Leadership Is A Team Sport, Not A Solo Act

"Don't you dare do leadership alone!"

- Sharon Daolz Parks, (paraphrased from speech at a conference October 23rd, 2024.)

Leadership is not an individual sport. Leadership by nature involves others to act in order to make progress. I would then argue that leadership is impossible to do alone.

But it goes further than that. Contrary to popular belief, leadership is not about a singular person with a vision that they must convince others to follow. Too often we romanticize the work of leadership from an individualist point of view. This makes sense, as individualizing the work of leadership feeds the need for the human ego to be recognized. It also is convenient to keep the work of leadership with clearly identifiable parties.

As prevalent as it is, I challenge that view of individualized leadership as inaccurate and unrealistic.

Let me start by defining what I believe leadership is.

What is Leadership?

To me, leadership is about putting the work at the center of attention. The work that needs to be done - such as civil rights reform, public health education, office culture change, etc. - is what defines the action(s) of leadership. The people who do the work will be more than just one singular person, and they will use more than just speaking on a soap box to inspire others to act. Therefore, the work of leadership is based on what needs to be done, not who does it and how they do it.

Should the CEO be at the center of what needs to be done to change the company culture to improve performance? Should a nonprofit director be at the cetner of what needs to be done to change the values and behavior of their community to improve public health? Should a community organizer be at the center of what needs to be done to influence public policy on civil rights in their state?

Absolutely not.

Let's start with why individualizing leadership is inaccurate.

Why is it inaccurate to individualize the work of leadership?

Placing the work on a singular person does not accurately reflect the other stakeholders involved who made progress on the work possible. To change the culture of an entire office to improve performance, it takes the work of managers from the front line to the c-suite, as well as the front-line individual contributors. It may also take the work of shareholders and board members to change expectations and influence others to act differently. It may even take the work of an entire industry to challenge the status quo on how to challenge the status quo on performance in the wake of changes in the market.

Let's use a recent example with the COVID-19 Global pandemic: who gets credit for adapting the workforce to remote work? Do we deify any particular person or organization for doing this? Do the pioneers of remote work prior to the pandemic get to be at the center of the leadership work and take credit?

The answer is - everyone gets credit for adapting to the pandemic. Public health officials influenced the decision by mandating stay-at-home orders, but do not get to take all the credit for the technical infrastructure needed to make this possible. Companies who already had employees working by laptop had done some of the work prior to the pandemic, but do not necessarily get the credit for changing the beliefs and behaviors to make remote work successful. Organizations who already had fully remote workers may have paved the way for how others model the process, but it was the work of all organizations to adapt and learn from each other to find what the right technical and cultural work was needed to be successful.

The example above illustrates just how wildly inaccurate it would be to put credit for the leadership work on any one individual or entity. Think of all those people and entities that had to put in the work to make progress on that challenge. However, when you put the work at the center - aka how do we stay a functioning society without endangering each other's health - you have a clearer definition of leadership to work with.

When we define leadership by work of the individual or entity, we risk offering a unrealistic picture of what they are truly responsible for.

Let's dive why individualizing leadership is unrealistic

Why is it unrealistic to individualize leadership?

Putting the individual - like a CEO, Non-profit director, or community organizer - at the center of the challenge puts a tremendous amount of work and pressure on them. That potentially (and usually does) create unrealistic expectations of what the individual leader is responsible for.

Imagine a non-profit director whose challenge is to educate the community on different aspects of public health. The non-profit is mostly responsible for the education on public health needs, and then partners with community health professionals to provide treatments and preventative care. But the work that is needed in the community goes beyond what the non-profit is currently capable of doing.

The director believes the community is in dire need of change in order to survive upcoming flu and COVID-19 seasons. The beliefs and attitudes about preventative care such as vaccines and wearing masks are not favorable in this community, leaving a good sized portion of the population unwilling to change in the face of potential health risks.

The non-profit director has taken on the task of changing the culture within the community, in hopes that more lives will be saved for the upcoming flu and COVID-19 season.

The questions I have for the readers are as follows:

1. Whose work is it to change the beliefs and behaviors of the community?

2. If successful, should the non-profit director be credited exclusively (or as close to exclusive as possible)?

3. If not successful, should the non-profit director be the cause for the blame?

The answer to question one should evoke some additional consideration as to who needs to get involved for the community to change. I can think of a few people/entities: health providers (doctors/physicians, emergency care facilities), the local government (mayor, public health official if applicable, representatives, etc), county/regional government if applicable, state government potentially, parents, eldercare facilities, business owners, etc.

All of those parties have a part in changing the behaviors and challenging the status quo in the community. So with that in mind, why should the non-profit director be the cause to celebrate if the community changes or person to blame if they do not? If it is truly the work of so many in the community to do the work, how is it realistic to put the non-profit director at the center of the work (or anyone/any singular entity for that matter).

Once you see how it is unrealistic to give credit to any one person or entity, you begin to realize that old definitions of leadership just don't cut it anymore.

The Takeaways:

Leadership is best defined by the work that needs to be done over the indivdual or entity doing the work. When we realize just how many people and entities have to act in order for progress to be made for the work of civil rights, public health, company culture, etc. - we see just how inaccurate and unrealistic it is to simply give one person or entity credit or blame for the outcome of the work.