Leadership beyond the surface

Our discussion so far is that leaders may receive too much credit and too much blame for outcomes… that hero-worshipping and scapegoating means people justify their opinions about leaders often with superficial explanations.

They assess leaders too simplistically - who they like and who delivers results - who makes us feel confident. This way is simple, allows us to use gut feel, and we can disengage quickly if things aren’t going well.

What remains unstated is the criteria for “what makes us feel confident”. Hence when we discuss leadership, it can be a very confusing discussion - so much criteria undiscussed, evidence from multiple perspectives, and so on.

Here are some reasons why hero-worshipping and scapegoating are preferred:
* Playing politics only leads to arguments. Objective answers may challenge our confidence and create conflict with others. Better to avoid contentious topics and maintain harmony. “How do I feel?” is a much easier question to answer.
* Clear answers are difficult to find. Failure to reach a conclusion only diminishes confidence.
* Even if we reached agreement on the above, (some would say) we’re helpless anyway. Why think about things we can’t change?
* To think deeply has an opportunity cost on our time - it takes time to stop and think - it interferes with our fast lifestyle. It also challenges our energy cycles to stop and think - to change a busy momentum and slow down. It affects our breathing, our emotions, our values.
* If we want to change leaders, we need simple messages and reasons. Keep it simple.

So, if we could find a quick, objective formula to use, what would it be? What characteristics should we judge on?

that’s for next week…