Good enough leadership?

Senior Consultant and unashamed Harry Potter enthusiast Matt Driver gets to the bottom line in looking at leadership in fiction: at Hogwarts, he asks, who is the real leader?

One of the great things about the Harry Potter books (and I know what I’m talking about here) is that the characters are never one-dimensional. The heroes reveal flaws, and the evil or incompetent – sometimes at least – come good.

And that’s how it is in real life, isn’t it?

Many of the great and good shock and sadden their admirers when they are caught out. Politicians, religious leaders, management gurus….Yet did we expect them to be saints? And why are we still surprised or suspicious when the former criminal turns over a new leaf or devotes his career to charity?

The final Harry Potter book is the one which reveals the parts other books have not.

Take Albus Dumbledore, for example.The venerable Headmaster (sic) has been truly saintly thus far. The baddies now cast what seem obvious slurs (much to Harry’s rage) – but in fact they are partly right. There are indeed a few skeletons in Dumbledore’s closet. One of them is his mum‘s. So a big part of the journey for Harry is coming to terms with the fact that his hero, while still a great man, is indeed flawed. I was going to say ‘only human’ but that’s just a muggle talking. And Severus Snape, Harry’s detractor throughout the series, turns out to be a hero. In fact he helps to save Harry and destroy the evil Voldemort. Harry has to come to terms with this too.

Over-expectation

Dumbledore and Snape are both leaders in their own way yet neither claims perfection. It is others who place expectations and interpretations upon them.

Much the same happens of course with leaders in any organisation. Followers (willing or otherwise) burden them with expectations of perfection, omniscience, bilocation and consummate skill in finance, operations, statistics, strategy, detail…not to mention the ability to motivate hundreds of people.

Yet some major researchers (eg Martin Seligman) have been saying that this is unrealistic and unfair. They talk about ‘signature strengths’ things we are naturally good at. Their contention is that it’s better for you and everyone else if you play the hand you have been dealt rather than try to get good at something that will take lots of effort and is still unlikely to change you much.

It seems only reasonable, doesn’t it, that we should expect our real leaders to be as multi-dimensional as Dumbledore or Snape, and that they should shine in some areas but not in others? It sounds obvious, but if we’re honest it remains hard to accept. The talk today is of ‘good enough parenting’ – in the research institutes that is – not in the playground, where perfection is still expected of self and offspring. Yet the burden of expectations on parents and children alike is huge and largely counter-productive. Just as Dumbledore’s greatness is in part because of his flaws, perhaps we can accept that this might just be the case for ourselves and our leaders. Can we be bold enough to speak of ‘good enough’ leadership?