Leadership hypokrites: practicing versus pretending

Lighting up the shadow (part one)

What makes a great leader is a popular topic sparking great debate among scholars, researchers, and practitioners. Over the last few years, the shift in what is most critical is remarkable. The development of leaders is no longer only focused on IQ (Intellectual Quotient) but rather places greater emphasis on the inner work of leaders: what lies below the surface.

Professor Linda Hill, one of the world’s top experts on leadership at Harvard Business School argues: “Competence is not enough; people need to trust your character and connect with you, otherwise they will not be willing to take risks with you.”

The public narrative of leadership on display across the world casts a long shadow. The focus of this month’s letter is a pervasive, yet less noticed aspect of leadership behaviour: hypocrisy. Here we contemplate the integrity – hypocrisy continuum as a frame to explore the persistence of pretending by leaders today. Next month, we will consider the cost of leader hypocrisy to organisations and relationships, and how to spot it (in ourselves and others).

Understanding and unpacking hypocrisy

Hypocrisy in leaders is not a new phenomenon. History reveals it has been around for centuries, with its roots stemming from the Greek word hypokrite. The lexical definition of the word hypocrisy refers to two elements that generate this behavioural practice: lying (conveying inauthentic information) and deception (the mismatch between intent and action).

Lying is the more straight-forward, conscious element of the two. Subterfuge, whether through outright lies or lies of omission, is a hallmark trait of hypocrisy. While lies of grandiosity and narcissism (ego-boosting) are more overt forms of lying, there is also a more subtle form which involves saying something which you don’t truly believe. The philosopher David Runciman describes an example of this as: “kind of public truth, so that what comes out of your mouth is the bare minimum that allows you to get by”.

Deception can be either conscious or unconscious, with unconscious deception being attributable to a self-awareness gap. In other words, a leader’s aspirations for oneself or their organisation i.e., who a leader wants to be, trumps knowledge of who they really are, causing an unconscious blindness. This blindness may morph into conscious deception in time exposing leaders to integrity tripwires, resulting in corner-cutting with the excuse that ‘the ends justifies the means’.

The hypocrisy - integrity continuum

Research identifies a lack of behavioural integrity as analogous to hypocrisy, presenting the argument that hypocrisy is better understood as a continuum anchored by perceptions of hypocrisy (the misalignment between words and deeds) and integrity (alignment between words and deeds). It is also important to note some of the assumptions that hypocrisy is synonymous with the debate about morality and ethics. However, research clearly points out hypocritical behaviour in leaders is a discussion beyond ethics and morality. According to research by Rebecca Greenbaum and her colleagues, a leader who simultaneously promotes immoral values and behaves immorally is surely to be described as immoral, but not necessarily as hypocritical for at least he or she ‘walks the talk’! In this way, we can see integrity refers to the internal consistency of one's actions and values, meaning doing what you say you will do even when no one is watching, whereas ethics and morals are more about the external principles and societal standards guiding behaviour.

A human condition or technological conditioning?

If it is nothing new, then is it part of the human condition? Sean Tucker writes about the Ego, which is designed to help us, while pointing out the danger that comes from an uncalibrated Super Ego - when we act for something beyond us and our selfish desires. The uncalibrated Super Ego can be the undoing of leaders – an inflated sense of self can derail leaders under pressure with no anchor of self-awareness. A study by a PhD researcher at the University of Chicago suggests hypocrisy can become evident in children from seven years old who are already thinking critically about reputation and people falsely representing themselves.

But, is technology enabling the hypokrites condition? While technology has created new and helpful ways for leaders to communicate and connect on global scale, this advancement casts a subtle shadow for leaders. It is too easy to create masks and filters in our efforts to communicate and connect - especially to hide or recreate a more ideal persona. Indeed, societal norms broadly accept the creation of these ‘realities’ while more and more businesses profit from these efforts.

Over fifty years ago, science-fiction author Philip K Dick wrote about the potential for fantasy to shape the future of society, warning that “fake realities will create fake humans”. He foresaw a disastrous cascade of crises in which “fake humans will generate fake reality and then sell them to other humans, turning them eventually into forgeries of themselves”. Examples abound today, from Instagram accounts where everyone looks better than they do in real life, to the political echo chambers of X and Reddit, to the forthcoming virtual reality playgrounds of the metaverse.

There is an antidote!

While leadership influence is linked to personality and style, and is critical to delivering change and impact in organisations and communities, there is much to be wary of when it comes to charismatic hero centred leadership. Even when good intentions are present, researchers Cha and Edmondson (2006) point to the dangers of a charismatic leadership style and its unintended consequence - employee disenchantment.

So, what is the antidote to disenchantment? Authenticity. While an over-used, mis-used and abused word, in its purest sense, it has a powerful, inoculating influence on the hypocritical cultures set by hypocritical leaders. As Ibarra and Green discuss in this episode of HBR IdeaCast, being authentic cannot be an excuse for leaders (“this is just the way I am”). Rather, authenticity requires a striving towards a future self who is more effective as a leader, more fulfilled at work, armed with more confidence, and ultimately, yields a greater and more sustained positive impact.

To be continued…

The living leadership mandate of Illuminaire is to light up the long shadow of leadership and in this case, to better understand the difference between practicing and acting, and why it matters. For leaders who fear they may not always get this right - remember the practice of leadership is a way of being and a process of becoming. Like art, it’s a work in progress. The goal should be growth for the long-term and not to be an overnight success. There is so more to be discovered and told, so stay with us on the journey - our part two letter to come will reveal the real cost of hypocrisy to both leaders and organisations, as well as offering practical insights into how to respond.

Want to know more? Here are some leadership research and articles:

Best Practice Institute (2016) The unseen consequences of hypocritical leadership, https://blog.bestpracticeinstitute.org/consequences-of-hypocritical-leadership/

Giles, Sunnie: The most important leadership competencies according to leaders around the world, Harvard Business Review https://hbr.org/2016/03/the-most-important-leadership-competencies-according-to-leaders-around-the-world

Greenbaum, Rebecca, Bardes Mawritz, Mary, Piccolo, Ronald F. (2012) When leaders fail to “walk the talk”: supervisor undermining and perceptions of leader hypocrisy, Journal of Management.

Hok, Hannah (2019) When Children Treat Condemnation as a Signal: The Costs and Benefits of Condemnation, Child Development, November 4.

Knight, Rebecca, (2023) 8 Essential Qualities of Successful Leaders, Harvard Business Review, December 13: https://hbr.org/2023/12/8-essential-qualities-of-successful-leaders

Li Jiang, Maryam Kouchaki, and Leslie K. John (2023) Authenticity research: why leaders should be open about their flaws, Harvard Business Review, January 11.

Tucker, Sean (2023) Meaning in the making: the how and why behind our human need to create.

Yaghi Abdulfattah and Yaghi Majed (2021) Evaluating organisational

hypocrisy within universities as toxic leadership behaviour, Public Integrity.

Leadership podcasts:

https://hbr.org/podcast/2023/09/what-makes-an-authentic-leader