Book Review-Leaders: Myth and Reality by General Stanley McChrystal

I don’t usually read business books unless I am convinced that the book is extraordinary. I especially don’t indulge in this kind of reading unless I am convinced that the author speaks from a point of authority. In this case I was convinced of the veracity of General McChrystal’s bona fides to speak on the topic by what I had observed of his actions as a commander. This book was a group project, which also included Jeff Eggers and Jason Mangone as co-authors, but the voice of the writing centers around General McChrystal.

I am also very skeptical of any book that speaks of leadership. I am of the opinion that leadership is something that is hard earned and amorphous rather than something that can be attained by following scripts or checking off check boxes. Most business books, even other books written by military commanders have been disappointing because they fall into the trap of churning out books that are best sellers initially but end up in the discount bins because the wisdom, or lack thereof, are pedantic, formulaic, and promises too much while delivering too little.

This book however, is honest to the point of declaring that the authors’ intent was to dispel the mythology that accompanies our cultural worship of the leader. They immediately disabuse the reader of their romantic notions, taking on one of the biggest mythological leaders in American history: General Robert E. Lee. The deconstruction of the Lee mythology took courage, especially from a West Point graduate as General McChrystal. In addition, the book delineates the three myths that has obfuscated the characteristics of a leader and the qualities of leadership. In the first chapter, General McChrystal admits that the term “Leadership” is almost impossible to define forthrightly and correctly. The authors also drolly points out that a leadership expert found 221 definitions of leadership in 587 examined publications.

The foundation of the three myths is that those who study leaders and leadership, all focus narrowly on the leader — the person — at the exclusion of anything else. The three myths which results from our hero worship, or more accurately, worshipping in a cult of personality are:

The Formulaic Myth: We think leadership is achieved through rote procedures: being formulaic and following a recipe. This myth ignores the fact that leadership is tightly coupled to environment,  situation, and context.

The Attribution Myth: We attribute all the leadership to the leader, the sole chosen focus of our studies. This myth ignores the contributions of the many in order to simplify the vast and complicated reality so that we can create bullet points.

The Results Myth: We attribute the success and failure of the leader upon whether the narrow desired outcome is achieved. The myth ignores the fact that sometimes the symbolic worth of leadership is far more valuable in the final assessment of a successful leader than just the results.

We analyze leadership in the way that we do because we are ever the optimist, and we wish to indulge in our own confirmation bias by ascribing nobility to our leaders and promote the myths and ignore reality.

 The author’s stated purpose is to dispel our very comfortable biases and  conduct the very difficult exercise of reconfiguring the idea of leadership into a different structure, to show leadership in a very different light. They do this by employing the method first used by Plutarch in his Lives. Plutarch wrote biographies of 48 worthy subjects seeking to answer the question: “What sort of man was he”? He paired his subjects and set about identifying the salient factors which would answer his question.

While the authors used the same structure, they also made significant changes to the analysis as they sought to answer the question: “What sort of leader were they?” While Plutarch only wrote of men, the authors included three women, because we should be beyond that particular bias and the three women are worthy subjects. They grouped them into pairs as well, but in different categories: Founders, Geniuses, Zealots, Heroes, Power Brokers, and Reformers.  Some are notable in their fame, others are obscure. The authors gave a succinct and clear history of each leader, highlighting both their qualities as well as their weaknesses, which served to balance out their claims to leadership and made their place in history all the more real.  

Indeed, the histories of each of the twelve personages, fourteen if you included Lee and Winston Churchill—who’s history was also documented— were well written and honest. The judgements made were fair and informative.

It is the last two chapters that sucked me in. They analyzed the three myths, spoke of how their views of the myths changed over the course of writing the book, and finally gave a different, more useful structure for assessing leadership, and avidly avoided the same mythmaking that they were trying to dispel. As I sat on my chair trying to digest their conclusions, and I must admit, I am still chewing over the structure and idea, I was struck by the possibilities that the last chapter engenders.

Being cynical to the tricks of the business book genre, but especially skeptical of the leadership specialty, I want to consume and accept the concepts laid out in the final chapter, but I will think critically about the chapter, as the authors made a significant case. I must give them the respect of indulging in the granularities of their hypothesis.