Great Leadership, Think Negative
The majority of working Americans and researchers for that matter, believe that great leaders are born with certain traits to succeed. Believers may look to find those desirable traits in, Christopher Peterson and the Values in Action Classification of Character Strengths for the 24 terms of strengthens, the 18,000 traits suggested by Allport and Odbert, or perhaps the slimmed down version with the Five Factor Model (FFM). (PSU, 2015) Whatever the collection of inspirational terms maybe, I am of the belief that there is not a list or composite that can equate to good leadership.
We all have or desire traits in leadership that we deem necessary over other traits based off our experience and our particular field. A leader that is motivating and inspiring is more desirable to me than one that is compassionate or outgoing. Some of the most influential and successful leaders in history may have lacked tack or empathy, but their passion and drive is what gained the respect among their followers. So perhaps it isn’t the list of positive traits a leader most possess in order to prove his worth, but instead it is the traits that he shouldn’t have.
You can have a leader that is influential, compassionate, intelligent, but when the leader begins possessing the Dark Side of Personality traits, the positives can diminish. Instead of searching the 18,000 terms of what a good leader is, try out the six terms of what a good leader isn’t; argumentative, insensitive, narcissistic, fear of failure, perfectionist, and impulsive. (PSU, 2015)
When you look through this list do names and scenarios flood your mind? Are you reminded of a coach from high school, a professor from college, a boss or a coworker? Now look back at the positive traits and the FFM; dependable, agreeable, stable, open to experience, and extrovert, do you have the same recall effect. Do you immediately think of a leader that you considered great? What shapes our view of leadership may not always be who he was but who he wasn’t. I want to focus on one dark side as it is one that I find to be the most detrimental. Argumentative.
At first glance argumentative may not appear to be a pitfall, but it can indicate the presence of the other 5 terms. According to PSU, the dark side argumentative “are leaders who are suspicious, overly sensitive to criticism, and expect to be mistreated.” The boss who is always lurking around the cubicles, who looks at your computer screen when talking, the one who elicits the opinions of others on your performance or asks who is saying what about the meeting or new policy. The boss that believes anyone who disagrees is against him. The boss that sees an employee who shows initiative and begins measures to improve the organization is not a go-getter but is after the boss’ job. A person’s perception of a threat sometimes is more influential than an actual threat. The boss that begins a meeting with, “I know none of you are going to like this change and will probably take it out on me”.
I am asking the consumer(s) of this entry to take the concept of “hero” or “perfect” out of the approach to understanding leadership. The trait approach to leadership is as dated, vague, and overused as the terms it represents. Take the concept of analyzing a leader and reverse it! Everyone has different beliefs for what a leader should be, it loses its power. The trait approach to assessment is one of the oldest and most overly referenced forms of leadership assessment. (PSU, 2015) We have accepted the concept of looking at the positive side of leadership for too long. If you want a good/great leader, then focus more on NOT possessing the dark side traits than a never-ending list of what should be.