The Pitfalls of Linear Leadership Development

Discussions in the field of ‘Leadership’ often involve isolation into conveniently divided stages. In more thorough examples of such a discussion, one stage of leadership may be ‘Follower’, others may be something along the lines of ‘Front-Line Leader’, ‘Mid-Level Manager’, or perhaps ‘Executive Leader’. Some studies will include more levels, others will be even more streamlined than the haphazard list, above. The issue I find with so simplistic a division of authority is that leadership is often inappropriately relegated to a series of single points along a continuum. Although these schools of thought have undoubtedly helped to strengthen several leaders within each of these leadership divisions, I would contend that a heavy reliance upon the efficacy of these models has resulted in a weakening of leaders in a more holistic sense. A leader who has whole-heartedly embraced his or her role as an ‘Executive Leader’, for example, and has resultantly committed significant time and energy toward development of that single point along the leadership number-line, runs a risk of both apathy and atrophy with respect to the other leadership points along this line. When the object of a leader’s professional-development focus is both too near, and too narrow, the field of vision is naturally reduced to that which is immediately in front; leadership priorities and responsibilities in the periphery are out of focus, and become little more than a distraction from that which occupies the restricted field of vision. 

While there are probably more models available than there are leaders to ascribe to them, I would submit that a more accurate view of leadership is that of a pyramid, or a series of concentric circles. The image, itself, is less important than the concept behind the image, but these images have one key element in common – foundation. Unlike the more linear model, each of these visual aids is wholly dependent upon the existence of the other elements in order to maintain the integrity of the model. Although I’m keenly aware that there are some very intelligent engineering (or perhaps simply contrarian) minds who are reading this and dismantling the analogy for reasons of either obsession or glee, a pyramid without a base ceases to exist as a pyramid – it becomes a triangle. Likewise, a series of concentric circles without a core becomes something else entirely. The practical implications of this analogy are simple – each stage of leadership in a model of this nature is dependent upon the others in order to maintain integrity of the model. A healthy, and holistically developed leader, then, is only as effective as the integrity of each component allows. If we allow any stage of our development to atrophy, the model begins to fall apart.

At this point, whether nodding your head in agreement, or shaking your head in disgust, you may be asking yourself why this matters. What does this look like in reality? Here’s the scenario: Early in his or her career, an outstanding employee has the great fortune of falling in with someone who has taken them under a wing and provided a road map to success. The employee works harder, stays longer, and studies more than each colleague, following this road map to the letter. Working their way down the vocational bucket-list, the employee checks off each box with vigor – Manager Position? Check. Master’s Degree? Check. Professional Certification? Check. Director Position? Check. Professionally Published? Check. Executive Position? Check. Right on schedule, the employee ascends to one of the highest positions within the organization, garnering accolades, top evaluation marks, and hopefully, even the respect of his or her peers. They followed the formula to success, and they have ‘arrived’. How, then, can this be problematic? Does this have to be problematic? The answer to the first question is this – ‘Yes’, it can be problematic. The answer to the second, is ‘No’, it does not have to be problematic. The difference is entirely in their approach to their own professional development along the way. In a linear model, where the subject employee considers each of these stages of professional achievement as something that should be reviewed only in the rear-view, or as a certificate to be garnered, we have a leader who has forgotten how to follow well, how to lead personally, how to coach, how to teach, and potentially how to relate. As the positions became less dependent upon people skills, and more dependent upon strategy, they’ve failed to maintain the tools that led to their success in the first place. Strategy, Metrics, and Return-on-Investment gradually become replacement values for Employee Welfare, Culture of Community, and Teamwork. Conversely, we have the holistic leader, who ascended this same ladder but took time to firm up the foundation of those fundamental skills during the ascent. Holistically developed leaders are, therefore, able to be compassionate leaders because continual focus has been applied to ‘following well’ – and they are intentional about prioritizing relationships, because they built upon the foundation of lessons learned as a ‘Director’, which were built upon lessons learned as a ‘Manager’, which were built upon lessons learned as a ‘Front-Line Leader’, which were built upon lessons learned as a ‘Follower’. A linearly developed leader will adjust his or her focus to align with whichever position is occupied at the time, all the while shifting fundamental leadership values according to the position of the moment. A leader in a more holistic model of development, however, is able to effectively maintain a field of view that incorporates the entire leadership model, thereby reinforcing, rather than replacing, fundamental leadership values.

No matter your stage in the leadership development cycle – whether Executive or Front-Line Leader, whether intentionally or haphazardly - two certainties remain:

1)     You will always be leading someone.

2)     You will always be following someone.

In spite of the many trainings and temptations to adopt alternative models, the Executive Leader is always a Front-Line Leader to somebody. Executive Leaders who lead as though they’ve traded interpersonal compassion for frigid strategy will foster a culture of disloyalty and individualism. An Executive Leader who continuously shores up the foundations of leadership-lessons past, however, will nurture a culture of loyalty and family. Your team will bear fruit -- your choices as a leader will go a long way toward determining which fruit your team will bear. Routinely reminisce about your joys and challenges as a Follower. Regale yourself with sea-stories about times in your leadership life-cycle where you’ve genuinely made a personal difference for a person in your charge. Revisit painful leadership failures and absorb those difficult lessons-learned in order to insulate yourself against a repeat performance. Recognize your short-comings and unabashedly pursue relationships with personal and professional mentors who possess what you lack. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. These time-tested elements of leadership are the rungs of the professional ladders we climb – you can remove every rung beneath the one you’re standing on… but I certainly would not recommend it.

Gabe Morris, Senior Chief Petty Officer, USN, Ret. - Human Resources, Samaritan's Purse

#leadership #success #training #leadershipdevelopment #leadershiptraining #veteran