When I was a board member, the board and I found ourselves with the very important task of selecting the next staff leader of the organization. The prior leader was beloved, and there was no shortage of people who wanted to fill her shoes.
We had an applicant who was an employee of the organization and several external candidates who made it to the top of the shortlist. The candidate we ultimately selected had no direct experience with the community we served, but he had more years of experience overall, and a sparkling, new personality.
We ended up going with the external candidate, and long story short—it did not work out. We ended up later hiring the internal candidate who had loads of community experience and experience with the actual org. His personality sparkled differently, one we saw much more clearly in hindsight.
THE CHARISMA TRAP
There is one word I hear above all others when the conversation is about leadership. No matter where we start, it seems to hop over the line of requirements and land at the front. Can you guess it? It is charisma.
I want to make an argument that there are at least three to maybe ten more important things than charisma when it comes to leadership. So listen up, all you boards that are thinking about succession planning and who your next (or first) staff leader will be. Don’t fall for the charisma trap. Charisma alone won’t get your organization where you want to go.
I get it. The very definition of charisma is “a personal quality of magnetic charm or appeal.”
The problem — well, one of the problems — with prioritizing this personal trait is that it is so subjective.
I have met many people in my career who others thought were charismatic. About half the time, I agreed, and at least half the time, I disagreed. Earlier in my career, this was often gay men telling me I needed to meet another gay man who was utterly magnetic, charming, and charismatic. I’m sure they were to the person recommending them to me, but sometimes I just didn’t see it.
On subjectivity, consider the characteristics of the elected and political leaders here in the United States, for example. Some leaders are revered and seen as having tons of charisma, and others are exactly the opposite, depending on who the politician is and who the person is. Ask any ten people and you will get a different answer from each about a political leader they admire.
The undue charm of charisma can dwarf all other qualities and characteristics. I have seen many nonprofit leaders hired and then later fired or ushered out because they checked the charisma box but lacked other requirements. Charisma might get you in the door, but it will not keep you there. At some point, you will have to actually deliver.
You might think that in writing this, I am a person lacking in charisma and therefore making the case for everyone to chuck out that criterion and prioritize the others when looking for leadership. But that’s not true. People generally find me charismatic, likable, and inspiring. I have successfully been a leader in communities and movements.
I believe deeply in the focus and prioritization of actual qualifications and characteristics before we move to that personal, magical, divinely-gifted-trait of charisma (according to some people).
Here are other leadership characteristics to consider before charisma:
1 – JOB SKILLS AND QUALIFICATIONS. Does the person have demonstrated experience in the leadership position for which they are being considered?
2 – ABILITY TO BUILD LASTING AND PRODUCTIVE PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS. Does this person demonstrate being able to collaborate and work with peers, people above that person in rank or power, and people below? What tangible, specific examples are there?
3 – EXCELLENT COMMUNICATION SKILLS. This is important in all formats and settings, including in writing, one-on-one conversations, public addresses, meetings, etc. Communication and storytelling is the currency of nonprofit leadership.
4 – RESPONSIBILITY AND INTEGRITY. Does this person consistently deliver on their commitments consistently? Do they hold themselves accountable? When you’re in leadership, self-accountability is deeply necessary. Sometimes there is no one to check you, but yourself.
5 – SELF-AWARENESS. I strongly argue that to be a good leader, you need to know who you are — the good, the bad, and the ugly. A willingness to know your characteristics, name them, and work on them is critical to your progress as a leader. If you can’t welcome feedback and process it productively, you probably don’t belong in that leadership seat.
Every human being is different. We have different strengths, weaknesses, assets, and liabilities. There is no one way to be a leader. I have met highly effective introverted leaders, process-oriented leaders, and quiet leaders. In a world where we have been overly sold on one type of leadership —strong, male, powerful, and correct — I hope we can all admit it doesn’t always work out, and we should try some other types.
So again, don’t fall for the charisma trap. I would never fault someone for being charismatic, but when it becomes THE litmus test for leadership, everyone in the organization suffers.
A REAL WORLD EXAMPLE
Consider the story of my friend Lucas. Lucas was well-liked and easy to be around. Many people found him charismatic. He would talk to anyone, and 90% of the people he spoke to liked him.
There was a small local organization looking for a leader to help stabilize and grow their work. It was a two-person shop with an Executive Director (E.D.) position and an existing Program Manager.
The E.D. position had been open for more than six months, so this person needed to hit the ground running and bring in some cash. Fundraising was paramount. In order to raise that money, they needed someone adept at building strong relationships with the community, donors, board, and staff, through impeccable communications.
Lucas had never been an Executive Director, but he had worked for nonprofits in the past. He had primarily done programs and could write the program portion of grants, but had never solicited a donor or been in these meetings before. In addition, he would be new to the area and would need to relocate for the job.
The board met with five top candidates, all with varying qualifications; some had strong fundraising chops, some had deep relationships in the community, and some even had strong experience with that specific organization. The board chose Lucas. “He was just so charismatic! Who wouldn’t like him and want to give him money?”
Well, it turned out that although plenty of people liked Lucas, without a plan to actually do meaningful work with the organization, any existing relationships to draw upon, and the fundraising skills to ask for and secure gifts, Lucas floundered. Eventually, Lucas and the organization decided to part ways. The person with the fundraising background and deep ties to the community was hired and succeeded in delivering what the organization needed.
The moral of the story here is, don’t get distracted by the shiny, charismatic person because they fit your idea of who a leader is and overlook the leader sitting right in front of you. Charisma counts for something, sure.
But don’t let the illusion of charm cloud your judgment. True leadership is built on substance, skill, and integrity.
