As we near the end of our course, I wanted to find a way to celebrate all we’ve learned without regurgitating the copious amount of information we’ve digested over nearly five months. If I’m avoiding a complete survey of the semester and our lessons (and let’s be honest, I’m not known for my concision), what better way to engage with the topic of leadership than to tackle some popular leadership myths?

Each of these myths represents an idea or belief we’ve no doubt all encountered in progressing through our personal and professional lives; I know I certainly have. Let’s take a look and see how what we’ve learned supports or refutes these pervasive beliefs.

1. Leaders must be extroverts. Lesson two introduced us to the trait theory of leadership; trait research represents one of the earliest organized attempts to study the phenomenon of leadership in the 20th century (Northouse, 2019). Even today, many are entranced with the idea that leaders are special—that they possess extraordinary qualities that others possess only in moderation or not at all—and with such assumptions comes the belief that leaders must fit a certain personality type as well (Northouse, 2019).

   Research suggests that there are certain traits that tend to be associated with accomplished leaders (Northouse, 2019). Extroversion in particular was called out by Zaccaro, Kemp, and Bader (2017, as cited in Northouse, 2019) as an important attribute for success, yet individual traits are so narrowly focused on the leader and their qualities that the approach often fails to take into consideration the entire leadership process. Northouse (2019) defines leadership not as the province solely of the leader, but instead as a process “whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 4). In other words, leadership is a process that involves inputs related to the leader, followers, and the situation.

   

   Trappist monks are known for their few words, among other things. Image credit: Jan Petr Molitor

   While it is intuitively appealing to point toward a characteristic such as extroversion when one is conceptualizing what ‘great’ leadership looks like, to exclude a consideration of followers and a given situation is to strip away leadership’s potency as a process suitable for many different applications (Northouse, 2019). How might Trappist monks, for instance, fare with an abbot known for extroversion?

   For a more in-depth discussion on Trait theory, you can check out my earlier post on the topic here.

2. One leadership style fits all, forever. In lesson five, we tackled style and situational approaches. These approaches emphasize the importance of understanding situational and follower constraints when exercising the process of leadership (Northouse, 2019). One of the best-known approaches within this genre of leadership was developed by Hersey and Blanchard in the 1960s and is known, naturally, as Situational Leadership (Northouse, 2019).

   Situational leadership is a great example of why this myth is a poor representation of the leadership process because it demonstrates both the importance of individualized consideration (in other words, meeting followers where they are) and an acknowledgment of the circumstances surrounding the leadership situation at a given moment in time (Northouse, 2019). The approach describes, in-depth, four distinct leadership styles that correlate with four levels of follower development; together, leaders can make decisions about how best to support a developing follower as they progress through stages of motivation and capability (Northouse, 2019).

   Perhaps if leadership truly was all about the leader this myth might hold water. Given the diverse array of follower needs and situational considerations, however, leaders must be prepared to adapt and change their approach to leading.

   For a closer look at situational leadership, check out this detailed blog entry that discusses the approach here.

3. Only the boss can lead. Team leadership was a rather expansive topic we covered in lesson nine; in today’s global business environment there is higher demand than ever before for teams that can function autonomously and share leadership responsibilities (Northouse, 2019). Sometimes discussed as shared or distributed leadership, this type of leadership is supported by strong research that suggests such delegations of power not only empower team members to make decisions but lead to more nimble responses to challenges in the business environment (Northouse, 2019).
   

   Hey, followers aren’t sheep!

   An implicit assumption in this myth is that only an appointed leader is equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to meet the needs of a given business or unit. This paints leadership as a process that is contingent upon, first, a designated leader and second, positional power (Northouse, 2019). By contrast, team leadership theorists recognize the importance of diagnosis and action-taking as fundamental pillars of leadership; this approach capitalizes on the information power that can be cultivated in strong teams for greater performance capabilities (Northouse, 2019). If the whole is to be greater than the sum of its parts, work units must be empowered to cooperate, leverage members’ strengths, and share knowledge to achieve their aims.

   For a practical discussion of team leadership, check out a blog entry dedicated to this topic here.

4. Management equals leadership. This myth is a definite throwback to our very first lesson in the course, and a number of leadership scholars have come out in favor and against the use of ‘manager’ and ‘leader’ as synonyms (Northouse, 2019). Bennis and Nanus (2007, as cited in Northouse, 2019) frame the difference as a fundamental if mechanical one: whereas managers are concerned with routines, processes, and accomplishing tasks (i.e., the “doing”), leaders are concerned with influencing others, creating change, and establishing visions (i.e., the “dreaming”) (p. 13).

   While some argue that good leaders wear both management and leadership hats (and perhaps they should—if leaders only dream, what happens to the “do”?!), most research supports conceptualizing the two terms as entirely separate constructs (Northouse, 2019). Semantics aside, the bottom line is that transactional relationships, often the purview of management, runs the risk of alienating an organization’s biggest resource: its people. Both tasks and relationships are crucial to meeting and exceeding organizational goals.

   For an amusing example of management versus leadership from the perspective of followership, check out my earlier blog entry on these topics here.

5. Leaders must eliminate mistakes. Lesson ten toured the research bases for the emergence of transformational leadership as a viable, ethically desirable style of leading that works through the influence of the leader and impacts followers through charisma and inspiration (Northouse, 2019). Most important for the consideration of this myth are the styles of leadership that run counter to transformative hallmarks, notably transactional leadership behaviors.

   Where transformational leadership behaviors support the creation of a shared vision and goals between leaders and followers through an emphasis on individualized consideration, transactive behaviors prioritize scalability and broad acceptance from followers on the basis of their self-interests (Northouse, 2019). One type of transactional leadership is management by exception, defined as leadership that “involves corrective criticism, negative feedback, and negative reinforcement” (Northouse, 2019, p. 172). In active management by exception, leaders are narrowly focused on punitive consequences; put another way, mistakes or violations are viewed as an opportunity to take corrective action in the moment (Northouse, 2019).

   

   Management by exception helps with quality control, but what about building quality relationships?

   The greatest problem with this myth is the potential for such management tactics to stymy the creativity that helps drive businesses forward (Northouse, 2019). If leaders are narrowly focused on eliminating errors, they are unlikely to inspire their followers to be part of the problem-solving and innovating functions of their unit. Further, research suggests that these types of transactional relationships prevent leaders from being able to form trusting, mutually beneficial exchanges with their followers (Northouse, 2019). Innovation is a risk-taking venture; leaders must balance efficiency with calculated risks in order to get the most out of followers’ potential.

   For an insightful exploration of transformational vs. transactional leadership, check out this blog entry here. To revisit another way of building strong exchange relationships, check out my earlier blog post related to leader-member exchange theory here.

Five leadership myths, several weeks of lessons, and myriad reasons why research emphasizes the importance of leadership theories over the individual experiences that leadership maxims offer us (PSU WC, 2021, L. 1). Based on your own experiences this semester, which myths do you think are most concretely busted? Which might have a few kernels of truth tucked in?

References

Jan Petr Molitor. (1756). Cisterian monks [painting]. Retrieved at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jan_Petr_Molitor_-_Cistercian_monks,_murals_Cistercian_Abbey_Osek.jpg

Northouse, P. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice. Retrieved at: https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781506362298/

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2021). PSYCH 485 Lesson 1: Introduction to leadership. Retrieved at: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2110257/modules/items/30960543