Are Our Perceptions Of "Leadership" Full Of Shit?

Bullshit Thing: “Leadership”

I don’t 100% agree with that quote, because it’s very rare to hear people ask for McKinsey reports in meetings. Some meetings? Yes. Most of the time in a meeting when a strategy is presented, Brad from Sales is texting his side piece in the corner, two guys are asleep, one is worried about his “honey-do” list, and whoever is still listening is probably going to ask about cost, not about McKinsey. But I digress.

The fact is, though, leadership conceptually is very simple and yet massively complicated, all at once.

Simplicity-side, it should be about:

• Caring
• Listening to others
• Aligning on goals
• Explaining the purpose and need for the work
• Allowing employees to be flexible with life interruptions
• Over-communicating

However, it’s also massively complicated because:

• People derive relevance from it.
• It’s tied to how much money you can make and definitions of “success.”
• It involves people.
• We often conflate it with “hits targets” or “drives revenue” in the sense of that’s how we typically advance people into leadership roles.

Should be simple. Is often complicated. And that’s, of course, where things get confusing as hell.

Let’s use another screen-shot as an example, shall we?

Take a look at this thing right here. It’s supposedly about the various questions that executives should walk through to figure out their compensation plans, company-wide:

Good list on face.

The thing is, though, to a lot of people who come to run companies, “creating high-quality jobs” is not a goal. In their minds, they know who produces — “Colin is my guy!” — and they know who they like — “I like the cut of Dave’s jib!” — and those guys get advanced and given nice salaries and big titles. Everyone else is kind of a replacebale cog.

We spend millions of dollars on consultants, speeches, books, paying people to write articles, etc. about how leadership can and will supposedly evolve, but the thing is, all these articles and speeches ignore the basic psychology of being an executive. You got there. You climbed the mountain. In your mind, you’re the tits. No one is going to topple you (except maybe the hashtag feminist movement).

Why would you suddenly start caring about belonging, and inclusion, and “job quality mobility rates?” These things just don’t matter to you. It’s about deals, getting yours, surrounding yourself with like-minded people, and being seen as relevant and successful. It’s not about any of the things we try to write books about and claim it’s about.

Get yours and be seen as a big deal. Job quality? Mobility tiers? Sounds like a spreadsheet for Samantha in HR to manage. I’ll look at it maybe every two years for three minutes.

We need to be more real about how we discuss business. It’s not about the things that progressive business advocates claim it’s about. It’s about money and deals and like-mindedness. Most other stuff can take a backseat.

As with everything, the problem is incentives

Years ago at McKesson, I did a 16-week rotation, including four weeks with HR Business Partners (HRBPs). With one HRBP, I went into an exec’s office — think he was the COO at the time — and we were going to do some performance review work. He was flustered. He didn’t want to be doing HR shit. So, he had 20 direct reports. He told the HRBP “This is my best guy, they get a 5. This is my worst guy, they get a 2. Everyone else gets 3s. Leave my office.”

She tried to push back but we got sent away.

Is this COO a bad guy? No. Not necessarily. He might be a great husband and Little League coach and dad and even a great business partner, but with 140 things on his desk, is he going to care about some box-check HR process when he feels he knows his people inherently? Of course not. Is he going to care when someone returns and wants to discuss “inclusion?” No.

And the bottom line on all of it is … he’s not incentivized to care, really. All his bonuses and his ability to earn more for his family and be seen as a bigger success are not tied to these things. They’re tied to tasks and outputs, not elements of the human condition like respect, belonging, evaluating the career trajectory of those under you, etc. It’s all tied up in basically tasks and deliverables and money.

Without shifted incentives, leadership — “leadership” — will never care about these core human issues. It’s just not possible. Most people have too much on their plate (or at least like to claim they do), and don’t have the time to add 150 other things.

Tasks and outputs rise to the top — and that’s not actually “leadership,” that’s “management” semantically — and human condition stuff sinks like a stone.

So how should we discuss leadership, then?

Almost caveat the discussion: “These are the things of true import, but they are hard to accomplish in the face of psychology and incentive structures.” At least that’s more accurate, and a fairer assessment, on leadership than the current bullshit we spout in every book.

Stop mumbling incoherently about “servant leadership” and “trauma-infused leadership” and all the rest. Rather, just try your best for people if you’re a boss, and make some time for them and their needs and their viewpoints in between all the rushing around on tasks and outputs.

Simple, but complicated. Kinda like life in many ways.

Also, read this.