In praise of the incomplete leader

A research document from the Harvard Business School entitled ‘In praise of the incomplete leader’ examines what makes a strong leader and what the pitfalls are of leadership and leadership styles. The contributor’s overwhelming view is that ‘while we have come to expect a great deal of our leaders. That they should have the intellectual capacity to make sense of unfathomably complex issues, the imaginative powers to paint a vision of the future that generates everyone’s enthusiasm, together with the operational know-how to translate strategy into concrete plans, and the interpersonal skills to foster commitment to undertakings that could spell ruin for the organisation should they fail.’ In their eyes, no one person can live up to this or indeed have all of these skills readily available on appointment and so they believe it is time to end the myth of the complete leader, the flawless person at the top who has got it all figured out.

The argument goes that the sooner that leaders recognise this, the better it will be for the organisation. Only when leaders come to see themselves as incomplete — as having both strengths and weaknesses — will they be able to make up for their missing skills by relying on others. No one person could possibly stay on top of everything. But the myth of the complete leader (and the attendant fear of appearing incompetent) makes many try to do just that with disastrous results for them and the organisation.

The incomplete leader, by contrast, knows when to let go: when to let others advise. They recognise that leadership is stronger when they are open to the input of others. Leadership is therefore about what they term sense making, understanding purpose and goals, relating, ensuring that others understand the purpose and goals, visioning creating a vision that is understood and accepted by all and inventing, constantly working at ways to fulfil the vision. The incomplete leader is one who is clear about their role and equally clear of their strengths and weaknesses. Visioning is the core of what a successful leader is about, creating and sharing a vision that inspires others to share in the future of the organisation and who are prepared to work to fulfil that vision.

So, what you might ask has this got to do with being a CEO of a Multi-Academy Trust? 

In my view the same principles apply. A CEOs role is to understand the purpose and overarching goals of the Trust (sense making), creating a vision, developing a team that can not only relate to but can share this vision and collectively invent ways to fulfil the vision. If we accept this and also that a CEO cannot know everything or be an expert in all things even if they have supposedly completed all the training and professional development available to equip them for the role, then it follows that the senior team of a Trust should be diverse in terms of individual skills, personalities and ways of working in order to create a healthy balance of support and challenge for the ‘incomplete leader’.

It is important to remember that great leaders create other great leaders rather than followers.

Given that leaders are incomplete I would argue that not only do they need a strong leadership team but that they also need to look for external support and advice in the highly skilled areas that are so integral to the running a Multi-Academy Trust.

As a general rule (there are a few exceptions) CEOs are educators with careers that began at the chalk face, moving through the ranks to headship and ultimately appointment as CEO. So how can they be expected to be an expert in everything Multi- Academy Trust related? For a CEO to claim that they are an expert in all things is perhaps where the first steps to ruin lie!

In my opinion, there are aspects of the role that have always needed outside independent advice and guidance. It is not a sign of weakness but a sign of strength that CEOs call on experts in their field for support. The very large national Trusts may have the luxury of employing an extensive and highly skilled, highly paid central team but that is not a luxury that is possible for the majority of Trusts. However, they need the same level of advice and support ranging from HR including employment law, procurement, estates management, leadership support and finance.

Maybe I was an inadequate CEO although I would prefer to think of myself as an incomplete leader. I was never afraid to recognise my weaknesses and call on experts to complement the work of the team. Lawyers, HR, academy conversion experts, leadership support and recruitment advice. Why? Because those I employed had an independence of thought, an external perspective, and an expertise that prompted those within the organisation to maintain an objectivity of what was best for the Trust and in turn what was best for the pupils and staff. There are a number of specialists and then there are specialists!

As Trusts have grown, so too have the companies offering their services and whilst competition is a good thing, it is important to do your homework to work out which is the best fit for your Trust. Cheapest isn’t always the most cost effective, national profile isn’t always a provider of the service needed and the offer of ‘something for nothing’ never is! So, while these companies operate within the commercial sector, the same principles of sense making, visioning, relating and inventing should apply. They should have a purpose (sense making) beyond profit. They should have a vision that is sensitive to the educational sector and the impact their work will have on the futures of young people. They should be open to ways of working that complement the vision of the Trust (relating) and above all, with the Trust they should be developing innovative ways (inventing) for positive growth and development to make the Trust an outstanding provider of education and an employer of choice.

When developing a Trust, I would caution against the immediate action of employing more staff and a policy of constantly growing the central team (especially if you can only afford departments of one – resulting in single point of failure) but rather evaluate the needs of the Trust and how these can best be served. Simply adding to the central team can increase the financial burden without effectively fulfilling the needs of the Trust both short and long term. Even the most talented and certainly incomplete leaders need support beyond the organisation.

In praise of the incomplete leader Harvard Business School: Deborah Ancona. Thomas W. Malone, Wanda J. Orlikowski and Peter M. Senge