Against the mystification of leadership

Leadership has become a mystical concept, infused with an almost magical significance. The sheer volume of definitions, scopes, depths, and problem spaces we assign to leaders has reached an absurd level. We expect leaders to possess all-encompassing wisdom and an ability to address every conceivable challenge. They are burdened with the responsibility to navigate areas that often lie far outside their expertise, and also outside of what can be reasonably considered their business. This is not only an unreasonable expectation but also a dangerous set-up.

Additionally, organizations often conveniently assign responsibilities to leaders that could and should be covered by other roles, organisational designs or structures, processes and tools. This not only overwhelms leaders but also overlooks the potential contributions of other solutions. Such practices further perpetuate the myth of the all-powerful, multifunctional, multi-use leader and hinder the development of a well-rounded and effective organizational structure.

These inflated expectations inevitably lead to overreach. Leaders, driven by the need to meet these impossible standards, frequently overstep their boundaries. They venture into domains where their involvement is neither necessary nor beneficial.

Let me give two examples out of way too many:

Leaders don’t need to provide meaning and purpose: In organisations people employed are adults, and adults already possess their own sense of meaning and purpose, shaped by personal values, experiences, and aspirations. Expecting leaders to create or instill this is unrealistic, unnecessary and overreaching.

1. The assumption that leaders need to provide meaning and purpose undermines the autonomy and self-determination of team members. Adults are capable of knowing their own purpose or what is meaningful to them and aligning this with their work. Adults don’t change what they find meaningful or what is a purpose worth pursuing with every company they work in.
2. The role of a leader should be to facilitate alignment between the organizational goals and the existing purposes of their team members, if they so choose or need. This involves recognizing the diverse motivations individuals bring to the table, rather than trying to impose a one-size-fits-all sense of purpose (which is way too often the case particularly at higher organisational levels). People can do the same thing for an array of diverse reasons that are meaningful to them.
3. The pressure on leaders to provide meaning and purpose can distract from their primary responsibilities. People need their leaders to focus on what matters, not chase spectacular, non-existent problems.

Leaders are not coaches, counselors, or therapists: While they might use coaching methods, their main job is to facilitate performance. Leaders should avoid taking on the role of coaches for their teams because it creates conflicts of interest and undermines their effectiveness. Also, even if they use coaching methods, they should always ask for consent before going coaching mode in a 101.

The distinct functions of leadership and coaching must remain separate for several key reasons:

1. The power dynamics inherent in leadership roles and the leader's agenda can compromise the outcome.
2. Coaching requires significant time and specialized skills that many leaders don’t have and do not need to have. Mentoring, consulting or even training on the other hand are methods that can very well get the job done.
3. Mixing leadership and coaching roles blurs the lines between guidance and evaluation. The leader is never an "agenda free" coach in the relationship, nor should they be.
4. Getting into coaching territory, particularly without being invited, or even worse on matters that are not linked with in-role performance crosses the boundaries of what that relationship should be.

And the list can go on… and on ... and on. What else is NOT the leader's business?

LE: I have another one

Expecting leaders to effectively assess during interviews the candidates' personality, values, attitudes, or other psychological aspects. Expecting them to assess this beyond a self-reported answer that the candidate gives. Even trained psychologists, armed with rigorously validated instruments, cannot say with certainty what an individual's personality, attitudes, or values are—especially through indirect assessment methods.

... and don't get me started on the assessment of Future Potential.

Measuring potential is a complex task that even psychologists, despite extensive research and numerous attempts, have not been able to accomplish with certainty. Even with sophisticated tools and methodologies, we cannot definitively measure potential because it is not a static attribute but a fluid interplay of abilities, opportunities, and environmental factors.