I have been thinking about what I can only describe as the rise in “performance art” among organizational and political leaders. Has purpose eroded as more and more of our leaders show up focused on style instead of substance?
What do I mean by style?
When a person focuses on style over substance, I’m not talking about how well they dress. Within organizations, I see people focusing heavily on how they appear while they are leading.
There are several common characteristics embedded in a leadership approach heavy on style:
- These people tend to focus on the symptoms of a problem. They don’t look deeper for the real problem.
- They initiate change to show they’re “in charge” even when the change isn’t necessary.
- Their ego is more prominent than purpose. They seek the limelight, taking credit and acting in ways designed to attract attention.
- They involve employees in actions that waste their time and erode the meaning of their work.
When I see these characteristics in a positional leader, I call it performance theater. Watching them is like going to a play where the actors perform to entertain an audience.
When the style is the predominant focus of most of its positional leaders, their behavior creates dysfunction and chaos. Important resources are wasted, and the organization starts dying. There’s no chance for the organization to thrive in the present, let alone the future, because leadership is not making decisions that support its purpose.
What do I mean by substance?
Positional leaders working from a substance framework approach their leadership much differently. They consistently seek to serve the larger shared purpose of the organization. These people exhibit a much different set of characteristics.
- They become better at spotting the difference between a symptom and its root cause. They know if the organization makes progress on the root cause of the problem, there will be fewer problems in the future.
- They keep their egos in check. They serve the organization and its highest possibility, not how they appear.
- They lead from a more integrated perspective and consider what is beneficial to the whole organization and the larger environment.
- They focus on what will help the organization and its people evolve and improve over time.
When you’re working with a substantive leader, you trust they’re thinking deeply about the challenges and issues your team or the entire organization is facing. You know they’re committed to improving the overall system.
Style vs. Substance
Style leaders focus on looking “like” they’re solving challenges. In reality, they’re not doing anything to achieve improvement. Substantive leaders, on the other hand, measure their effectiveness by real movement forward. They get things done that matter.
Style-focused leaders can be unpredictable, sticking with surface conversations and relationships. Leaders focused on substance create authentic relationships with the people they work with. They are grounded and build relationships with others from a place of centeredness.
Most organizations have a mix of leaders, obviously. However, the collective behavior of leaders regarding style vs. substance shapes the organization’s culture. When the critical mass of positional leader behaviors reflects substance, the organization will be a place of purpose, meaning, results, and long-term evolution.
Take time to notice how positional leaders in your organization (or in politics if you’re brave) present themselves. Try to analyze their past results. Can you tell the difference between style and substance?
Perfectly stated