The world tends
toward continuums. We order everything from temperature (cold to hot, with
tepid in the middle) to wealth (poor to comfortable to rich). Continuity along
a linear line, like the inexorable laws of hydrodynamics, helps to capture and
comprehend the complexities of science and society, and offers the promise of
progress and growth.
It’s tempting to think leadership also follows a continuum,
one anchored by bad and great, with good somewhere in between. This deeply
rooted belief reassures us that leadership follows a predictable pattern, and
that through hard work and experience one can progress along the drawn line.
That anyone can develop as a leader is not in question. What
I dispute is the stubborn resolve that great and good are points along the same
stream. That just isn’t so. Great leadership and good leadership have
distinctly different characteristics and paths. Leadership is not
one-dimensional. It can be great and good, or one but not the other, or
neither.
Uses of “great” usually begin with descriptions of being
unusually intense or powerful, either “to great effect” or “a great effort.” In
that sense, great is a force. True, great also means “excellent,” but that is
not its primary meaning. As for “good,” we usually reference morality, virtue,
and ethics — “a good person” or “a good decision.” Good can refer to the
quality of something — contrasted against the commonly understood opposite, bad
— but in this context good refers to the direction in which behavior is
compelled.
Great leadership is powerful, dominating, often
overwhelming. It can sweep people along through sheer animation. Great
leadership excites, energizes, and stimulates. It’s a rousing call, shocking
complacency and inertia into action. It’s one of the most potent pulls in human
history, and as such accounts for much of humanity’s progress, as well as its
suffering. While it ignites collective action and stirs passion, its direction
depends largely on those that wield its power. Great has no inherent moral
compass, and thus its unpredictable potency can just as easily be put toward
pugilistic and peaceful purposes.
How talent management is changing.
To speak of good leadership is to speak of protecting and
advancing widely accepted principles through means to ends. It denotes doing
the “right” thing. There may be legitimate differences in interpretation of
what’s right and wrong, but long-standing ethics, mores, and customs of conduct
that have allowed individuals and collectives to survive and thrive are
remarkably similar across culture and time. Good heeds the best interests and
welfare of others.
Good leadership is not as arresting as great leadership.
When good rules the day, it’s not so noticeable, as things are transpiring as
they should. Great is dramatic, whereas good is the blended background, a
values-based screen upon which great deeds unfold. This accounts for why the
force of great often overshadows the direction of good.
The tug between great and good leadership is one of
perpetual and dynamic coexistence. There is great — a force that is often
inexplicable, occasionally irrational, and, importantly, intermittently
ungovernable. Then there is good — a direction that is north-star true,
providing the point of values of mutual benefit. The former moves, the latter
aspires. The figure below illustrates the relationship.
LEADERSHIP IS NOT
At the top right,
great and good — force and direction — are paired but not necessarily alloyed.
That’s as it should be. The tension between them galvanizes will and
commitment, tacks recurring debate about what great and good mean, and gives
rise to a critical and creative climate that fuels progress. This is where
people want to be. It’s an enviable place in which to reside, as it combines
productive and constructive energy. The waters here are favorable to astute
navigation. This is the realm of a vital leader, with all the healthy energy
vitality denotes.
At the top left, not-great leadership combines with good
leadership. Although all good intentions exist, the power to implement them is
lacking, which creates a pleasant enough place to work, but one bereft of the
vitality necessary to advance personal, social, or organizational goals. The
values are spot-on, but there is no forward motion. Ethical rectitude is
comforting, but if stalled, it means little. Inhabitants of this quadrant dwell
in a kind of stagnation. Everyone’s happy and honorable, but nothing gets done.
A leader here could be described as amiable. Friendly and pleasant to be sure,
but not necessarily animating.
If the top left quadrant is stagnant, the one below it is a
cesspool. Both great and good are absent. The lack of force and direction
withers the will and erodes the optimism of even the most stouthearted. There’s
no potency or point. There is none of the energy necessary to compel collective
movement to an end goal. No value can be attached to a nonexistent objective.
This quadrant has no direction whatsoever. Unfortunately, this describes all
too many organizations — listless and fetid. There’s just one moniker for this
leader: vacant.
The confluence of great and not-good leadership in the
bottom right quadrant is frighteningly explosive. It could combust at any
minute. The sweeping force of great has no countervailing direction for good.
It’s an environment of excitable, concentrated participation coupled with
dubiously defined purpose. The force is mighty, but the direction unprincipled.
Treacherous shoals abound in these waters. Without good leadership to hold
great leadership accountable, there’s no telling what can happen. Maleficent,
meaning capable of causing harm, describes this type of leader.
It’s natural to think of leadership as running from one end
to the other. To do so, though, is to mistake what great and good leadership
are. They’re fundamentally different. Separating them, thus upending the
ever-convenient continuum, seems counterintuitive. But it’s absolutely
necessary for understanding the very elements that explain leadership’s
operation and impact. Great can be vital but destructive; good can be
compassionate but impotent. The coexistence of the two is the best hope for
leadership — without good we should fear. Organizations must circumnavigate the
universally countervailing relationship between force and direction, lest they
run aground, adrift, or worse.
James R. Bailey
