The trap of vanity in leadership: when managers believe themselves to be indispensable

Vanity, in fact, has a paradoxical effect: it bolsters the ego and diminishes the impact.

The latest research on leadership makes this abundantly clear. Amy Edmondson, having studied high-performing teams for years, has highlighted how ‘psychological safety’ is a key prerequisite for people to speak up, contribute and take on responsibility. But this condition is undermined precisely when the leader takes up too much space: if there is always someone intervening, correcting or making decisions, others gradually stop doing so.

Managerial vanity, therefore, is not merely an individual issue: it is a systemic phenomenon. It curtails others’ freedom of speech, their scope for making mistakes, and their scope for initiative.

The more a leader perceives themselves as indispensable, the less they create the conditions for the system to function even without them. And this, in the medium term, is the exact opposite of leadership.

Why does this happen?

One initial answer has to do with the need for recognition. Being at the centre of attention, being sought after, and being the ones ‘who make a difference’ triggers deep-seated motivational drivers. But as we saw when discussing motivation, confusing what gives us a sense of fulfilment with what is useful to the system is a mistake that is as common as it is costly.

A second reason concerns control. In complex and uncertain situations, retaining operational control creates an illusion of manageability. Delegating, on the other hand, exposes one to risk, error and unpredictability. And thus to vulnerability.

Finally, there is the question of identity. If, for years, I have been ‘the one who sorts things out’, ‘the one who knows best’, ‘the one who keeps everything together’, letting go of that role can raise an uncomfortable question: who am I, if I am no longer indispensable?

The first step is self-awareness. Ask yourself: where am I getting involved to add real value, and where, on the other hand, am I doing so out of a need for control, recognition, or simply because I enjoy it?

For example, how many marketing directors find it hard to step out of their brand manager role and continue to get bogged down in the minutiae and day-to-day operations that they should, at most, merely be supervising?

The second is a shift in perspective. A good manager is not someone without whom nothing works, but someone thanks to whom everything can work even in their absence.

The third is the deliberate practice of stepping back. Delegating not only tasks, but also the limelight. Making room for others, even if it means seeing different solutions – perhaps less ‘perfect’ but more generative. Ideally, a leader should only do what only he or she can do, and delegate everything else.

It is worth bearing this in mind: perfection is often a subtle form of vanity. And, like any form of self-centred perfection, it risks becoming a major source of inefficiency.

Finally, it takes courage. The courage not to always be the centre of attention. Not to always have the final say. To create environments where credit is shared rather than concentrated in one place.

Because true leadership is not measured by how indispensable we are, but by how much we empower others, helping them to become self-reliant, integrated and autonomous within the system.

*Senior Consultant at Newton Spa