One of the most fascinating things about the ten year quest that eventually resulted in the publication of my book, The Five Literacies of Global Leadership, is how conventional wisdom can be so easily overturned with intellectual rigor, closer scrutiny of the evidence and, perhaps, a dash of healthy scepticism.
We often assume that authentic leadership entails the possession of charisma, in addition to other desirable personality traits, in abundance. One new book after another constantly feeds us information, usually posing as academically rigorous evidence, asserting as much.
The opposite happens to be closer to the truth. But there is so much noise in the market place, especially concerning the leadership of organizations, the truth is often lost.
Let us, for a moment, examine the dominant Western approaches to leadership. Many popular theories harness psychology, possibly quite legitimately, to help distinguish between those who have a propensity to lead and those who do not – commonly referred to as followers. But some of the core asssumptions underpinning these theories are inconsistent. Others fatally flawed.
For example, many Western notions of leadership (initiated by social theorist Max Weber almost 100 years ago in his notion of ‘charismatic leadership’) perpetuate the myth that great leaders use their innate talents and strength of character to dominate followers and tell them what to do, the aim being either to enforce compliance with their wishes or to instill in people the passion (for taking a particular course of action) they would otherwise lack. Others (based on influential social psychologist Fred Fiedler’s work in the 1960s and 1970s) favor contingency models, focusing on discovering and replicating the perfect match between a leader and the context in which the leader is operating.
As a consequence of these flawed hypotheses, people in positions of authority are perceived to be model leaders - rather than managers, which is their actual role. This also explains why middle aged male CEOs, military officers, politicians and heads of state are so often depicted as leaders and why women find it incredibly difficult to be taken seriously: they lack the very qualities that would potentially give them similar credibility; characteristics we assume to be vital aspects of leadership.
This kind of confusion has led many, otherwise intelligently led, organizations down a futile path where particular qualities, such as determination, perseverance, and assertiveness, for example, are portrayed and modelled as essential leadership behaviors within an overall competency framework. Worse, these theories all imply that leaders with adequate strength of character and willpower can prevail over whatever reality they confront. As the world becomes increasingly complex this is an absurd and even dangerous path to take. And yet we pursue these things so earnestly
So what is the truth? How can we begin to define a leadership psychology that makes sense today – always remembering that the psychological paradigm is an essentially Western invention and may become less and less relevant in a world culturally predisposed to less emphatic philosophies?
The major thrust of our research into The Five Literacies points to a new philosophy of leadership, where the term ‘leadership’ is framed within a global context and defined as the capability and volition to help shape what people want to do – rather than what they are told they must do.
This led us, quite early on, to affirm our belief that the most authentic leaders (in terms of raising the human spirit to new aspirations and endeavors) are not necessarily bound by gender, age, nationality or belief. On the contrary, they can be men, women and children of any nationality and belief system. And, surprise, surprise, when we started looking for examples outside of the traditional spotlight in which ‘leadership’ is thought to occur, we found an abundant supply of ordinary people doing extraordinary things. People we were delighted to identify as Five Literacies leaders.
In one sense, Five Literacies leadership exists independently of performance. Yet the qualities exhibited by Five Literacies leaders are well attuned to the achievement of great things in situations that would defeat most others before the starter’s gun has been fired.
Quite distinct from the more popularly assumed qualities of effective leadership, the most vital qualities of Five Literacies leaders we saw over and over were those of:
1. Constituent Cooperation - the ability to gain integrity and acceptance rapidly by locating themselves within the group rather than ‘above it’ or separate from it
2. Ecological Sensitivity – the knack of fitting in with the group such that the group’s identity could be shaped in ways that made their own agenda and policies appear to be an expression of that identity
3. Ecority - The capacity to get people to take authority for the reality they themselves have created while constantly seeking futures that better balance technology and humanity.
In essence, by appreciating the values and beliefs of the people with whom they are working, and avoiding any tendency to assume absolute authority, Five Literacies leaders are able to facilitate a collegial dialogue about what the group stands for, and thus how it should act, in ways that continuously generate new possibilities and nurture trust.
It is abundantly clear that no fixed set of personality traits or behaviors can ever assure the emergence of Five Literacies leadership, because the most desirable qualities invariably depend upon the nature of the group itself as well as the context within which they find themselves. That simple hypothesis, sets Five Literacies leaders apart.
Comments