” This is an aspect of the issue that needs more investigation. There is a lot of talk about the effects of the “leader” on everyone else, but not much about either how those effects are influenced by our own needs and reactions, or even how they are shaped from the source by them. This is good.
And I sure agree with your concluding line!
Thanks so much, Shaun, for stopping by with this - you’ve certainly given me plenty more to think about here. Hopefully, this will turn into something we and others can share thoughts about in the near future.
Perhaps the need to deify heads of corporations, AKA, leaders, reflects people’s current attitude of turning responsibility for their actions and outcomes over to a supreme being/power, which takes them off the hook since that responsibility can be spun in whatever direction is most comfortable. Of course, god complexes are generated in both directions and many ‘leaders’ exhibit serious cases.
What we need is a way to inoculate both leaders and followers against it.
Hello Miki,
I think what you say is a big part of the problem - the modern leadership movement caters not only to the need of so many of us to be seen as the hero, but at the same time to our fear of failure and uncertainty resulting in our hope to be rescued by one.
Inoculation - that would have to be administered early on in a person’s career, because the disorder is virulent and spreads rapidly, weakening - even destroying - much in its path. Or, at least, it is a largely irrelevant, unproductive - and even counter-productive - waste of time and energy.
So an inoculation would be a great help - let’s keep looking for it!
Hi Jim, Inoculation would be better started long before a career. It could start with parents who encouraged kids to stand on their own two feet, instead of fighting their battles for them and instilling in them the belief that they’re entitled and/or that all they have to do is pray for whatever.
Hello again Miki,
I hear you - but of course we have what we have to work with, and it really seems to me it can hardly be worse than what my generation offered our predecessors! Indeed, I’ve often found it to be amazing when offered the right management environment - but instilling our children with self-reliance would indeed be a strong inoculation against the concern we’re talking about here.
Post a Comment