The Theory Behind

There is a mind-numbing list of leadership theories that have been proposed (e.g., transformational leadership, ethical leadership, servant leadership, authentic leadership, situational leadership, etc.) which attests to the many ways leadership has been defined. These multiple theories pose the logical conundrum that not all of them can be entirely complete and correct. Indeed, some theories focus on certain dimensions of leadership to the exclusion of others, many are overly general and non-prescriptive, and all porously admit exceptions to their rules. This is only to say what millennia of trying has taught: It is impossible to state the necessary and sufficient conditions for leadership.

We should think of leadership more like the concept of a game. Games have certain properties like goals, rules, players, spaces for gameplay, etc. There are different kinds of games with different mixes of properties, but we know they are games because they have certain qualities in common. No one game is exactly like another because they contain and emphasize certain attributes over others. The nature and quality of the game depends on the mix of these attributes and the degree to which they are successfully realized.

Like games, leadership defies an exact definition. There are too many variations to be summarily captured. The best that can be done is to specify the criteria that in various combinations count toward leadership and, then, render an opinion about individuals based on those criteria. This is similar to the way we evaluate content in other areas of our lives. For example, after attending a movie with friends, we inevitably compare impressions. Experienced movie-goers will appeal to a set of criteria when forming their opinions such as character development, casting, plot, costume-design, cinematography, and sound. Similarly informed viewers will apply these criteria to their experiences and make an evaluation. Although the same criteria are available for each film we watch, not all will be relevant to every film nor weighted to the same degree. For example, we would not evaluate a student film with the same rigor as a high-budget commercial film of a seasoned director. Nor would we expect a middle manager and a senior executive to have the same leadership profiles as their aims and circumstances are dissimilar. We need a way to account for these differences without penalizing people for their level of experience or the nature of work they must perform. Cum, natus. Molestiae eos rem atque voluptatum.

The task, then, is to name the criteria that substantiates leadership. Our criteria are based on the leadership literature and other evaluative domains, primarily the arts. These criteria provide the vocabulary for an informed discussion of leadership and the foundation to distinguish extraordinary leaders from the ordinary. On the positive side, we can describe a leader as inspiring, dynamic, creative, unique, passionate, and engaging. Alternatively, a leader may be described as unpleasant, phony, inept, unfocused, boorish, and pedestrian. We use the criteria and the language it affords to make our determinations. There are no psychometric scales to mark, no solid red lines to demarcate, no pre-packaged types spit out by computer algorithms: only consensus views of how well a person in all his or her individuality is performing as a leader. The richness of the criteria provides the words needed to differentiate the merciless cost-cutter from the smart and prudent transformation artist. We can tell from the application of the criteria who enriches, invigorates, and changes lives from those who deplete them.

The ten criteria included in our leadership model are, in alphabetical order:

• Coherence (Alignment)
• Enlightenment
• Focus
• Imagination
• Insight
• Inspiration
• Intellectual Engagement
• Intention (Vison)
• Pleasure
• Skill

These attributes are embedded in a larger context that is unconventional but works. The overall structure is reminiscent of the age-old Tarot. Let me explain. The way we think of the Tarot today as a tool for divination was not its purpose in the distant past. The original Tarot was a trick-taking card game that contained two parts. One part, the trump cards, were ordered, unnumbered illustrated cards. These cards used images with symbolic content and persuasive intent that were familiar to people at the time. These images seem foreign to us now but, back then, people would have understood their meanings because they pictured ideas, issues, and events to which people could relate. The cards, for example, illustrated the cardinal virtues of fortitude, prudence, temperance, and justice as well as contemporary themes regarding money, love, family, and power. Prominent families of the period often commissioned artists to produce trump cards so the cards were, in essence, illustrated stories that symbolically portrayed major events, attitudes, and beliefs in the lives of the creators/benefactors (a near complete set of one of these latter decks is housed at yale university; you can see the cards by visiting: Visconti Tarot | Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library (yale.edu). Overall, the trumps presented facts and commentaries about the way things were and how they came to be. They depicted characteristic behaviors, life events, mores, and states of affairs that were culturally ingrained and well-understood. Similarly, we use a custom set of trumps to describe familiar leadership aptitudes and styles that develop over time and make up the defining attributes of a leader and his or her underlying dispositions (another set of 15 cards derived from executive interviews and research over a 15-year span). We use these cards to discuss what good leadership looks like (the major trumps) and the personal traits that are useful in sustaining those behaviors (the minor trumps).

The trumps were added to other decks in circulation at that time (fifteenth century) that consisted of the 4, 14 card suits that we have today: hearts, clubs, spades, and diamonds in the English version. These suits originally aligned to different earthly elements (e.g., water, fire) that were associated with various mental capacities and modes of perceiving. Analysts such as Carl Jung borrowed from these ancient archetypes in their theoretical considerations of how we experience and interact with the world around us. Together, the suits describe different ways of knowing and perceiving that allow us to adapt and successfully navigate life’s contingencies. The stronger one’s hand, so to speak, the better one will fare when faced with new challenges. So conceived, this second set of cards of the Tarot describe how people handle everyday situations: how we react to the many issues, problems, and interpersonal dilemmas each of us faces regularly. This includes how we think, feel, analyze, interact, create, decide, and so on when situations demand that we do something.

With one exception, the Tarot cards we use are newly created and specific to leadership. All are grounded on research and serve as a summary of what is known about leadership in the area discussed. The cards make it possible to literally hold leadership in your hands. Far from the arcane and mysterious, these cards and the associated text offer telling descriptions and tangible guidance pertaining to the different elements of leadership. In addition to providing a meaningful format to talk about leadership, the cards have the same advantage that the creators of the Tarot once imagined. They make use of familiar visual motifs which help to make the abstract more concrete and recognizable in the context of everyday experiences. Each card offers a visual shorthand of an important leadership concept. Indeed, a traditionally word-centric area like leadership could benefit from a few pictures to make the vagaries of leadership more real and accessible. Altogether, the set of cards can be used to tell a story about each person’s leadership abilities in a refreshingly real and substantial way.

For leaders, the deck of cards provides a holistic way to think about their leadership acumen and to earnestly contemplate if what they currently do as leaders is their best. That is, the pictorially instructive cards can be used as a method of introspection and self-examination. The cards only portend the future to the extent that the lessons of leadership embedded in the cards are accepted, rejected, or ignored, and the willingness of leaders to reflect on their behaviors to better understand what they do and why they do it