"It is unclear whether leaders matter very much."
That sentence itself may not seem as though it matters very much, but it does when you consider where it's from. It's the opening sentence of a soon-to-be-published analysis in the Academy of Management Review. That's one of the most profoundly respected and widely cited publications in academic literature, and what it's effectively saying is that the jury's out on leadership.
Despite thousands of studies and thousands of books, despite millions of articles and keynote speeches and training programs, despite all the heroes we idolise, quote and imitate, one question still endures: Do leaders actually matter?
When organisations perform well, leaders are lauded with hefty bonuses, media interviews, the speaking circuit. They become mythic beings, romanticised for their strategic nous and their supreme insights even though there's mounting evidence to suggest their influence isn't as great as they'd like to think.
In reverse, for example, when their organisations flounder, are the fingers pointed in the same direction as frequently? Or is it more the case that we look beyond the leader for an explanation of the poor performance? The tough market conditions. The government's neglect. The supply chain.
So let's assume that, in some cases, leadership is indeed irrelevant. That assumption was the key focus of the researcher who authored this article's opening statement. What he wanted to discover was why some people volunteer to be leaders even when they know their potential for influence is limited.
His core conclusion is something he's named "the logic of absurdity". It essentially means intelligent people sometimes pursue irrational actions acutely aware they're being irrational, "acting against their own self-interest".
In the context of leadership, it reflects those who realise their impact will be minimal, and yet they put their hand up for a leadership position anyway, earnestly giving it all they've got. Or to put it another way: "It is the difference between just doing something stupid and doing something stupid while being able to articulate convincingly why the act is stupid."
These leaders remain cognisant of their restricted influence and control. But "rather than be dispirited by this, [they find] the dedication to lead as if influence and control were feasible – without ever deluding [themselves] into thinking they actually are. Absurd leaders embrace their drive to lead without ever losing sight of the insignificance of their leadership."
That insignificance stems from the fact there are many factors beyond the control of a leader that determine the success of an organisation. Luck is one. A random event is another, as is the effort of myriad unrecognised individuals.
Now you might proudly be a so-called absurd leader. There are some precautions, then, you should consider:
- The first is that if anyone notices you think leadership is futile, your chances of getting hired and promoted are low.
- The second is you might find it hard to motivate and inspire others if you, too, aren't motivated and inspired by your leadership role.
- The third is your belief that leadership is inconsequential may result in your team being characterised by chaos and conflict due to neglect.
- And the fourth is the risk you might fall into a state of passivity. After all, why do anything if you feel nothing you do actually matters?
Absurd leaders embrace their drive to lead without ever losing sight of the insignificance of their leadership.
Those precautions aren't listed as a way of implying that leadership is suddenly meaningful. That's for you to debate in the comments section. Just keep in mind the scholar's wise conclusion: "Leaders motivated by the Logic of Absurdity both recognise the realities of their limited significance and defy that recognition with resolute – if unjustified – dedication to leading."
James Adonis is the author of Employee Enragement. Follow MySmallBusiness on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn.
0 comments
New User? Sign up