I had to ask myself, “Why do you get so irritated by this?”
Maybe it’s because I spent all those years in undergraduate and graduate school learning the facts, the research, the models of human behavior that were built on hundreds of years of painstaking study by many, many scientists. Maybe it’s because I’ve had to continually keep up with the developing results of ever more probing research in human behavior and various methods of attempting to predict it. Maybe it’s because after decades of trying to get better at understanding the psychology of people, I still don’t think I have it whipped. Could it be simply that I don’t want to believe someone else was able to come up with the completed and proven theories? Sour grapes? Maybe so. But I think there’s also the distinct possibility that popular gurus are full of it.
Now, I don’t begrudge anyone the right to earn a living, including myself. If someone wants to sell advice, through either personal interaction or with books (and newspaper columns), I support that, obviously. I don’t think I’m a hypocrite. But it bothers me when other advisers present some definitive, authoritative summary of The Way People Are without a foundation of fact-based principles upon which to draw conclusions. Even with that foundation, I still can’t bring myself to make any statement about human behavior patterns without saying things like, “Most of the time…,” “The odds are…,” “I only have my own experience to draw from, but here’s what I’ve observed…,” and “The research I’ve had the opportunity to read says that…” I can’t sleep at night if I don’t throw in the caveats and the assumptions.
What brought all this up? A director of an organization I periodically advise inquired as to whether I had read a certain book by a university professor, on the subject of leadership. I had read enough of it to know that it belonged to a long line of such books, written by anecdotal observers of leadership who had never bet all their chips on their own leadership abilities. The book contained inspirational stories of leaders who had, according to the narrative, truly arrived at the pinnacle of leadership skill.
The author presented the stories like fiction is usually written, with clear plots, established characters and the message composed according to the illustration the writer was trying to achieve. Every “guru” I’ve met in the field of leadership has had a knack for telling good stories, for engaging audiences, but has been less than a shining example of their own principles, when the truth is revealed. And here is a principle of human behavior that has been repeatedly supported by peer-reviewed research: the first person deceived is the person telling the lie. Humans have a great skill at forming a self-image that fulfills their own desired traits (good or bad), whether or not that image is justified by objective evidence. We see ourselves like we want to be, and often don’t recognize when we aren’t really behaving that way. We believe our own story. That’s the only way one can explain the dramatically contradictory behavior of a John Edwards, an O.J. Simpson, a Tiger Woods, a Ted Haggard and so many others.
The absolute best books on leadership I’ve read have invariably been written by people who were themselves leaders, and who didn’t mind telling everyone about the mistakes they made, the regrets they had, the humbling experiences they learned from. The titles of the truly valuable books are not hyperbolic. In fact, the more dramatic the claim in the title, the less useful the book’s contents. Which book would you expect contained real learning: “The Seven Leadership Secrets,” written by a world-famous author, or “All My Screw-ups”, by the octogenarian founder and CEO of a billion dollar, international manufacturer? Would you rather learn about leadership from someone who has led a team of public relations and marketing professionals, or from someone who has had to teach leaders how to lead on the front lines of Afghanistan?
I quote my first mentor a lot in my writing, so here comes another one. I asked Lou what his philosophy of leadership was, in 1979. He said, “Oh, it’s easy to create leaders, Stan. Nothing to it. You just take a person who has strong moral character, knows the value of hard work, has a burning drive to be better, fundamentally cares about other people, has little need for public recognition or prestige, feels deep accountability for her commitments and recognizes that leadership is its own separate profession of stewardship. Then you put her into progressively more responsible positions of authority, allow her to make increasingly impactful decisions without saving her from the painful but essential mistakes. Simmer for about twenty years. Bingo. You have a good leader.”
What? No simple set of easily understood guidelines? No catchy acronyms? But it’s so much more comfortable just reading a feel-good book.
Friday, January 14, 2011