A lot of what I see masquerading as leadership is a huge ego and a power complex. Invariably when these people move on they leave a big gap because they have failed what I believe are the ultimate leadership tests – first creating an environment in which everyone can be successful and second ensuring that they always have at least 2 people ready to step into their shoes in the case of an emergency.

This is partly tied in with the education and social environments of the past. Up to about 1960 schools and society in general demanded obedience with the very real threat of punishment unless compliance was complete. These were the days of “subordinates”. Around 1960 the emphasis moved to conformance – if you do as I want, I will reward you in some way. Again, the concept of subordination was very real because even the concept of “teams” seldom meant more than a different term for the same structure and behaviour in the 70′s. During the 80′s, with the rise of the new technological and information age, the move was to engagement – and you cannot practice engagement using a compliance or conformance approach: engagement requires volunteers not conscripts. Those of us who did our schooling and early work life in the 50′s and 60′s (which, at least in Australia, is still the majority of people in top management and Board positions) sometimes fail to understand this.

My 1990′s research which lead to “Leaders: diamonds or cubic zirconia” made it clear to me that, at least in Australia and NZ, people today are suspicious of “strong”eaders who rely on power – even if the populist press hasn’t yet caught up on this.