Winners vs. Leaders

As I watch the 2016 US presidential campaign develop, I ask myself:

Is being tremendously successful in business really the same as being a successful leader?

If you search the Internet for the word ‘leadership,’ you may be stunned by how many books, articles and blogs there are related to the subject. It has been reported recently that Amazon has 140,000 titles containing the word leadership! There appears to be a significant and profitable industry catering to deciphering what leadership is, and teaching aspiring leaders and those in leadership roles how to be leaders.

Additionally, while a half dozen names surface as iconic leaders with some repeatability, there does not seem to be a clear consensus on the ideal qualities of a leader. Perhaps this is a result of the fact that leadership is situational, or that different leadership styles appeal more to differently personality types.

However, I wish to offer an alternate hypothesis for your consideration as to why the subject of leadership is so enigmatic and is of such interest:

Few in leadership roles are actually perceived as effective leaders!

Expressed another way, there is an inherent disconnect between the ideals we hold of what a leader should be, and the reality we observe of those holding leadership roles.

Further, I offer a reason for this discord between reality and ideals:

The best competitors, or ‘winners’, rise to the top positions of organizations, institutions and businesses more frequently than the best ‘leaders’!

I would suggest that we are collectively mistaking the hyper-competitiveness and political savvy required to successfully climb an organizational ladder with the attributes required to be a successful leader.

Are we certain that those individuals with the qualities required to secure leadership roles are in fact the best suited to lead? Let’s explore some of the consequences that may result when hyper-competiveness, or being a ‘winner’, is embraced as a primary leadership quality:

• Zero-sum thinking dominates (a win-lose mentality versus seeking a win-win)
• Short-term tactical decisions dominate versus long-term strategic thinking. The hyper-competitive will rarely allow themselves to lose a battle to win a war.
• ‘Manipulation’ is re-branded as ‘influence’ and becomes a sought- after leadership quality.
• ‘Managing upwards’ becomes a core strength, and ‘servant leadership’ represents a competitive disadvantage.
• Authenticity is sacrificed in favor of ‘managing your image’
• A willingness to do whatever it takes to win is rewarded, versus drawing an ethical line and abiding by it.
• It’s all about them! How else could they get to the top and stay there without a single-minded self-interest propelling them?

Please pause to consider these unintended side effects as you think about the institutions, organizations and businesses you belong to. Contemplate those who hold leadership posts within them, the leaders you know who do not, and the rare occasions when those in leadership roles are truly leaders. In closing:

Leaders should not be confused with those who have succeeded in securing leadership roles!

Please comment and share your thoughts!