Why would leaders think being vulnerable is good leadership – it’s not!
A lot has been written about the importance of leaders allowing themselves to be vulnerable. Check out this Harvard Business Review article by Jeffrey Cohn and U. Srinivasa Rangan
Using the word “vulnerable” to describe leaders who display good traits such as being open, transparent, and willing to share lessons they have learned, is a misuse of language. Webster’s Dictionary defines being vulnerable as ‘capable of being physically or emotionally wounded‘ and ‘open to attack or damage: Assailable’. Is this what we expect from our leaders, or is this a linguistic reflection of the victim culture plaguing society today?
There is a fine line between what followers view as ‘vulnerability’ and what is in fact just ‘weak, emotion-driven leadership’. What the HBR article promotes, is that CEOs need to prepare prodigies and aspiring leaders for the challenges of becoming a future leader, which is prudent.
Unfortunately, these sorts of articles use language that allows them to be misinterpreted and gives rise to emotive decision-making and leadership paralysis. Military leaders at all levels are trained to operate under significant pressure, often in a VUCA environment, and this requires stoicism. To quote DavidGoggins, it requires a ‘callusing of the mind‘.
Today’s leaders are expected to demonstrate a high degree of empathy, be supportive, be ‘politically correct”, generous, and agreeable. These are all great leadership traits, but like anything, there needs to be balance. Many leaders now struggle to make hard decisions and are often too afraid to actually lead. They spend too much time being ‘vulnerable’ when they should be thinking critically, planning with purpose, and leading by example. It’s important not to confuse leaders who foster psychological safety and speak freely with subordinate leaders and followers, with leaders who are vulnerable. These are very different scenarios and lead to divergent outcomes.
I often reflect on how much more I respected and trusted the strong leadership of 30, 40 and 50 years ago compared to what I see as weak leadership today. It’s not that the leaders of the past were better people or led more effectively. Many of them could have done with a little more empathy and political correctness and I guess that’s the point. A little more, not the massive pendulum swing commonly applied to social issues today. I’m fighting a losing battle as many leaders today don’t like conflict and find it terrifying to make any decisions, let alone hard decisions. They are unwilling to exercise what Jocko Willink refers to as “Extreme Ownership“. Do yourself a tremendous favour and read Jocko’s book.
I’m not suggesting leaders don’t accept failure or seek to identify their blind spots, and they should have discussions with subordinate leaders and general staff about risks and issues. Leaders who openly display their anxiety and fear do not demonstrate courage or instil much-needed confidence in their staff or their organisations.
As a proponent of critical thinking, the way words are used is important to me. I ask everyone to think critically when they are told they need to be ‘vulnerable’ and to understand what that really means.
We need to stop promoting the idea that being vulnerable is good. It’s not. Being a mature, stoic leader, who is considered, driven to action, open, empathetic, and willing to share lessons learned should be what we’re aiming for.
If we accept ‘vulnerable leadership’ into the vernacular it is a slippery slope to accepting excuses and emotion-led decision making and that’s just plain bad leadership.
