Five Misconceptions About Leadership
Aman Zaidi
Leadership & Talent Development | Organisational Development | Diversity & Inclusion | Experiential Education and Training | Business Storytelling | Executive & Career Transition Coaching | Wellbeing | TEDx speaker
5 excellent points made by Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic in this forbes.com article (link below), which will help us see leadership in a new way. Yes 5, not 8. There is evidence that runs contrary to points 3), 7) and 6), and it is on these that I differ.
My reason to differ is because the terms "Strengths" and "Authenticity" are understood differently by people and a unanimous grasp of what they mean and how they contribute in the workplace is still lacking.
a. Strengths and Skills are two different things. Listening is an ability or skill. Strengths indicate whether one is naturally energised by doing something. Someone who is energised by the process of leading others or developing others will find it energising to grow their skill of listening. Conversely, a person who finds it draining to spend time with people and answer their questions, will find that the emotional and cognitive labour involved in getting better at that skill leaves them with no energy; also keeping them from contributing in other areas where they are naturals! The former person will get better and better as a leader because s/he is energised by it; the latter person will never be as good because they will be drained, inconsistent and demotivated by that task. Theo Dawson explains this phenomenon through the concept of "maladaptive cathexis" and talks about how this is difficult to overcome?(see link ii. below).
It is a mistake, and rather judgmental, to describe focusing on strengths as "lazy adaptation" or "minimising effort". Improving in one's strength areas also requires effort, dedication and time, and brings about change in performance and development of character. A writer with a natural strength in creating, who focuses a chunk of their life on honing their craft, is putting in a tremendous amount of effort.
b. Leaders are human too and do not possess unlimited energy, contrary to what the hero model of leadership might have us believe. In order to be effective, they must also prioritise their energy. Part of which includes them knowing what to improve at and what to delegate to their team. If they don't do that, they compromise the performance of their organisation and their own health. (Sebastian Hamers can surely add perspectives from the AEM Cube to this conversation.)?Therapists around the world will testify to the number of top leaders that deal with depression, anxiety and drug abuse, in part because they are trying to be good at everything and failing.
c. And that's where Authenticity comes in. Tomas correctly notices a link between authenticity and emotional intelligence. Part of emotional intelligence is acknowledging and being truthful about one's feelings and accepting one's limitations. It is more about articulating in a socially acceptable way what one feels, and less about repressing emotions. Daniel Goleman, Susan David, Anabel Jensen, Joshua Freedman might tell us that.
d. The article also suggests that leaders "are more alike than different". Sure there may be a trait or two that they share. However, as a StandOut case study reveals, Phil Cordell, Hilton's head of focused-service brands, "had noted the inconvenient truth that his best leaders didn’t all resemble one another".?Results at Hilton, Microsoft, Kohl’s, and Habitat for Humanity, also support the conclusion that "contrary to the formulaic model of leadership development, we did not find that all leaders had one or two top strength roles in common; we discovered a broad distribution". (See link iii. below)
e. Tomas's article suggests that self-control and self-censorship help leaders. However these?qualities may have a dark side. Multiple studies found that?people with higher self-control?have a tendency to share less, be more selfish and be "more efficient killers". Might explain why senior executives with high self-monitoring personalities keep all bonuses for themselves. (See links iv. & v. below)
All of this research has the potential to change our misconceptions about leadership, reframe our ideas of what an effective leader looks like, and give new direction to leadership development. I am extremely enthused to develop and facilitate a science-based leader selection and development programme for you that is built on the science of these 8 points. Who's game?
领英推荐
Aman is a former Operations Leader who moved to Leadership & Organisation Development in order to devote himself completely to improving organisations. His specialty areas are Leadership Development, Executive Coaching, Applied Strengths Psychology, Diversity & Inclusion, Experiential Education and Business Storytelling.
References:
(i) Tomas' article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomaspremuzic/2023/06/18/eight-popular-misconceptions-about-leadership/
(ii) Theo Dawson on maladaptive cathexis: https://theo-dawson.medium.com/mindset-emotion-learning-a361ba5f912c
(iii) https://hbr.org/2012/06/leadership-development-in-the-age-of-the-algorithm
(iv) The dark side of self-control: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200827-how-self-control-can-actually-unleash-your-dark-side
(v) The dark side of self-monitoring: https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/ambpp.2005.18778875
Article would have a been better off saying misconceptions about “leaders” instead of “leadership”
Decrapify Work ???? Recovering Executive ?? Helping you survive corporate life ?? Making change happen ??
1 年I am not sure your definition of a strength is widely held. It's not what I think of as a strength, the aspect of whether it energises or drains you is a nuance that I don't think people normally include when talking about strengths. I agree with Geoff, talking about 'Leaders' is problematical. It is a term that is closely associated with hierachy and positions of formal status and power, which is a context that exerts strong influences on individuals and their behaviour. For some, their individual traits are strong enough to stand up to it, if they have the self-knowledge of them. For many, however, these get swept away by the forces of the context.
Author: I, Human: AI, Automation, and the Quest to Reclaim What Makes Us Unique
1 年Thanks ???? Aman!
Leadership | Ironist | Misbehaviourist
1 年Chamorro-Premuzic's interest is in finding a universal personality profile of leadership that can be used in recruitment and psychometric tests. It is not surprising that his worldview is arranged around such concepts. Personality psyhcology and positive psychology are not easy bedfellows, as the former focuses on the innate qualities of a human and the latter on their potential developmental pathways. I think he overstates how much impact an individual leader might have on a complex system when he talks about the "good qualities" of leadership and fails to appreciate the degree to which system pressures impact the behaviours of the majority of people. We are not seeing the stats he quotes as evidence for his thesis because we routinely promote bad people, but because we routinely reward the wrong behaviours. That said, I think he has some good points. If good leadership can be associated with a pattern of qualities that exist across space and time (which I think it can, and behavioural inhibition seems to be an example), then there are going to be certain strength combinations that do not correlate. No matter how you develop them, they can't contribute to the act of good leadership because they are not leadership qualities.
Create a Future-Fit Culture
1 年TCPs article is about “leaders”, not leadership - and in today’s world therefore completely misses the point. https://geoffmarlow.substack.com/p/leadership-not-leaders