Against "Leadership"

My son was recently inducted into an academic honor society.  Having a dry, rather lengthy ceremony seems to be obligatory with such things, but of course, I attended to support my son.  Speakers young & old opined on the virtues espoused by this honor society as candles symbolizing each of these virtues slowly burned toward a very flammable-looking tablecloth.

The keynote speaker dedicated his time to the "virtue" of leadership, and congratulated these 15 year olds on being leaders among their classmates.  One of my thoughts that evening was a thought that has been repeating in my head for the last several years.  "Why are we obsessed with 'leadership'?"

At least in the US, it is everywhere.  Our system of government is based on choosing the people who will "lead the nation".  Corporate websites often have pages devoted to showcasing their "Leadership Team".  Social media "influencers" pride themselves on their number of followers, and advertisers reward them as such.  We buy their self-help books, we re-post their "keys for success", we follow their social media.

Do We Need Leadership?

Ask five people the meaning of "leadership", and you will likely get five different answers.  There are articles on "leadership styles" ranging from "command & control" to "coaching" to "Laissez-faire".

Perhaps there are two ideas intertwined in the common idea of leadership.  The first is the ability to think & act independently.  The second is the ability to change the actions of others, either by influence or authority.  I wholeheartedly embrace the first as a virtue; the second is more nuanced.

I am not so sure that people need to be led.  Sometimes people will follow, perhaps out of ease, but that doesn't necessitate that they should be led.  I have been a follower at times in my life, and it often has led me life circumstances that I regret.

As a parent, I have often wondered, "Why does each generation have to re-learn the same lessons?"  My suspicion is that it is an evolutionary mechanism.  What worked well in the previous generation (or even previous year) may fail today, so we must not blindly follow the same paths.  We learn doing - by experimenting & failing.  The best advisors don't try to remove the failure but cushion the consequences, so the lesson is learned without the fallout.

There is no question that much pain can be avoided by taking the wisdom of previous generations into account.  And, if they are truly wise, those giving advice often learn from the new adaptations.  This, I think, is the essence of the positive in "leadership". 

Is leadership a virtue?

Too often "leadership" positions attract those who desire power, and those types of leaders tend to guide organizations toward outcomes that benefit themselves and very few others.  In such organizations, power is often abstracted toward the top, producing a lack of control for those lower in the org, fueling the mental health crisis (The Lost Connections by Johann Hari).

It is partly systemic.  The default in American business is ownership by a single person or very small group.  Understandably, owners want to be as successful as possible, but this often results in the concentration of wealth at the top.  Technology has amplified this effect, and we now have record income inequality.  I find it peculiar that a tiny group of people can sit atop such an enterprise even as it drives their net worth past that of some countries.  The compensation is simply disproportionate to the effect of any individual on an organization.

To be clear, there are many organizations run by people that treat members equitably, and I am not saying that business owners as a group are bad.  However, those that are self-serving can do a tremendous amount of damage.  Often their organizations fail because they are constrained by following the wisdom of a small group.  The desire to wield power is, in my opinion, the essence of the negative in "leadership".

As Bruce Eckel points out, "Perhaps the main problem with the current version of leadership is that leaders may have emotional accountability to those they lead, but have power accountability only to those up the hierarchy.  The consequences of failing those they lead are much smaller - the "lead" might not like you as much, might not work as hard, but you have power accountability over them.  The consequences of failing those up the hierarchy are existential. You won't get power, you might lose power, and you might lose your job (or your life, depending on where in the world you live)."

 

Deep hierarchies exacerbate this.  After one or two levels of abstraction, the job really has nothing to do with the product.  Those closest to the product understand it best, but have often have no power when leadership makes changes, even if there is broad consensus that it is the wrong direction

Why Do We Follow?

Following may be a means of taking rest.  I think of a group of people hiking together.  Typically the person at the front should be someone who knows the way.  The rest of the hikers can simply follow, allowing their minds to focus on something other than navigation.  However, most organizations have leaders (at least in title) who do not change.  This assumes these people will always know the way, and that they do not need to rest.

I would posit that people who are following are, perhaps by definition, disengaged at some level.  That seems to me to be undesirable, especially in thought work.  As Steve Jobs said, “It doesn’t make sense to hire smart people and tell them what to do; we hire smart people so they can tell us what to do.”  People are happier and work harder when they have a sense of control & autonomy.  Business schools have known this for decades; industry doesn't seem to have figured it out.

The healthiest teams I have seen consist of people who are highly capable leaders and have the humility to follow when someone else knows the way.  In fact, this is one of the core things I look for when interviewing: Is the candidate flexible?  I want someone who can adapt to handle any situation.

Note: It is worth pointing out that highly capable, low ego teams sometimes can end up in a Canadian standoff with regard to taking the lead... "After you", "No, no, you first", "Please, I insist".  I find it is worth calling this out explicitly when it happens.  Members can acknowledge and designate someone to take a given role on a particular task or project.

Peacetime & Wartime 

In Tribe, Sebastian Junger explains that, historically, some Native American tribes had different peacetime & wartime leaders.  It is a different skillset.  Perhaps an example will help explain.

Recently Matt Brandt & I were backpacking along a high ridge in the Weminuche Wilderness.  As we made our way around the edge of a massive bowl, we saw a rain cloud come over the far end.  We picked up our pace, as fast as the scree field would allow, but by the time we got to semi-flat ground, the mid-summer hailstorm was upon us.

Matt whipped out his tent, and we rushed to set it up.  He gave me orders on how to assist, and soon enough, we were inside and reasonably dry.

I recount this story often as an example of when to invoke a "command & control" leadership style.  Matt is not a controlling person by nature.  However, we were in an environment where being wet can be truly dangerous, we had no time, and he was the only person who knew how to set up his tent.

Many leaders operate their teams or organizations constantly in wartime mode, which leads to widespread burnout.  Even the US military doesn't do that.  The highest performing teams in the military push power & autonomy toward the bottom (see Turn the Ship Around by L. David Marquet and Extreme Ownership by Jocko Willink & Leif Babin).

Reinventing Organizations by Frederick Laloux delves into proven models for business organizations.  The core idea is that seniority doesn't denote authority.  In such organizations, those with more experience are advisors.  This allows everyone the autonomy to do their best work while having deep expertise available to them when needed.

Am I Against Leadership?

There are times when someone needs to take initiative and rally people behind a cause, or simply organize the work for a group because others are busy doing the work itself.  The problems come when the wrong leadership style is applied to a given situation or when leaders have selfish intentions.  When reviewing this article, Ashwin Sundar pointed out that leadership styles can be roughly grouped into those which contribute to the organization & people vs those which extract from the organization for personal gain.  I think you can guess which one I favor.

 

There will always be reason for those with more experience or expertise to help those with less; the way we do it is everything.  Do we still call it "leadership"?  I'm not sure.