3 Myths about Vulnerability as a Leader

In today’s discussion, I’d like to touch upon 3 myths about vulnerability as a leader. I am not really sure where I picked this from – maybe some old books on leadership/ corporate experiences and startup misexperiences.

But I do distinctly recall treating being emotional as a bad thing and a sign of leadership weakness.

This discussion is a message and also a piece of advice which I would go back to give my old self about vulnerability and the various myths/notions surrounding it. In particular, this discussion tries to make leadership consumable and human as opposed to an unforgiving ideal which pushes us away from it.

Myth 1: Vulnerability is a weakness

This is a message which is often projected in large corporate. Having seen a bunch of talks which talk about vulnerability as a positive aspect – I still wonder: Are we really accepting that vulnerability is OK for a leader?

Here are a few sample cases as to why vulnerability will be looked at as a bad sign for a leader:

• The team looks for inspiration and direction from a leader. If the leader is not vulnerable/weak – the team will not be able to perform well
• Where will the team go if the leader is unstable?
• It will kill optimism for the team working towards an optimistic goal

On the flip side – if I ask the question – if the leader is never vulnerable or even weak – are we really expecting them to be human or real? Subsequent question is: Is it fair on a leader to expect them to forget the emotional side and respond only to set scriptures?

If that is the case – I fear that we are pushing leaders into a very quick journey of stress and therapy sessions for revival. The below ted talk on vulnerability is a beautiful starting point on acceptance

Myth 2: You cannot afford to be emotional/weak as a leader

Although I can see some value in this and use in corporate decision making – I still don’t think we can afford to mistreat our leaders. If that’s the case – we could as well be looking at a software/ AI to make our decisions.

Apologies if I am going a bit far in my assumptions here – but I am trying to say that it is a bad ideal to rush toward. A leader should be able to respect the emotions of fellow team members and let empathy to breed within the company.

How can we expect this culture to be propagated if we are so unforgiving for our own leaders?

Myth 3: Leadership is not about you – it is about the team

Well – a part of servant leadership might tell us to focus squarely on serving the team and business objectives. But we don’t want to create leaders who are unsustainable.

The journey cannot be of a short term gain. If we want to create large businesses which can stand the test of time, we ought to create leaders accordingly. The moment we start making leadership as a one way street – we need to ask how the leader is being motivated.

If the answer is more money – then we are heading back to the transactional management philosophies of the 1840’s where people are treated as cogs of a machine.

I am fully conscious that I am presenting only one side of the leadership coin. But it is an equally important one to ignore and cast aside. If a vulnerability is not allowed for a leader – so is being human.

The moment we start that line of argument, we are quickly looking at transactional leadership. That naturally trails into questions of sustainability and longevity. If we are willing to make that sacrifice as an organization – we may very well go ahead with it.

If not, we can certainly benefit from treating leaders as simple human beings so that they can afford the same respect to their team as well.