Leaders are often crucified. Many become undeserving sacrificial lambs, while others contribute to their own demise. What lies behind the decision to crucify leaders?

I've noticed three factors that operate, often in combination with one another, to influence the decision to crucify leaders: a savior syndrome, unrealistic expectations, and the desire to find a scapegoat.

The savior syndrome occurs when organizations decide that only one person can "save" them from the crises that lie ahead. The identified savior thus becomes the "chosen one," imbued with seemingly miraculous powers to accomplish things that others just cannot do. The syndrome leads to the unfortunate corollary of placing the savior on such a high pedestal, seemingly imbued with miraculous powers, so that everyone else merely watches and waits to see what the savior will do.

Unrealistic expectations also play a role. This occurs when the leader is expected to simultaneously undertake and succeed at a set of diverse, complex, difficult, and comprehensive changes that, when viewed objectively, are impossible to achieve simultaneously. Despite the obvious impossibility of doing all of these at once, both organizations and leaders talk themselves into believing that they are realistic and achievable. Once the leader accepts these expectations, he or she is guaranteed to fail, as there is no way to fulfill them all.

The desire to find a scapegoat happens a lot. Often, it happens when those in charge try to justify, and thus rationalize, decisions that backfired. Rather than accept the responsibility for their decisions, or acknowledge the fact that the decisions were fraught with risk to begin with, they find someone to be the scapegoat, someone else they can blame for the mistakes.

All three of these examples are, in essence, merely indications of sloppy or faulty thinking. All of them, nonetheless, recur. Is there anything leaders can do to avoid these traps? I think so. Here are a few possible alternatives.

Jennifer was asked by a member of the senior management team to take over a project that for years had suffered from a lack of leadership, difficult clients, shoddy workmanship, missed deadlines, and a persistently low profit margin. Told that this would be a good opportunity for her to prove herself, she took the job. It was only later, after the project collapsed and her career was sidetracked that she found out she was never really expected to make a difference. The firm just needed someone to ride out the project until its demise, and she became the sacrificial lamb.

Don't accept positions without doing your homework - Jennifer made the mistake of accepting a position without knowing the full story. Had she done more investigation, she might have realized the depth of the problem and done more to avoid the trap.

It's not unusual for newcomers to be brought into an organization to correct a litany of ills. Dave had been successful in leading his former organization through a rocky period, so he was hired to bring the same kind of success to his new job. Unfortunately, the long- standing problems were deeper and more complex than he had realized. There was no way he was going to be able to solve them all in the time he was given. He was asked to leave after three years.

Don't take on more than is reasonable - Dave tried to do everything right away. He would have had a better chance of success had he not accepted the laundry list of issues to be addressed immediately and, instead, set priorities among them so he could tackle them one at a time.

Sean had always relished being on the hot seat. It had been that way his whole life, beginning in high school as a quarterback and point guard, and continuing throughout his career, as a one-man SWAT team, relied on to solve gnarly problems. Now, he was asked to step up once again to pull the organization's fat out of the fire. No one, he was told, could do it but him. He took on the job, only to find that it was far more than one person could handle. Unfortunately, by the time he realized it, it was too late.

Don't allow yourself to be described as the savior - Sean wanted to be the hero, but he couldn't succeed alone. If he had realized from the start that no leader can make it alone and had involved others sooner, he would have had people working alongside him to solve the problems and, thereby, improved his odds of winning.

While it may be appealing to be the savior, all too often it leads to a crucifixion. Jennifer, Dave, and Sean all ended up as martyrs.

In what ways are you being asked to be your organization's savior? What can you do to avoid ending up as your organization's martyr?

Patrick Lencioni writes, "As a leader, you're probably not doing a good job unless your employees can do a good impression of you when you're not around."

What intended impact do you have on others? Are they embracing the positive values and actions you preach and practice?

If not, what else can you do so that the impressions they do of you positively demonstrate the impact you want to have on them?

James Kouzes and Barry Posner write that, "There's nothing more demoralizing than a leader who can't clearly articulate why we're doing what we're doing."

Despite that, far too many leaders fail to communicate clearly, assuming, I suspect, that the purpose of their work is obvious to all.

Not so. Staff members need to know what their leaders are thinking about the work they do, especially its purpose and value.

When was the last time you let others know "why we're doing what we're doing?" When and how should you do so more often?

Email archie@archietinelli.com