Thread by @head_teach

*7 counter-claims about leadership*

At the risk of being provocative...

https://twitter.com/tomrees_77/status/1122982694684626944

1. Leadership is an ill-defined concept which makes it difficult to establish an evidence base for its efficacy. It is a popular construct, but may not actually be a thing.

2. Generic leadership competencies do not exist; they are convenient (but misleading) descriptors for domain-specific procedural knowledge.

3. The pursuit of a Theory of Everything to explain leadership is fruitless. At best, we should seek out Theories of Something which predict or explain specific aspects of organisational behaviour.

4. We must not jump from describing to prescribing - from clarity to advocacy - too readily. We can observe what great leaders do, but mimicking attributes is not necessarily a route to success.

5. Leadership models may help map the territory, but they are no substitute for walking the terrain. Context is King, and competence is learnt through ploughing one’s own furrow.

6. Leadership is only one persona those in positions of authority may adopt. Lead only when there is a clear place for leadership. Leading is more valuable when it is scarce, not plentiful.

7. Don’t underestimate expertise. Powerful organisations allow those with deep, relevant knowledge to make decisions. This isn’t necessarily (or even usually) the appointed leader. If leadership is anything, it is knowing when to relinquish power and reject control.

And I haven’t even started on transformational, distributed and situational leadership theory, or the BS that comes with the genre, or vision, emotional intelligence and other ‘essential’ traits. I’ll leave those for the sequel.