Behind the Curtains – The focus on leadership in narratives of successful change

It's important to look behind the curtains and move beyond the "great man" theory of leadership, which attributes historical events solely to the actions of powerful individuals. While leadership is undoubtedly important, it's equally important to acknowledge and recognize the collective effort and the distributed nature of change in the narratives.

It's true that we often see change attributed to a single figurehead, whether it's the Chief Executive Officers, Philanthropists, Revolutionaries or Political Leaders. This raises the question: why this emphasis on individual leaders, and does it do a disservice to the collective effort involved?

Is it enough or justified to only acknowledge the collective efforts while the limelight of the final result is focused on one person? Is it because we assume that statistically we human beings gravitate towards 'simple narratives', just because they are clear and easily digestible? Or, is it because it is a lazy and easier way of showcasing Leaders as symbolic representations of the change itself?

Forming the narrative in a manner to focus on a single figurehead underplays the contributions of numerous other factors, such as social movements, technological advancements, economic conditions, and the collective efforts of many. Also, the mentions of these other contributors are mostly downplayed in these narratives and not enough emphasis is given unless it is part of a case study or a research paper. The common people form the majority audience on the receiving end of such narratives, such narratives would continue to shape our minds only in that one direction. ?This reflects the "Great Man" theory of history, which has been widely criticized for its simplistic and biased view of historical processes.

Only if we shift this mindset shall we be able to even see the other possibilities of 'what is' and 'what could be' beyond this 'Great Man' theory. In one of my past jobs where I was closely working along with the Steering Committee, I remember the VP of Operations addressing the team during an all-hands meeting saying that he preferred all his peers to be champions and not just one or two. His words made a lot of sense; only a true champion would wish that everyone around him or her is also a champion of equal talent in their own capacities, this way, you don't marginalize or create discrimination.

The sad truth has always been that we have been pushed too hard, our critical thinking crippled since the very beginning, to look up to this 'Great Man' from a certain point of view. It has become a given to always shine the limelight on the protagonist in a certain forced-acceptable manner. However, the paradox I see, based on this thought I am trying to express, that in a manner I am asking the limelight to be shone on a ‘non-figurehead’, interestingly the moment that limelight hits this ‘non-figurehead’, our brains, automatically revert to seeing the ‘non-figurehead’ as the 'Great Man' and this 'Great Man' never ceases to exist thus contradicting my initial thought unless, of course, we put in some effort to see this from a shifted perspective.

Having said that, this focus on leadership, the way it has always been (sort of a tunnel vision) can obscure the contributions of countless others. Every individual, from the front-line employee to the middle manager, and the end users - customers and clients (you and me alike) - plays a part in implementing and adapting to change. Hence, in my opinion, it is crucial to remember, showcase and be transparent when forming a narrative.

By shifting the focus from solely celebrating individual figureheads to recognizing and shifting the limelight towards the collective effort and the distributed nature of change in the narratives, we can create a more accurate and inclusive narrative of change, one that truly reflects the contributions of everyone involved.