The Complexities of Leadership: Why Success is Hard to Attribute
Introduction
When discussing the world of business and politics, the concept of leadership often takes center stage. From leadership associations to institutes and centers, countless resources have been dedicated to understanding the qualities and traits that make a great leader. However, it seems that despite the abundance of literature and analysis on leadership, the practice of effective leadership remains elusive.
In this article, we will explore the common attribution errors that occur when evaluating leadership, why success is difficult to attribute, and the implications of oversimplifying the concept of leadership. We will delve into specific examples from both the political and business realms to shed light on the complexities surrounding leadership. Finally, we will provide insights and practical advice for individuals seeking to enhance their leadership skills and navigate the ever-changing landscape of business and politics.
The Allure of Leadership
In recent years, the fascination with leadership has grown exponentially. From bestselling books to renowned leadership gurus, the leadership industrial complex has boomed. However, despite this growing interest and the abundance of resources available, the practice of effective leadership continues to elude us. The question arises: why does the more we write about leadership, the less we seem to understand it?
One possible explanation for this phenomenon lies in our tendency to make attribution errors when evaluating leadership. When analyzing moments of exceptional leadership, we often attribute success solely to the characteristics and decisions of those in charge, without fully considering external factors or context.
The Fallacy of Attribution
The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, or the belief that correlation implies causation, is a persistent issue in discussions about leadership. We often attribute success or failure to a leader without fully considering the broader context or alternative explanations.
For example, in the political realm, Boris Johnson’s leadership during the Brexit referendum and subsequent election victory is a topic of debate. While some attribute the victory solely to Johnson’s leadership, others question whether external factors, such as Jeremy Corbyn’s unpopularity, played a more significant role. Without the ability to conduct controlled experiments, we can never definitively determine the causal relationship between a leader’s actions and outcomes.
This attribution error is equally prevalent in the business world. When a company achieves success, its CEO is often credited as the driving force behind that success. Yet, business success is multifaceted and influenced by numerous factors, including market conditions, competition, and timing. It is overly simplistic to attribute all success solely to the actions of a leader.
The Illusion of Greatness
One of the key challenges in evaluating leadership lies in the illusion of greatness. When a leader achieves success, whether in business or politics, it is easy to attribute that success solely to their qualities and decisions. However, this oversimplification fails to consider the complex web of factors that contribute to success.
An example can be seen in the case of Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric. Welch was hailed as one of the greatest business leaders of all time when he retired at the peak of GE’s stock price. However, years later, critics began to question his leadership as the company’s fortunes declined. This demonstrates how the evaluation of a leader’s effectiveness can change over time, highlighting the need to consider the dynamic nature of leadership and its impact.
The Complex Nature of Leadership
Leadership is a multifaceted concept that cannot be easily reduced to a formula or set of prescribed qualities. The success of a leader depends on their ability to navigate a constantly changing landscape and adapt their approach to fit the circumstances. This complexity makes it difficult to accurately attribute success or failure to a leader’s actions alone.
Furthermore, leadership is not limited to individuals in formal positions of authority. Effective leadership can emerge at all levels of an organization, and it can be influenced by factors such as collaboration, teamwork, and organizational culture. By focusing only on individual leaders, we risk overlooking the collective effort required for genuine success.
Redefining Leadership
Instead of perpetuating the myth of the “great leader,” it is crucial to redefine our understanding of leadership. Leadership is not about individual heroics or a one-size-fits-all formula. It is about collaboration, adaptability, and fostering an environment of growth and innovation.
Leadership should be viewed as a collective endeavor, with individuals at all levels contributing their unique skills and perspectives. This approach encourages diversity, creativity, and a shared responsibility for achieving success.
Practical Insights for Effective Leadership
While leadership may be complex and difficult to attribute, there are practical insights that can guide individuals seeking to enhance their leadership skills. Here are some key considerations:
- Embrace Complexity: Acknowledge that leadership is complex and cannot be reduced to a simple formula. Embrace the challenges and uncertainties that come with leadership, and be willing to adapt and learn.
- Cultivate Self-Awareness: Understand your strengths, weaknesses, and biases. Self-awareness is crucial for effective leadership as it allows you to leverage your strengths and address areas for improvement.
- Promote Collaboration: Foster a culture of collaboration and teamwork. Effective leadership involves recognizing and valuing the contributions of others, and creating an environment that encourages innovation and open communication.
- Embrace Continuous Learning: Leadership is a journey of continuous growth and development. Seek out opportunities for learning and improvement, whether through reading, networking, or formal training programs.
- Lead by Example: Set a positive example for others by embodying the qualities and values you expect from your team. Leadership is not just about giving orders, but about demonstrating integrity, empathy, and authenticity.
- Adapt to Change: Recognize that leadership is not a static concept. The ability to adapt to change and embrace new ways of thinking is crucial for navigating the complexities of leadership in an ever-evolving world.
Conclusion
The concept of leadership is inherently complex, making it difficult to attribute success or failure solely to the actions of an individual. By acknowledging the limitations of attribution and embracing the multifaceted nature of leadership, we can develop a more nuanced understanding of what it takes to be an effective leader.
Leadership is not about individual heroics or a one-size-fits-all formula. It is about collaboration, adaptability, and nurturing an environment that encourages growth and innovation. By redefining our understanding of leadership and embracing the complexities that come with it, we can cultivate a new generation of leaders who are better equipped to navigate the challenges of the future.
Summary
Leadership remains a complex and multifaceted concept, often oversimplified by the allure of attributing success or failure to individual leaders. The practice of effective leadership is elusive, with external factors and context playing significant roles in outcomes. Overemphasizing the role of leadership and perpetuating the idea of a “great leader” can hinder progress and hinder collective efforts. It is crucial to redefine leadership as a collaborative endeavor, embracing complexity and valuing diverse perspectives. Practical insights, including self-awareness, collaboration, continuous learning, and adaptability, can guide individuals seeking to enhance their leadership skills. By acknowledging the complexities of leadership and nurturing an environment that encourages growth and innovation, we can foster effective leadership in an ever-changing world.
—————————————————-
| Article | Link |
|---|---|
| UK Artful Impressions | Premiere Etsy Store |
| Sponsored Content | View |
| 90’s Rock Band Review | View |
| Ted Lasso’s MacBook Guide | View |
| Nature’s Secret to More Energy | View |
| Ancient Recipe for Weight Loss | View |
| MacBook Air i3 vs i5 | View |
| You Need a VPN in 2023 – Liberty Shield | View |
Receive free Leadership updates
We will send you a myFT Daily Summary email gathering the latest Leadership news every morning.
The writer is the author of ‘Uncharted: How to Navigate the Future’.
When I started my career, we talked about bosses. Today, all the talk revolves around leaders: special people whose magical qualities generate brilliant decisions that produce lasting success.
Leadership associations, institutes, centers, colleges, assessment tools, psychographic surveys and gurus now constitute the leadership industrial complex. Millions, if not billions, of leadership books are sold every year. But the practice of leadership does not seem to have improved. Looking at the world of business and politics today, it’s hard not to come to the opposite conclusion: that the more we write about leadership, the less we understand how to do it well.
What’s going on? One cause of this problem could be a common attribution error, made even more likely by our obsession with leadership itself.
Standard accounts of great leadership often identify moments of exceptional achievement and look back to explain why they occurred. Believing that leadership is real, they analyze the characteristics and decisions of those in charge and deduce that these were the ones that generated victory.
But how do they know?
A few Conservatives still revere Boris Johnson’s leadership, claiming that he was the one who won in a landslide for his party. But did he win that election or did Jeremy Corbyn lose it because of him? He won the Brexit referendum by only a small margin, so his national electoral leadership record is slim.
Since we can’t do the controlled experiment and repeat 2019 without him, we’ll never know if it was his specific type of leadership that made the difference or something else. However, simplistic narratives are enduringly attractive, and it is they that seduce us into the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: believing that when actions precede an important event it means that they caused it.
If this is a common problem in politics, it is omnipresent in business. When a company prospers, its CEO invariably gets the credit and reward. Maybe even the opportunity to read a hagiographic book or two. But business success is tremendously complex. Did a company prosper because of its boss, because its competitors were lame, lazy – or absent – or because it simply rode the wave of a booming sector? When startups take off, it could be that the founder was a genius or the CFO had a great network of investors to draw on. It could be down to a brilliant marketing team, two or three great engineers, or fantastic chemistry between them all – something that often comes down to just luck.
The absurdity of our beliefs about leadership is revealed no better than in Jim Collins’ legendary book. Good to excellent, an everlasting bestseller. Collins aspires to position his work as a science, writing about his “laboratory” in which the qualities of so-called great companies are measured and evaluated, in a quest to discover the formula for great leadership. However, the identification of these people is esoteric: Collins classifies them as individuals whose companies average returns of 6.9 times the stock market over a period of 15 years. So, are the bosses who produced returns of 6.8 times the market failures? Or if it took them 17 years, are they lazy?
Attribution errors proliferate because, whether in business or politics, context is everything. What worked yesterday will not necessarily work tomorrow. A leader’s record can also look very different depending on when it is evaluated.
When he retired at the peak of GE’s stock price, Jack Welch was hailed as one of the greatest business leaders of all time. Ten years later, academic Roger Martin noted that under Welch’s leadership, GE met its price forecast to the penny 41 out of 46 times—something that is statistically implausible. Twenty years later, critics now see him leading just as the rot began.
Because attributing success is so elusive, attempting to do so can be a poor teacher, a thought usually attributed to Bill Gates.
Excited by our own achievement, it’s very easy to assume that what made the product, business, or economy so brilliant was us. We did it! Of course, we will pay lip service to our colleagues. But in our confirmed self-confidence, we are just as likely to make the same mistakes as we are to repeat former brilliance.
Our hunger for heroes and a leadership formula fuels a huge industry. What it doesn’t seem to accomplish is producing better leaders. It could even make everything worse. Placing too many expectations on the idea of leadership infantilizes us all. It allows too many people to abdicate, waiting for a clue. It causes many to take their success as proof that they are special, even infallible.
By oversimplifying the complex and trying to pin down the fluid, we chase pipe dreams when we could look in the mirror and ask ourselves: What can I do better today?
—————————————————-