The Romance of Leadership

James Meindl died suddenly in 2004 and left behind a legacy of academic research in relation to what he called “the romance of leadership”. This romance attributes success to leaders’ efforts when there may be other factors that contribute to any success. For example, for any company to succeed they need good products, good procedures, loyal clients, good employees, and on and on.

A leader cannot directly control all of these things.

I think we are all familiar with the leader who takes credit for the work of their team, as if he/she did it themselves, or as if their input was the decisive factor, or as if they now inherit the right to be called the expert through the team’s achievements.
The irony occurs when leaders take credit for successes (make no reference to other factors), but blame these same other factors for failures (and make no reference to their own leadership failures).

The thinking about the role leadership plays is very muddled, and it can be seen in the inconsistent attributions that are made.

We know that leaders whose businesses may fail are not poor leaders. Even the best leader fails. The hero sometimes dies.

And what about these twists?
The tyrant - takes all credit, passes off all blame
The martyr - passes off all credit, accepts all blame
The tragic hero - takes all credit and all blame
The teflon prince - passes off all credit and all blame (nothing sticks to them)

These caricatures are a little cynical, but they are my broad map of the territory in relation to the romance of leadership.

How do these principles affect how we define what leadership is, and the role of the leader, and how we develop leaders?

And who is at fault when leaders are thought of in these simplistic ways.
Sometimes followers like the hero myth too. Its not just leaders who are self-promoting, its employees who idolise (or demonise) them, who like simplistic explanations for things they cannot fully understand.
In the coming weeks we will unpack this a little more.