Matthew Richter posts daily comments in LinkedIn—well, almost daily. You can follow him and join the conversation by going to http://linkedin.com/in/matthew-richter-0738b84.
For the benefit of our readers, we decide to compile and reprint some of his provocative pieces from the past. Let us know what you think.
An Effective Leader
An interesting thought experiment: Draw an effective leader.
What did you draw? Well, the characteristics may differ, but the gender almost never does. Men and women, generally envision a man, according to research conducted by Tina Kiefer at the University of Warwick in the UK. When describing their pictures, even if the picture is gender neutral, participants would use male pronouns to describe it. When asked, they claim they intended both men and women, but nonetheless, this study is fascinating. Several researchers either repeated the study or conducted similar ones. The results were similar.
One study in the Academy of Management looked at the consequences of voice on status and the person’s emergence as a leader. Once again, it pays to be male. The key point is the social construction of how we perceive leadership is obviously skewed by gender. This explains a bit why there are far fewer female leaders historically (when we know there were), just not documented as often. We have a lot of implicit assumptions to get rid of.
Causation vs. Correlation
I often see folks confuse two related things thinking that one of those things causing the other to happen. For example, I have an employee who attends all my training programs and is also a top performer. Is this because my programs made her perform better? In other words, is this a causal relationship? If it is causal, I will be employed for life!
To have a causal relationship, many factors must be present:
1. The causing event must occur before the effect event. This seems banal, but our employee may have been a top performer before she started taking my courses. At the very minimum, this means the impact of my courses on her is greatly reduced. She may simply take courses because her high standards foster self-improvement.
2. Correlations can sometimes cause one (pun intended) to think causality is present, leading to bad decisions. For example, there is a strong correlation between ice cream vendors and crime. In fact, the causal agent was hot summers leading to increases in street crime and a desire to cool down. But neither one caused the other.
3. Many things are related, but few have a cause-and-effect relationship. Thinking causality exists (when it doesn’t) can lead you down a very convoluted path.
Is it Acceptable for Leaders To Lie?
Well, history certainly seems to say, yes. FDR either lied or hid facts from both colleagues and the public. (Roosevelt is my favorite US President). Heck, people didn’t even know Roosevelt was mostly in a wheelchair. Yet, lying is a behavioral example of lacking integrity— a value most of us believe is essential to great leadership.
Are there good times to lie and bad ones? Was Roosevelt’s greatness in part because he knew when to do so? Or, what if a leader tells the truth and no one believes him? Or, lying so effectively, everyone believes him?
I think we would all agree that as CEO, deceiving one’s Board or Investors is a no-no. But, what if in the name of turning an organization around that’s doing horribly requires the leadership team to paint an inspirational picture that isn’t quite accurate? Is bending the truth then acceptable? I think we have a tendency to idealize the attributes we expect in great leadership. And, I think this is a mistake. Historically, great leadership occurred when one achieved some form of success mobilizing a group of people toward a goal, against great odds. The end shouldn’t justify the means but sometimes, maybe? How do we reconcile dubious values in the face of necessity and outcome?