When it comes to leadership, the first and worst misconception is that leadership is a formal role, title, or position. In other words, that being a leader is being a boss.
In fact, most bosses have little talent for leadership, which explains why most people dislike their boss, job or career, and why if you Google “my boss is” (in any language or country) the autocomplete options are far from uplifting.
Leadership, correctly understood, is a psychological process of influence that turns chaotic and selfish group activity into a high-performing team. It is the suite of fundamental skills that enables a group of people to leave aside their individualistic agendas and change their behaviour to enable coordinated human activity. If everything that has ever been accomplished in the history of human evolution is the result of effective group activity – people collaborating to attain something they wouldn’t be able to attain alone, something greater than themselves – then leadership is the fundamental driving force of progress, innovation and civilisation.
One of the silver linings of the current pandemic is that it has highlighted just how impactful leadership is – both good and bad. When times are good, leaders are actually pretty irrelevant. They can operate in default mode and struggle to change and innovate. But when times are bad, and teams, organisations and nations face feral threats, uncertain circumstances and heightened stress, leaders have nowhere to hide. Bad leaders can’t get away with a crisis, and good leaders have an opportunity to really shine.
It is often said that crises equal opportunities, and while this has turned into another HR cliché, there is still a fundamental truth in the saying: crises are opportunities to lead. If you have the ability to keep people calm, engaged, hopeful and productive – even in the toughest of circumstances – then you can call yourself a true leader. If your contribution to leadership was to perpetuate the status quo when everything was fine, then you were disposable before – and you’re a liability right now. Good leaders manage crises; bad leaders create them.
I have been studying leadership for 20 years, so I appreciate that crises get people more interested in the subject. If you speak, write, consult or coach in leadership then you will notice that people are suddenly paying more attention to the subject, just like masks or working from home suddenly became interesting recently. At the same time, I am not sure that we can turn this crisis into a real opportunity to create the necessary changes in people’s mindset, so that they go from theory to practice, from science to reality, and from data to decisions, when it comes to appointing, selecting, voting and selecting our leaders.
Fundamentally, we have to reimagine leadership if we want to improve the order of things and build a better future, one in which the majority, rather than minority, of leaders are well-equipped to handle a crisis. People need to be led, which in simple terms means trusting their lives to some individuals who are better able to make key decisions. The main reason some groups, organisations and societies outperform their rivals, is that they have the ability to select stronger leaders.
The six leadership myths
If we can substitute some of the myths underpinning bad leadership choices and practices with evidence-based decisions, we will improve the quality of our leaders. And nothing in the world would improve the world more than high-quality leadership. This, imagine, is a world in which googling “my boss is” would result in “inspiring”, “amazing”, “rational”, “curious”, “humble” and “moral” as default hits. Even if you search for political leaders.
In order to achieve this, we must demolish these six myths:
-
The confidence myth: Contrary to popular belief, there is no advantage in picking confident leaders. The overlap between confidence and competence is 9%, and in any area of talent those who have more of it tend to be more self-critical, humble and self-aware, than those who have less.
-
The lean-in myth: There is no need for people to “lean-in” in order to be considered leaders, particularly when they are women. Instead of blaming women for not leaning in, we should stop falling for people (usually men) who lean in when they don’t have the talents to support their claims. If we were able to focus on substance rather than style, we would not make self-promotion, bragging or political manoeuvring a key precondition to be a leader.
-
The charisma myth: Charisma is not a key requirement for leadership, and when it is not coupled with competence, integrity or empathy, it is likely to do more damage than good. Of course, when leaders are talented and honest, it can be great for them to have charisma, as they will be more effective and influential. But if they are dishonest or inept you want to hope they have as little charisma as possible, to mitigate their damage.
-
The strengths myth: Contrary to popular myth, the best leaders don’t overuse their strengths. They pay lots of attention to their weaknesses, in order to minimise or mitigate them. They don’t seek positive feedback in order to feel great, but value negative feedback in order to get better. All great leaders are a work in progress, and in order to improve they understand that it’s essential to control their undesirable or maladaptive tendencies.
-
The authenticity myth: The best leaders are not authentic. They learn very early to control their impulses, and worry a great deal about what other people think of them. They are aware of the fact that they need to be the best rather than the most unfiltered or uncensored version of themselves, especially when they lead. For all the talks about “being yourself”, “bringing your true self to work” or “not worrying about what others think of you”, the reality is that such narcissistic advice is likely to make you a less effective leader. The real you is someone who perhaps your closest friends and relatives have learned to love.
-
The meritocracy myth: This is the myth that results from all the other myths; if we didn’t pick people for leadership roles based on their confidence, tendency to lean in, be charismatic, play to their strengths (and ignore their weaknesses), or be “authentic”, then we would see leadership as a meritocratic contest. Instead, you can go into any organisation or nation and ask people whether the people at the top are the most capable, honest or hard-working people – and in 99% of the cases they will laugh at you.
So, lets unlearn leadership as we know it, to relearn it in a constructive and evidence-based way. In a normal world, we would not have needed a pandemic to understand that people are generally better off when their leaders are smart, rational, honest, kind and humble. A hard way to learn this lesson, so hopefully it shall stick.
