Ep 429: More Discussion on Zombie Leadership

more of them. And there are specific ones that we had, you know, people mentioned more than others as ones that they had a maybe a more difficult time wrapping their heads around, and want us to go over what we think about them or why we think that that these are kind of these have been debunked, or these are things that we should let go of and move forward with a different way of thinking. And so I like this, you know, we respond to our listeners and and you know,

want to want to meet people where they are. So I want to go over a few more of these axioms of zombie leadership.

you know. The this this was one of those episodes last Monday where in my mind what I thought the conversation was going to be about or how engaging it was going to be was like yet, you know, one level, but I think it was higher than what I thought

it was going to be. I think we there was more to discuss than what I thought there was to discuss when I when I initially thought let's talk about this thing, and so we never that happens and I feel like I wish we had more time to talk about this, that I think it's a good idea to go back and revisit it again. The first one of these axioms I want to talk about is this idea that there are specific qualities that all great leaders have. And you know that if you can look back at

over time and and you know, take the leaders. I mean, if if you're listening to the Hacking leadership a long time, you'll remember from maybe twenty nineteen, we did our you know, the list of the ten best leaders of all time throughout the generations. Right, So going back all the way in time to today and looking at how those leaders have changed, Well, did they share some qualities with each other? Probably? But does that mean that there are particular qualities that

all great leaders have? And the examples given by this by this article are things like intelligence and charisma, And on the surface, you know, I might think, yeah, I think that's accurate. If I look at the leaders that I think are good leaders that I've ported to over the years, I can't say that any of them weren't intelligent, weren't intelligent, and weren't charismatic, right, So like so to me, the kind of knee jerk response would be to say, yes,

that sounds accurate. There are particular qualities that all great leaders have, but that's not necessarily the case. What do you think about this?

things that overlap. But I think for me, a lot of that overlap is the true kind of pillars of leadership and like kind of that you know that whether not just integrity, not just honesty, a true passion and care for the individual, but also someone who is willing to challenge them, uh to set the bar higher or to help them understand what they're capable of. But then I also think though to your point, like you know, we say things like intelligence, like myers they're they're super smart. Well,

how do you measure that what's subjective about that? Like what is are they? Are they smart on a test? Are they smart in IQ? Are they smart in EQ? Are they smart because they're subject matter experts of the thing that you're doing and they can help you and you know, and and and show you the ways of doing doing the things that you want to get done. Like I just I think that there are again there are pieces of this that are really really clear and

and I don't know that they change much. But then there are things that we have to say, well, is being the smartest person the best leader? And has that changed over time? And have we learned from the fact that, like you know, for a long time, you take your best individual contributor, the person who knew the most about the thing or the system or the process or whatever

it is, and then you make them the leader. And then most of the time or some of the time, they get really frustrated with people that don't do it as well as they do, they don't do the way that they did it right, like like they So again we say that it's about intelligence or or understanding or knowledge, and we say that that that world makes sense. Yes, leaders, Yeah, that be knowledgeable, that's a good thing, But what's the context,

what's the element of this? Has have we seen it actually have a positive impact on leadership or do we have a lot of examples where that has not worked out in the way that you would expect it to work out when we tie you know, a leader to just you know, the the nomenclature or the word that we think that they are not realizing that how they apply what that is to people is a larger factor, right, And I.

clarity and support are actions not character traits. Right there there, you could find two people, one that you might consider incredibly intelligent and one that you might consider not as intelligent, and and they both technically have the ability to provide a vision, to provide clarity, and to provide support. That that the things that you're looking for leaders to deliver on, they they don't necessarily have to rely on a particular trait they have to rely on a on an ability

to do certain actions and deliver certain things. But but there are so many different traits that you could over or under index on that to try to define this as there are there's even one trait that you could say in order to be a great leader, you have to have this thing. I don't think there is. I

don't think there is. I think there's there's there's a There are enough options out there that you could be that you could have in terms of traits to where there there's a the then diagram of it is huge. And as long as you're able to deliver on certain things, then that makes you a good leader, not you know whether you have a specific trait, because I'll tell you I know some pretty intelligent people who couldn't lead a

team to save their lives. Yeah, exactly. You know like that, you can't you can't make it a causal relationship, because then that's when you start to fall into the trap of promoting the wrong people, because you're promoting people based on a character trait and not based on an ability to deliver certain outcomes or do certain actions. And so I think this, I like this idea of kind of decoupling the two. That there are certain character traits that

I think think are desirable, they're desirable to have. But but to to say to somebody that they can't be a great leader because they don't over index on this, or to assume they're going to be a great leader because they do over index on it, that's when you fall into a trap. As opposed to making the goal or the focus on a particular set of outcomes and actions, as opposed to as opposed to character traits.

And then and then it kind of like accepting that as who you are as a leader, and then what are the things that you can do well and what are the things that you have to be conscious of or work on or surround yourself with other people who

have those types of strengths. Like I think to me that that is the best way to allow people to number one, be themselves, but the number two not subscribe to kind of these terms or just you know, like we have to like here's the five you know, to your point, here's a five characteristics that we must have in a leader. Well, okay, I mean I could probably name those characteristics in a negative way, or I could say that those things might be like overused to a degree.

So if that's the case, and it's more about I think the impact you want to have on the team. We're looking for a leader who does these things. You motivate people, you inspire people, you have a passion for development, like things that you do as a leader to help your team move forward and progress and get better, versus simply saying these are things that must be in your leadership. Like I think that I think the big ones will

always be there. But I think that like the true thinking through and defining the impact you want to have versus maybe the subjective opinion of how these things show up in you. I think to me, that's a better move looking forward when it comes to like thinking about assessing and hiring leaders, right.

than they value charisma out of a leader they they might have, They might they might not be very charismatic themselves, and based on the chosen profession they have, and therefore a leader coming in who over indexes on the charisma part might be seen as almost an outsider, like I'm I'm not sure if I trust this person to follow them like they don't. They don't remind me of me.

And and I think it's important for for for people, for company leaders, when making promoting and hiring decisions to look at what the team needs in the moment, not just you know, kind of trying to find to find something that's universal that you can say on paper good, because that's a that's a way to potentially get the wrong person the next axium. I want to discuss is this idea that we all know a great leader when we see one, and that there's you know, consensus that

some leaders are better than others. Like if you could look at two people both in leadership roles and say which one of these people are better? You could watch them, watch them interact with people for a few days or a week, and that everybody would would agree at the end which one of these people was the better leader

than the other. And I think that that this is one of those things that seems accurate to me, Like, like, why wouldn't you be able to just watch somebody watch two different people over the course of a week interacting with their teams, trying to accomplish things, trying to get things done, and be able to say at the end of it, yeah, this person was clearly a better or a more effective leader than this person. And the problem

with this is that there isn't consensus. They're like because every every not every only is every person different in terms of what they're looking for, but organizations look for different things at different times, and so consensus is only produced if you if you give privilege to one particular perspective over another. And in some organizations one perspective is more valued and in another in other organizations, another perspective

is more valued. And those may change the following year or the following quarter, and that might change what you need in terms of the leader you're looking for. And so this this idea that there's this universal consensus on how to define this what a great leader is based on you know, being able to just watch them act. That's that's the problem.

the greatest leader. I learned and they taught me lessons about certain things, maybe not intentionally, but hey, that's how it goes.

it's a different level of urgency. Maybe there's more complexity to the business that you know didn't exist the couple of years before, and that now is requiring a different type of leader. And again not that the other one, the first one would be a bad leader all of a sudden. They just may have had a hard time evolving or changing to what was needed today or during

that time period. And I think that's that's where things like learning, agility, and capability, like that's where those things actually start to take on more of a need in leadership than maybe what the old you know, you know, things of that were of value were then, Like you still need to be you still have integrity, you still need to be honest with people. You need to have, you know, a passion for the work. Still need to

be a compassionate person. But now the ability to scale your self and to develop yourself and to be able to meet the moments is a very different thing as a result of the ever evolving work and you know, the different generations and the different workforce that is requiring

something different of leaders. And I think that's why it's really hard to say, like, you know, just say this, you know, this is a great leader subjectively, and then now we move that leader to a different place, a different company, different industry, or just fast forward into the future, we might not have that same opinion because other things around them have changed and adjusted, and maybe that's something that they are struggling with.

culture of that organization is very top down hierarchical. Right, there's a leader and then that person as a leader, and that person as a leader, and there's a you know, like you're not supposed to go above your leader's head to somebody else. You're supposed to get the problem solved

on your team and then have it move up. And and then there are other organizations where it's much more, much more of a flattened organization, right where you have where people where individual relationships are encouraged amongst all layers or levels of the organization, where the CEO says I have an open door policy and they actually mean it, you know, like that those kind of things, and and you know, one one isn't necessarily better than the other.

I might have one that I think is better than the other for me, like what I would thrive in versus what I wouldn't thrive in. But I promise you'll find employees in both types of organizations who are thriving and who like that particular way. And so to try to say that. But but if you took a leader in one of those organizations and stuck them in the other kind of organization, it's likely that leader would fail.

It's likely a leader who is used to a flattened kind of spiderwebed organization where everybody talks to everybody that if you put them in one that is hierarchical, they would not thrive. They would eventually leave because they would if they're if they're a great leader, they try to change the system, right and if they and if they couldn't,

they would leave. And then vice versa. Take a person who's very top down hierarchical and put them in an organization where they're expected to have a more democratic style of leadership, right, a more you know kind of let's talk to everybody, Let's get everybody's consensus. Let's let's get intoinion about somebody, not just prescribe something to them that they might have a very difficult time kind of summoning that in them if they've made a career for themselves

in the other way. And again it's not that one's better than the other. It's that the organization has a culture and that that that culture privileges certain perspectives over others. But what's working for the organization is really objective. Right Are the is the is the turnover? Low? Is the engagement? High?

Are the are the results there? If if it's a public organization, is the share price up, like those are things that you look at and if those things are all there, then it's really difficult to argue that the type of leadership there is not good or is the wrong type of leadership. Uh. And so again this idea that you can look at a leader and say that's a good leader or this is not a good leader.

I don't like that because you could, you could, you could take the fish out of water, so to speak, and they would they would no longer seem like a good leader.

to believe that these things are true? When an actuality they aren't an actuality. There there's information out there that should be able to tell you that this is not

true anymore, and you should let go of it. If you're a leader, and especially if you're one that makes hiring decisions, these are very very important to discard because they will they will lead you to make poor hiring decisions and promoting decisions if you are looking for the wrong things in a person, or if you're kind of boxing yourself into a certain thought process or or mental model when making these decisions versus kind of, you know,

opening it up and broadening your respective a little bit on what the potential is versus what the what the potential isn't when when making these decisions. So go through them, look at them, kind of look at yourself in the mirror little bit, and think about the ones that you've kind of brought with you, because we all do it. We absolutely all have brought these things with us because

of our own lived experiences. And they're all different, and some of them are far like there are some that I looked at and went, that's ridiculous, I don't think that's a problem anymore. And there are somewhere I looked at and went, why do they think think this isn't true. That's clearly still true, and then we discuss it and go, oh, yeah, I can see why that isn't true anymore. So we all have our own differences that lead us to believe

certain things. And some of these things are going to be much easier to let go of than others, but that read through it, and the ones that are tougher to let go of you put your focus on your energy there.

at all. Like there there has to be a line there to say, like, well, yeah, while in theory, I want to meet you where you're at, where you have to be is very close to where you're supposed to be, because if you're if if you're nowhere near where you're supposed to be, well, now both of us are lost and we're both spending time in a space that's not

helpful in moving things forward or progressing. And so I just like that idea because it's such a it's it's such an easy term to say, it's something that I've said a million times. But if you don't really understand what you're saying or in the context of how you're doing it or what you're talking about, it can it can definitely lead to a place where you're just not going to make any progress.

is this is how these axioms start. Right. They start with someone saying something that sounds good or looks good on paper, but when picked apart or dug into it's clear that it only applies in certain circumstances, not in every circumstance, And so it becomes a go to you know, something you say to somebody when you're trying to get them to do a good job, when you're trying if you're a leader of leaders and you're trying to get somebody to be a better leader, and you use these

things and you say these things and we don't realize that they could be doing it could be doing more damage than good to say something to a person and and just hope it's the SoundBite that works. Right like the there's more context is needed, and more actual leadership training and development is needed, not just something that feels good or looks good as a slogan.