The Mythology of Leadership

We tend to lionise leaders. Over the past few years I've had the opportunity to review a lot of stuff on leadership as we've worked with the Leadership Academy to shape the BP leadership model. From Schein’s ‘Culture & Leadership’ to Kellerman’s ‘The End of Leadership’.

In general, leadership models tend to overstate and rationalise the role of leaders, politely glossing over the fact that in most organisations many leaders were probably not ideal candidates for the role - and are either lost, somewhere on a learning curve, or never quite make the transition.

I have been wondering about a classification that more accurately reflects the reality - one in which we are not awash with 'strategists, alchemists and level 5’ leaders. A more Dilbert world.

Kohlberg's levels of moral development is a good start, I think. He set out to describe the development of moral reasoning in children, identifying a number of distinct ways of thinking about right and wrong that are useful in thinking about leadership approaches:

Pre-conventional leaders: 'will I be punished?' A lot of leaders are of this type. In essence (and as I noted in a previous post) they have learned that the safest course of action is always that which avoids potential punishment. They may become 'grey' leaders, whose core capability is to filibuster - to run down the clock without ever actually making a decision, or they may become 'finger-pointers' forever finding someone else to blame. They may even be sociopaths, who cynically thump their siblings only to squeal 'he started it!' when mum checks in.

Conventional leaders: these are rule-followers. Leaders for whom unquestioning obedience to and enforcement of policy and process is their raision d'être. Historically, organisations have weathered the storms of change by maintaining a rigid internal structure, so such leaders have played an key role in conventional, industrial organisations. Lovers of governance, process and hierarchy they are, essentially, bureaucrats.

Post-conventional leaders: leaders driven by a higher purpose, one which provides some perspective on the pre-conventional politics and the conventional beauracracy. The 'higher purpose' is not necessarily good or bad; they may be ironists or missionaries. Their behaviour may resemble that of the sociopath at times - with the distinction that the sociopath is selfish, whilst these leaders work in service of a greater goal. Not all post-conventional leaders are good leaders. This is not an 'apex' model.

So what conclusions can we draw about good leadership? It varies, but in general there are just two things that leaders need to do: hire good people and support them (Good people are those who care about what they are doing and are capable).

If organisations were better at identifying good leaders it would make a big difference. Setting aside the 'level 5' idealisations, a good leader is one who supports their team. To use a military metaphor: there are leaders who will die in a ditch for you and others who you can expect to die in a ditch for, before too long.

And something else: it would be better if leadership roles could be handed around once in a while, so that people take turns at leading. It might help break down the parent-child dynamic, and the mythology of leadership.

Post-script: I came across a Harvard Business School leadership model also based on Kohlberg, from Professor Modesto Maidique: http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6752.html