We are steeped in a dominant story: the leader as hero. A figure who stands at the front, sees further, acts faster, and bears more responsibility than the rest. It’s a compelling tale; clean, linear, reassuring. Especially in uncertain times.
But the hero myth is heavy. It expects leaders to know, to plan, to protect, to transform. To be the first to act, the last to rest, and the one to answer for everything in between. And too often, we accept this story without question. We reward it, promote it, and replicate it in ourselves.
This series names the quieter, more subtle versions of that myth. We look at the pressure to be the one with the answers. The belief that change must be driven, planned, and owned. The idea that leadership is presence; physical, vocal, constant. And the assumption that being needed is the same as being useful.
Each post exposes one of these threads. Not to dismiss leadership altogether, but to untangle it from its most isolating and performative forms.
Because these myths do harm. They cultivate dependency. They erode trust. They shrink the space for shared contribution, for uncertainty, for learning. And they’re tiring. To the leader. To everyone else.
What if we stopped equating leadership with centrality? What if the work was not to lead from the front, but to convene the room?
Not to solve, but to surface? Not to provide answers, but to hold better questions? These reflections are an invitation to reconsider what leadership is for. And to wonder, gently: what myths are you still living, and are they still worth it?
If you have some myths you would me to explore leave a comment or reach out. Let’s myth-bust together!
Why the leadership myth that a good plan guarantees successful change still misleads
Many leaders still believe that a good plan guarantees successful change. This view, inherited from a more predictable era, persists in organisations that value control and certainty. Yet research from thinkers such as Kotter, Stacey, and Snowden shows that in complex environments, outcomes emerge through adaptation, not execution. This article explores why the myth endures, the costs of over-planning, and the practices that help leaders lead through learning rather than prediction.
The leadership myth that culture is ‘soft stuff’: why this belief harms performance
Many leaders still describe culture as “soft stuff”, something intangible that sits alongside the real work of strategy, planning, and execution. Yet decades of organisational research show the opposite: culture is a powerful driver of behaviour, performance, and long term results. When leaders overlook it, they miss the hidden forces shaping how decisions are made, how people collaborate, and how strategy is interpreted. This article challenges the leadership myth that culture is soft, explores why the belief persists, and shows how culture functions as strategic infrastructure rather than atmosphere. It also offers reflective questions to help leaders bring culture back to the centre of their thinking.
Debunking the leadership myth that people do not like change
The belief that people dislike change is one of leadership’s most persistent myths. In practice, people embrace change when it is meaningful, fair, and well supported. What they resist is loss, confusion, or inconsistency. This article unpacks the research, explores examples from organisations, and offers practical questions to help leaders design change that people can actually commit to.
Why the leadership myth that leaders must have all the answers still misleads
Many leaders still inherit the idea that they must have all the answers. It is a belief shaped by the industrial age, reinforced by organisational culture, and sustained by our collective discomfort with uncertainty. Yet research from thinkers such as Heifetz, Senge, and Edmondson shows that knowing is not the work of leadership. The real task is to create the conditions where people can think, learn, and sense what the system needs next. This article explores why the myth endures, the cost of pretending to know, and the practices that help leaders move from answer giver to steward of shared insight.
Why the leadership myth “If You Can’t Measure It, You Can’t Manage It” misses the point
“If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it” is one of the most persistent leadership myths. Often attributed to Peter Drucker, it distorts his thinking. This essay explores why measurement brings comfort but not always insight, and why true leadership begins where data ends.
What gets measured gets managed: why leadership needs more than metrics
“What gets measured gets managed” is one of leadership’s most quoted lines, often credited to Peter Drucker. Yet the phrase hides a deeper truth. Measurement can guide or distort, depending on intent. When leaders use data to learn rather than to control, numbers become tools for meaning. This article explores how to build a healthier relationship with metrics in complex organisations.
People don’t leave jobs; they leave managers and other half-truths about why people quit
The phrase “people don’t leave jobs; they leave managers” feels true, but it tells only part of the story. This article unpacks the evidence behind the myth, revealing how turnover reflects not just bad bosses but broken systems, poor design, and misaligned purpose. Explore what really drives people to stay, to leave, and to lead better.
Culture eats strategy for breakfast: What the famous quote gets wrong (and right)
“Culture eats strategy for breakfast” is one of the most quoted, and misquoted, lines in business. Peter Drucker never said it, yet it endures because it feels true. This essay explores where the phrase came from, what research really shows about culture and strategy, and why effective leaders treat them not as rivals but as partners in shaping organisational success