In a program I conducted recently, one of the leader- participants observed, “But doesn’t that depend upon who the leader is – everyone’s different, right?” Right, every leader is different!

What continues to surprise me, though, is the extent to which leaders and organizations persist in trying to create leader-clones, leaders who are exact duplicates of one another as if there is a universal model or ideal of leadership.

A few examples.

One organization called me in to ask if I could help them create a leadership model to determine how future leaders will be selected, developed, and evaluated. The executive I met with said, “I want to develop a model of what outstanding leadership looks like that encompasses all levels, all our business units, all our functional areas. I want to build a leadership model that other businesses will look to as the gold standard.”

An aspiring leader asked me, “It seems that in my company all the senior executives are cut from the same mold. They’re all outgoing, aggressive, dynamic people. If I want to advance here, it seems as though I’ll have to be like them, even though I’m not like that. Should I try to change to be more like them?”

And, I regularly see articles and books that announce the latest set of ideal, critical, time-tested, immutable keys for leaders that, if practiced, will guarantee success. All that has to be done is to adhere to the simple checklist that ensures leadership effectiveness.

Now, don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying that establishing a general idea of leadership is a mistake. Individual leaders and organizations should think about and determine what they expect of leaders. The mistake is to assume that everyone can and should become a clone and adhere exactly to a specific model of how a leader will behave to meet these expectations.

Many organizations develop and promote leaders using what I call the “leader-clone approach” exclusively without taking into consideration the extent to which successful leaders can be quite different.

The “leader-clone approach” strives to make all leaders the same, despite their different experiences, strengths, values, and idiosyncrasies. The biggest problem with this approach is that it flies in the face of reality.

Leadership is not like math or the hard sciences in which there are immutable rules that apply and clear standards that can be measured and tested. Leadership entails far too many specific and distinctive factors, such as the culture and attributes of the organization, the personalities and capabilities of the staff, and the experiences, knowledge, and abilities of the leaders themselves.

Leadership requires analysis and judgment, not formulaic, cookie-cutter approaches. Leaders must sort through the many factors associated with their particular circumstance and make a judgment as to which ones matter most and what they will do to address the most pressing issues.

Furthermore, the “leader-clone approach” fails on another account. All of the leaders I have ever talked with have acknowledged how their particular style of leadership is distinctive, the result of an unpredicted, dynamic, and unique set of circumstances and attributes. So, while they recognize their own differences, for those organizations using the “leader-clone approach,” these same leaders still want others to be like them.

It’s inconsistent and presumptuous to argue that others should be held to a common standard to which you are not subject.

Cloning leaders is not the answer to the question of how to develop leaders. No two leaders are the same. Organizations, circumstances, and staff members are different, too. These differences must be acknowledged, accepted, and addressed.

The better question for how to develop leaders is, “In what ways do my personal and individualized experiences, knowledge, and abilities enable me to be an effective leader where I am right now?”

Thanksgiving has passed, but not the opportunity to be thankful for all those whose leadership has made a difference in your lives and your work. There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t think of the effective leaders who’ve had a positive impact on me and my career.

Just yesterday, during a conversation with a colleague, one of my former bosses came to mind. The boss allowed me the freedom and structure that helped me to learn how to operate independently and to be accountable for measurable results. Two important lessons I learned from him that have helped me throughout my career.

What about you? For whom are you thankful? And, what about your staff? Are they thankful for your leadership?

Mark Twain is reported to have said, “There are three kinds of lies – lies, damn lies, and statistics.” I suspect he was referring to the misuse of data (statistics) by writers. There’s a lesson for leaders in what Mark Twain said regarding how to make a point and present a logical case.

It’s easy and all too common for leaders to select only those bits of data that make their case and ignore other, conflicting, data. Unfortunately, in their efforts to convince others, they do more harm than good.

Why is that? First, they fail to tell the whole story. Failing to tell the whole story is a disservice to those who expect and deserve to be told the whole truth. Some leaders assume that staff members need to be shielded from the full truth or that the staff should be told only the good news for morale and motivation purposes. In both instances, the leaders mistakenly assume that staff members can’t handle the truth.

Second, not telling the whole truth undermines the leaders’ credibility, especially when staff members know when their leaders are selectively using data. When leaders only tell some of what they know to the staff who expect more, their confidence in their leaders is undermined. They ask, properly, “Why don’t they just tell us the truth?”

Acknowledging that there are times when leaders must preserve confidences and not talk about everything they know, two questions can help you determine whether or not you’ve fallen into the trap of selectively using data.

“If I assumed that the staff was responsible, mature, and professional, what else would they want to know?” And, “What else could I say to provide the staff with a more complete and accurate understanding of the situation, thereby providing them with knowledge and insight they would probably not get otherwise?”

email: archie@archietinelli.com archie@archietinelli.com