I was fascinated by the Power of Myth, the print version of a series of interviews of Joseph Campbell by Bill Moyers. The subject matter is myth and its role in the development of societies and important areas such as religion. Myth is positioned as part of our search for truth and meaning and significance; we tell stories to try to come to terms with the world and our lives. Campbell makes a strong case for current society no longer embracing mythology and this resulting in newer generations struggling to find an acceptable framework for shaping socially acceptable behaviour.
My personal belief is that myth shapes the development of organisations and the perceptions of leaders. The stories that are told about the founders of an organisation, the stories told about current and recent leaders. These stories shape the culture of the company and its values, in turn influencing the way people act both consciously and unconsciously. So an organisation becomes shaped by the constant stream of conversations that goes on at all levels. Indeed a decent argument could be made for the case that an organisation is nothing more than a series of conversations and stories.
Leaders of organisations can be – indeed quite often are – mythological figures. Followers listen to and watch leaders carefully, trying to interpret and make sense of the signals which the leader transmits (consciously and unconsciously). Leaders become the focus for the hopes and aspirations of the followers, providing certainty and direction in uncertain times. Over time the organisation begins to make certain assumptions about what the leader wants, whether or not the leader actually does want a desired behaviour.
Of course the mythologizing of the leader can result in positive cultural outcomes and organisational performance. But the assumptions made by the followers can very quickly become skewed, resulting in incorrect assumptions and a disconnect between what the leader thinks is happening and what the follower believes the leader requires. This can result in very minor inefficiencies, but can deteriorate into something altogether more corrosive.
We don’t need to look very far to realise that mythologizing of leaders can result in very negative behaviours and indeed the pattern of dictatorships in the twentieth century illustrates several examples with global impact. It’s possible that an organisational leader can become a mythological figure for followers and they unconsciously ignore negative behaviours. If you believe that all the well-documented heroes of modern leadership practice are role models and paragons of great behaviours, then you may be disappointed. Organisations are very good at collectively choosing to ignore the negative leadership traits, choosing to focus on the positive and often idealised (sometimes even imagined) behaviours. The examples are many, but leadership mythology at Enron, for example, was found to be based on an imagined reality and the unquestioning followership of a manufactured reality.
The human condition implies that this phenomenon of leaders as mythological figures will continue. We can’t help it – in fact we may even need it. But the leader herself and the influential colleagues around her need to be conscious of what is happening for the followers in an organisation. Is it possible for the focus to be the organisation rather than the individual? It is the template for the a enduring organisation, but it is a difficult one to craft, requiring senior figures to be highly attuned to their own actions and desires, while subjugating them to the higher organisational need. And that can be a difficult task for many leaders, with their narcissistic needs; but that’s a different story altogether.