Beyond humility: the invisible leader?

This is about a little thought experiment I have been playing with:

A personal pet project I have been working on for myself for quite a long time has been re-translating and tinkering with the Dao De Jing (perhaps a topic for another time). Recently, I have been pondering on #17, which, amongst other things, talks about leadership:

The worst leader is the one who is hated. Now, admittedly, this doesn’t prevent a leader from being successful, but it is pretty clear that these leaders tend to waste a lot of energy, be short-lived and provide pretty unstable foundations to build on. So, while possibly exciting for a small minority, I think this one is pretty obvious. (My favorite term is pigeon management – fly in, crap all over everything, then fly out)

The next worst are those who govern by fear, which seems to be an unfortunately common approach. Admittedly, there is a Machiavellian style that can be quite effective at getting certain things accomplished, but again, the long-term stability and foundation built like this is not particularly promising. Yet, this seems to be the go-to option for many, because it is easy.

Next are those leaders who are loved. At first glance, this seems amazing, an inspiring leader whom one can trust and believe in is, for many, the ideal scenario. But the pitfall is that this turns the system into revolving around the leader, which comes with many risks and dangers. It also shifts the power away from the group towards the individual. It is so easy to fall in behind a leader one has great admiration for, and they can call forth and inspire the best performance in everyone, but the problem is that the motivation of that performance is dependent on the leader. Although it seems empowering, it, in many ways, is the opposite – but it is still so appealing to my ego.  

So, according to this, the highest form of leadership is the one where the people are barely aware of the leader as a figurehead. The leader rules, guides and empowers, creates the space and conditions for prosperity and enables others, but stays out of their way. Because of this, everyone sees the accomplishments as their own. As the leader has stepped back and made space for everyone else, the importance shifts from recognition to the job getting done. Because the people feel the accomplishment was their own, they own it and are invested in it. Because they have succeeded, they are more willing to build on that and try more. The leader has produced a fertile ground for success. He or she reaps the benefits by being part of a group that thrives. Success comes through education, empowerment and trust, which is a stronger foundation to build on than any other. 

Immediately, I protest to myself, thinking about accountability and recognition, about discipline, structure and governance. But this fourth approach does not take any of those away, merely shifts the focus. I also fear that I would not be recognized and celebrated for being an awesome leader, that people wouldn't see my accomplishments. But am I leading to be admired or leading to build a solid system? Leadership in our system comes with a set of expectations, not few of which are ego-driven – but are they actually sensible? We are in love with the idea of strong, charismatic or forceful leaders as central pillars of a system, we celebrate them and will value entire companies based on those characteristics of a single individual. Does this make sense?

When we talk about humility in leadership, what if we take it a step further, which is how leadership can become more effective by being less visible? What would the fourth style of leadership look like in a modern organization?

Difficult concept, likely impossible in our modern system, possibly counter to human nature, but an interesting thought experiment nonetheless.