By Sam Robinson
As we all know there are a lot of stereotypes that are unhelpful, even patently false. Many are not only false, they’re the opposite of what the evidence tells us.
Take stereotypes about Australians. One favourite of mine is that Aussies tend to be direct, we “call a spade a bloody shovel”. The evidence for this is minimal; in fact as a nation we tend to shy away from conflict. We’re indirect when giving feedback; for example, many of us (but not me) support a “compliment sandwich” approach, rather than directly addressing an issue. We don’t even get to calling a spade a spade, let alone a shovel.
Another one is that an essential trait of effective leaders is having a lot of charisma. The ancient Greeks used the word chárisma, meaning a “favor freely given”. Sociologist Max Weber brought the term into what many of us will now recognise: a distinct form of authority based on devotion to exceptional qualities of a person, rather than based on laws or tradition.
Because of this link between charisma and leadership, many leaders see a short cut here and put a lot of energy and attention into being more charismastic. This is a mistake.
Like narcissism, we all have at least a bit of charisma. And you can certainly have too much. Researchers from Ghent University found that charisma helps, but only up to a point and then effectiveness declines. Jim Collins established that companies succeed because of people who get the work done reliably, not dazzling personalities.
These are some potential “tells” that the balance is tilted too much in favour of charismatic leadership in an organisation:
- The work failing when people in leadership roles leave or even go on holidays
- Public rewards and recognition going to the same cast of characters time and again
- Results aren’t reported consistently or honestly or both
If you have all three of these, you have a toxic mix that will lead to failure.
On the other hand, organisations that: 1) plan for absences; 2) systemise knowledge and decision-making; and 3) reward and recognise results openly and evenly, have a great chance of success.
Charisma may attract attention, but it is no substitute for systems, consistency and shared capability. The strongest organisations don’t depend on a few dazzling individuals – they make good leadership and reliable performance possible, whoever happens to be in the room.
References:
- Vergauwe, J., Wille, B., Hofmans, J., Kaiser, R. B., & De Fruyt, F. (2018). “The double-edged sword of leader charisma: Understanding the curvilinear relationship between charismatic personality and leader effectiveness”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(1), 110–130.
- Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap… and others don’t. HarperBusiness.
At LKS Quaero, we help organisations to rely on consistent systems and capability for great performance. For more information, visit us at lksquaero.com or follow us on LinkedIn and Facebook.
