Where’s the Evidence?

I’m a big fan of the hit television show, CSI (Crime Scene Investigation). One of the compelling aspects of each week’s episode is the team’s efforts to link evidence gathered at the scene of the crime to a suspect. Sometimes the connection is a microscopic detail that would be missed by anyone with an untrained eye. Usually a successful case rests on a body of evidence that implicates the perpetrator; corroborating pieces of information that ties an outcome to the person or persons responsible.

If leaders were judged by these same demanding standards how many might fail the test? In other words, if your leadership status was based on hard evidence would there be enough proof to convict? It might seem like an unfair question since the qualities of leadership are generally more subjective. Yet, we all know the leaders we admire and respect do portray certain characteristics that capture our attention and admiration. It is why we see them as a leader; why we try to emulate their behavior and honor their legacy.

It would be arrogant of me to assert that I have created a definitive list of those qualities that define leadership. There are plenty of smarter, more talented, and better educated persons who have already researched and written about this subject. Our bookstores and the Internet are filled with dozens of bestsellers and websites devoted to becoming an effective leader. One product I use in my consulting and teaching is the Everything DiSC® 363™ for Leaders profile created by Inscape Publishing. It rates effective leadership using a spectrum of eight approaches: Pioneering, Energizing, Affirming, Inclusive, Humble, Deliberate, Resolute, and Commanding. Each approach has three underlying practices that define how this approach is visible to a manager or executive’s co-workers.

Leaders who are willing to allow others to rate their performance can use profiles like this one to make the case that they are, in fact, effective in their role. Few leaders who participate in a self-assessment and review process find themselves on the same page as their direct reports, their manager, or their colleagues. Unlike science, the evidence gleaned through personal and interpersonal reflection is often filtered or tainted by opinion, bias, and memory. If our motives were always pure we wouldn’t need evaluations or assessments to validate performance.

Too many leaders refuse to participate in critical reviews of their effectiveness. As a result, organizations suffer from poor or underperforming supervision. Wouldn’t it make sense to demand some evidence that a person deserves to be a leader? Is it too much to ask for current, and would be, leaders to demonstrate some of the basic qualities that define highly competent leadership? Perhaps we need a new team in our organizations, LES (Leadership Effectiveness Squad), to hold leaders accountable for their performance. After all, the success of any enterprise depends on leaders who, when faced with evidence of their leadership ability, have been found guilty as charged. Case closed.