“In days of yore when giants walked the earth…”  that would be a dead giveaway that we aren’t talking about the real world and what follows is probably mythic, legendary or a parody of some kind.  What’s strange is that so much that is accepted as “truth” or wisdom about leadership is actually not grounded in the real world at all.  It might as well be cast in a fairy tale, because the common view of leadership is all wrong.

Here are six common myths of leadership that I’ve seen.

1.  Leadership is personality driven. When we describe the qualities of great leaders we often focus on their confidence, or charisma, or their outgoing personality.  Some leaders do have strong, outgoing personalities, or a sense of confidence and certainty that we admire.  However, there have been mesmerizing, magnetic and attractive tyrants, con-artists and fraudsters who had these qualities too, but we wouldn’t consider them true leaders.  In fact, false leaders are much more personality driven than true leaders.  Leadership is much more about a shared vision or mission, and when a leader is possessed by a captivating or enrolling vision, they often display confidence and charisma and other desirable personality traits.  Personality without vision is an attractive package wrapped around an empty box.

2.  Leadership is a position. How many Presidents have failed as leaders?  What about CEO’s or Executive Directors, Chief Surgeons or Chairmen?  Does being a general make someone a good leader?  If holding a position, office or title conferred leadership, why do we often see such poor leadership from those in office?  Leadership is not role-driven.  My work in organizations has often pointed me to leaders outside of the expected places and positions of power.  Position confers responsibility, but not leadership ability!  Real leadership is often demonstrated before or even in spite of having positional authority, office, or a leadership title.

3.  Leadership is a demonstration of control and dominance. Strong or effective leadership is often equated with the exercise of control, including reversion to the use of force or power if necessary.  Machiavelli wrote in The Prince (ch. XVII) that a leader should seek to be both loved and feared, but if a tradeoff is required, a leader must be feared.  “Command and control” has long been one way of practicing leadership, and leaders sometimes pride themselves on being feared or intimidating.  Control and dominance can be very effective in getting things done, especially in a crisis.  This is one leadership style, but not the only one, and not the one most effective in the majority of situations.  Deming, the father of the modern quality movement, had 14 principles for management in transforming business, one of which was “Drive out fear” (#8).  Control and dominance can be effective in some situations, but ultimately it is limiting and self-defeating in leaders.

4.  Leadership is hard-wired. The belief is still strong among many that leaders are born, or they have innate leadership ability.   If that is true, the attempt to cultivate, train or develop leaders must be futile or a hugely expensive pursuit.   Some people do have more aptitude, raw talent, or desire to lead.  I’m not disputing that.  However, these people don’t always turn out to be the best leaders.  At the same time, there are others with less aptitude, more disadvantages and adversity, or who get a late start that actually turn out to be better leaders than the “natural” leaders that we spot at an early stage.  The truth is there are many paths to leadership–raw ability, adversity, motivational drive, a window of opportunity opens– and any or several these can be exhibited in one person.

5.  Leadership is automatic. The scenario has been played out many times.  A strong, proven candidate has been screened and vetted.  A great performer has earned this promotion.  Once they are in their leadership position, the results just aren’t there.  Big disappointment ensues.  Committees or boards often make the mistake of taking people who look promising or who proved themselves in other situations and placing them in a leadership position only to see them fail.  We assume that leadership is automatic.   If you’re a great doctor, engineer, banker, policy-maker, manager, military officer, etc., you’ll be a great leader.  The same thinking is often applied to management trainees or “high potentials”: we assume advanced education or superior smarts make you a great leader, only to discover that’s not necessarily the case!  We can’t assume that leadership comes automatically or that it is always a transferable skillset.

6.  Leadership is about the Great Leader. You know who the great leaders are.  We usually identify them by one name or their initials:  Caesar, Confucius, Elizabeth, Washington, Lincoln, Gandhi, (Mother) Teresa, JFK, MLK.  As beloved as these leaders are, there is a strong human tendency to lift up leaders through hero worship or the cult of personality.  We see this in the corporate world too when the “Great Leader” is often deferred to, rarely challenged, and a personal fiefdom of loyalty emerges around them.  The myth of the “Great Leader” is coupled with the idea that leadership is rare, mystical and unquestionable.  At least it is until fashions change, the leader dies (or resigns) or the resulting conditions become intolerable.  Without fail, another leader emerges, proving there really was no leadership shortage.

These myths aren’t hard to take apart when we take time to think about it.  The problem is we don’t usually stop and examine the myth.  Exposing the myths isn’t enough, though.  I’ve been interviewing effective leaders for some time and I’ve noticed certain common principles emerge.  Stay tuned for more about the truths of leadership.