In reading Leaders: Myth and Reality by General Stanley McChrystal, Jeff Eggers, and Jason Mangone there are three myths that society associates with leadership.
These are the Formulaic Myth, the Attribution Myth, and the Results Myth.
The Formulaic Myth makes the error in assuming that a certain prescribed set of required leadership qualities or traits is needed for a leader’s success. If a leader has this winning “formula” then they’ll be a successful leader. The problem with this, as pointed out by the authors, is that truly successful leadership needs to be adapted to changing circumstances and times. Leadership in the authors’ view is very dynamic (not static) and is clearly not about possessing a one size fits all strategy for success. Leaders must be continually flexible in their approaches to multifaceted problems that they have never faced before.
The Attribution Myth is dangerous in that the perceived results (good or bad) that happen under a leader’s watch largely ignore the role of followers and group dynamics. In short, all results are thought to be directly derived from the particular leader. In the extreme this can lead to what the authors refer to as a type of hero worship. It is better to think of leadership existing within a “network of relationships” (page 398).
The Results Myth makes the point that leadership is all about moving an organization toward beneficial outcomes. In reality, the authors argue that the symbolic values of the particular leader may actually be just as valuable, if not more so, than their production of results. The words, style, and appearance of a leader can be extremely important. “The truth is that when we look closely, we see leadership as much in what our leaders symbolize as in what they accomplish (page 378).”
Another concept that is worth noting is the suggestions that the writers give for followers.
“Followers are better served in pushing information, feedback, and recommendations up to leaders, rather than waiting for decisions and guidance to flow down. In simple terms, followers should operate via a push system rather than a pull system. One logical extension of this concept is the requirement for followers to practice reverse accountability, or the process of followers’ holding leaders accountable. This view of leadership suggests that a leader’s operating parameters are often defined by followers, and that the real efficacy in a leadership system lies with the followers. Thus followers should be more willing to shape and confine their leaders’ styles (page 400).”
I like the following commentary on the training of leaders. “Rather, they (leaders) should be equipped with an understanding of leadership as a system, see themselves as the enablers of that system, and learn how to adjust their approach based on the needs of that system (page 400).”
Also worth pointing out is the possibility for reformed views of leadership to improve the collective good.
“It becomes possible to resurrect the expectation that it is the function of leadership to improve the overall progress of humanity. Too often, results-based leadership has been focused on the bottom line, trying to manage a perceived trade-off between the mission and taking care of people. Through this new conceptual lens, we dispense with such either-or thinking. Rather, the two become positively correlated, and we can more easily see how societal prosperity is linked to workforce fulfillment, and how unit effectiveness is linked to morale. Redefining leadership as the enablement of a human system allows for the relinkage of prosperity and productivity in a more positive way (pages 400-401).”