We learn from our mistakes

The vanity trap in leadership: when the manager believes himself to be indispensable

Effective leadership requires abandoning the need for control and recognition in favour of employee autonomy

by Nicola Chighine*

Adobe Stock

3' min read

Translated by AI
Versione italiana

3' min read

Translated by AI
Versione italiana

"How I do it/If I don't do it, nobody does it." I have heard these two phrases several times, in different contexts, from managers of different sectors and seniorities. Sometimes pronounced with pride, sometimes with a hint of weariness, more often with unawareness or a tone of confidence. Behind these words can hide one of the most sophisticated and least recognised traps of leadership: vanity.

Mind you, we are not talking about superficial vanity, that linked to image or the need for visibility. We are talking about a more subtle and therefore more dangerous form: the conviction of being indispensable.

Loading...

Managerial vanity disguises itself as a sense of responsibility, dedication, high standards. It comes with seemingly unassailable arguments: 'I keep the customer because I know him best', 'I review the team's work for safety', 'I attend all meetings because it is important to be there'. All correct. All plausible. And yet, often, all dysfunctional.

Like the limiting beliefs I have written about in the past, this dynamic also acts as an elegant internal saboteur, difficult to unmask because it is perfectly integrated into our value system.

But what happens when a leader falls into this trap? What happens is that the perimeter of his intervention gradually expands, until it saturates space, time and energy. What happens is that the team contracts, becomes accustomed, delegates upwards. What happens is that the organisation loses cognitive redundancy, autonomy, learning capacity. In other words, while the manager feels increasingly central, the system becomes increasingly fragile. Employees become followers and not potential new leaders.

Vanity, in fact, has a paradoxical effect: it strengthens the ego and weakens the impact.

The most recent research on leadership shows this clearly. Amy Edmondson, studying high-performance teams for years, has pointed out that 'psychological safety' is a key condition for people to expose themselves, contribute and take responsibility. But this condition is weakened precisely when the leader occupies too much space: if there is always someone who intervenes, corrects, decides, the others gradually stop doing so.

Managerial vanity, therefore, is not just an individual issue: it is a systemic phenomenon. It reduces the space for speech, error and initiative of others.

The more indispensable a leader perceives himself to be, the less he builds the conditions for the system to function without him. And this, in the medium term, is the exact opposite of leadership.

Why does it happen?

A first response has to do with the need for recognition. Being at the centre, being sought after, being the one 'making a difference' activates deep motivational levers. But as we have seen when talking about motivation, confusing what gratifies us with what is useful to the system is a mistake as common as it is costly.

A second response concerns control. In complex and uncertain contexts, withholding operational levers gives an illusion of governability. Delegating, on the contrary, exposes to risk, error, unpredictability. And thus to vulnerability.

Finally, there is an identity dimension. If for years I have been 'the one who solves', 'the one who knows', 'the one who holds things together', letting go of that role can generate an uncomfortable question: who am I if I am no longer indispensable?

How do we get out of this trap?

The first step is awareness. Ask yourself: where am I intervening out of real added value and where, instead, out of a need for control, recognition or simply because I like it?

For example, how many marketing directors are unable to leave behind the guise of brand manager and continue to step in on details and operations that they should, at best, merely supervise?

The second is the reversal of perspective. A good manager is not the one without whom nothing works, but the one without whom everything can work.

The third is the deliberate practice of subtraction. Delegating not only activities, but also visibility. Leave space for others, even at the cost of seeing different solutions, perhaps less 'perfect' but more generative. Ideally, a leader should only do what only he/she can do, and delegate everything else.

Here it is worth remembering: perfection is often a refined form of vanity. And, like any ego-driven perfection, it risks becoming a powerful factor in inefficiency.

Finally, courage is needed. The courage not to always be at the centre. Of not always having the last word. To build contexts in which merit is distributed and not centralised.

Because leadership, authentic leadership, is not measured by how indispensable we are, but by how capable, self-effective, integrated and autonomous we make others in the system.

*Senior Consultant at Newton Spa

Copyright reserved ©
Loading...

Brand connect

Loading...

Newsletter

Notizie e approfondimenti sugli avvenimenti politici, economici e finanziari.

Iscriviti