When The Lion Fails Leadership Test !!!

A lion who refuses to listen to the sheep may not score highly on the metrics of contemporary leadership, but he remains the leader of the jungle nonetheless — respected, revered and acknowledged by all those within his domain.

We should therefore be cautious about subscribing unquestioningly to assessment models that attempt to measure every dimension of a leader’s competence against the same yardsticks. A lion has to be fierce. He must command authority and, when necessary, instil a healthy fear of consequences in those he rules alongside.

If the lion is judged predominantly on attributes such as sympathy, empathy and softness, he may well fail the assessment — but what relevance would those softer attributes have if they diminish his ability to protect his territory, maintain order and command authority in the jungle?

There is an important distinction between leadership competence and leadership conformity. A leader should be assessed not by how closely he conforms to a universally prescribed competency model, but by how effectively he responds to the demands of the situation, the nature of the challenge and the responsibilities entrusted to him.

Too often, competency frameworks measure leaders against an assumed norm — effectively rewarding proximity to the statistical mean. But leadership is not about being average across every dimension; it is about being exceptional where the moment demands it. The qualities that make one leader effective in one context may make another ineffective in a different one.

The true measure of leadership, therefore, should not be how closely a leader resembles the model — but how effectively he fulfils the purpose for which he leads.