A clarity for the addled on their Leaders development journey
Humility is not thinking less of yourself, but thinking of yourself less- C.S.L
Do leadership personas require humility as a foundational trait to be effective in their entrusted roles? Leadership development initiatives often emphasize attributes such as bravery, courage, and a “can-do” attitude—essentially calling out for leaders with bold and assertive qualities that appeal to their macho nature.
In this context, consider the following narrative from an interview:
“I am this,” “I have achieved these,” “I have not failed”—these are common aspirational statements made by leadership candidates during job interviews. Interviewers, in turn, often seek out indicators of strong behavioural competencies, celebrating candidates who present themselves as achievers and rejecting even the slightest hint of failure. This tendency to favour bravado over vulnerability risks creating what can be termed a probable “Error B”—the overemphasis on boldness at the expense of authenticity or self-awareness.
In another instance, some interviewers employ unconventional methods to gauge candidates’ responses under pressure. One such example involved a candidate who proudly presented a physical certificate of achievement during an interview. The interviewer abruptly threw the certificate into a trash can and asked, “Now you have nothing. What are you?” The candidate, instead of responding assertively, picked up the certificate reluctantly, appearing visibly uncomfortable. This moment of hesitation raised questions about the candidate’s self-esteem and resilience.
This scenario raises a critical question: Is pretentiousness—projecting a macho or bravado persona—a genuine indicator of effective leadership? Or is it merely a delusion? Exploring this dichotomy reveals deeper insights.
In the world of business and leadership, the allure of guarantees can make leadership roles appear desirable. However, when faced with uncertainty—whether environmental, human, or organizational—leaders often experience varying degrees of vulnerability. These uncertainties impact not only external decision-making but also internal emotional resilience. Returning to the interview scenario, the candidate’s self-esteem, seemingly dependent on external validations such as certificates or social recognition, appeared fragile in the face of adversity. This highlights an important facet of leadership: those who rely solely on external markers of success may crumble under pressure. True leadership calls for inner strength, humility, and the ability to navigate vulnerability, rather than masking it with bravado.
Yet, at that moment of experience; three distinct feelings may emerge.
- One may be a spring up of ‘anger’
- the other may be a ‘pretentious bravado’ and;
- the last could be a destructive feel of ‘being cringed’ with self-pity as result.
Reactive individuals often succumb to situations due to the cringe-inducing sense of inadequacy, whereas proactive individuals might embrace the rawness of their vulnerability. However, in the scenario mentioned above, if the interviewee’s response reflected genuine vulnerability rather than a cringe reaction, the interviewers may have missed out on the right candidate. Sadly, this oversight might stem from the interviewers’ lack of awareness of their own inner biases—a lamentable reality.
Conversely, those left vulnerable are often at a crossroads: vulnerability becomes either a limitation or an opportunity, depending on their choice to express it.
This raises pivotal questions:
- Do resilient individuals openly express vulnerability, or do they conceal it?
- Is vulnerability a sign of weakness or the beginning of leadership clarity?
These questions offer leaders and purpose-driven individuals valuable points for self-reflection.
Vulnerability is a universal human condition, yet it is often suppressed in societies dominated by “shame cultures,” where fear of disconnection and feelings of unworthiness prevail. These emotions, while resembling vulnerability, are distinct constructs that must not be conflated.
For leaders, vulnerability can be a powerful position—a declaration of “here I am, as I am.” It reflects strength, not weakness, and resonates with authenticity, joy, and love. Vulnerability enables leaders to inspire candor and foster creativity within their teams. Unfortunately, in cultures of fear and shame, vulnerability is often misunderstood. Individuals may associate it with failure, leading them to overcompensate through perfectionism or bravado, perpetuating leadership vanity.
True strength lies in embracing vulnerability as a human trait, reminding us that we are “human beings,” not “human doings.” Vulnerability does not negate worthiness or connection; instead, it manifests as courage—a genuine courage far removed from the false bravado born of concealed fear.
Leadership Enhancement – Successes and Failures
Leadership lessons from the past, simulation exercises, and self-introspection sessions are often hailed as essential tools for development. However, they carry inherent risks, particularly when they fail to nurture authentic leadership. These methods often foster a non-vulnerable stance, presenting individuals with a narrow spectrum of socially acceptable vulnerability. This limitation arises because many facilitators rely on surface-level interpretations of social sciences, lacking a deeper understanding of human nature and the intricate architecture of human psychology. Such an approach often perpetuates untruths, creating a comforting narrative for both facilitators and their audiences, leaving genuine leadership overlooked.
Traits such as transparency, ethical behaviour, and tough decision-making are widely celebrated as key leadership attributes. Yet, these alone cannot create authentic leaders without addressing the core of “true vulnerability.” Consider a so-called bravado leader, known for ethical transparency and tough decisions—if pushed to the wall, what might emerge is their raw “self,” exposed in either a cringy or vulnerable state. This unresolved dimension of human nature often leads to delusions, fostering a false narrative of leadership. Consequently, leadership development initiatives risk becoming elitist, favouring those who mask their vulnerabilities or suppress cringy feelings to project bravado.
Questions for Reflection:
- Are leaders inherently vulnerable?
- Or is the ability to feign invulnerability more celebrated?
If the latter prevails in a culture, it inevitably promotes bravado. Leadership development, in such cases, becomes an exercise in encouraging pretentiousness, reducing it to “delusion development.” History has shown that such superficial leadership—whether in business or governance—fails to deliver meaningful outcomes. Facilitators of leadership development must be vigilant to avoid perpetuating such fantasies.
The Problem with Leadership Discourses
While the competency frameworks may not explicitly favor “macho” or “bravado” personas, workplaces often implicitly reward these traits. This unspoken preference sidelines real leaders who express vulnerability, allowing the pretentious to ascend. Leadership assessments frequently focus on guaranteed outcomes, favoring candidates who project certainty. However, in the absence of genuine guarantees, such assessments can be manipulated by those skilled in deception, allowing bravado to undermine the essence of true leadership.
To understand vulnerability, we must revisit its etymology. Derived from the Latin vulnus (meaning “wound”), vulnerability is defined as the quality of being susceptible to harm, influence, or attack. This capacity for vulnerability is a state or ability that manifests in varying degrees across human behaviours.
Some individuals find meaning in their suffering through their response to it. While this response may be valid, it should not be conflated with the constructs of vulnerability or cringe. Instead, it serves as a potential starting point for personal growth and development.