Be Careful What You Believe
Rethinking Leadership and Personal Development Myths
Recently, in a group chat, I challenged the veracity of the book The Five Dysfunctions of a Team. Like many best-selling books in the leadership and development space, I stated that just because it was popular didn't mean it held up to rigour for me. Each to their own of course.
You can walk into any airport bookshop and the shelves are stacked with books promising the secret to success, the formula for better leadership, or the hidden code to understanding people. Some of these ideas become cultural landmarks. Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus suggested that men and women are so different that they might as well be from separate planets. The Secret promised that by simply visualising abundance, the universe would deliver it. Countless typologies like MBTI and DISC claim to unlock personality once and for all.
The problem?
Many of these theories don’t hold up under scrutiny. They persist not because they are scientifically robust but because they tell a story people want to hear. They reduce complexity into a neat diagram, a memorable metaphor, or a comforting promise.
In a busy world, it is easy to cling to tidy explanations even if they are wrong.
Take Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The pyramid is iconic and taught in classrooms worldwide. Yet research has long shown that human motivation does not follow a strict hierarchy. People may prioritise creativity even while struggling with basic security.
Similarly, MBTI remains a multimillion-pound industry, despite evidence that it lacks reliability. Your “type” today might change tomorrow. This becomes problematic when using it as a benchmark for leadership or culture change in an organisation.
Then some ideas feel empowering but oversold. Grit was once hailed as the single biggest predictor of success, only for later studies to show it overlaps with good old-fashioned conscientiousness.
Growth mindset became a buzzword in schools and boardrooms, but large-scale replication studies show its effects are modest at best.
Why does this matter?
Because the stories we believe shape how we lead and how we live.
If we buy into the myth that women and men are fundamentally from different planets, we risk entrenching stereotypes rather than dismantling them. If we insist that positivity alone will manifest wealth, we ignore the role of systems, privilege, and structural barriers. If we teach leaders to chase charisma instead of building inclusive teams, we reinforce the “hero CEO” model that often collapses under pressure and causes more harm than good.
The alternative is not to reject all frameworks, but to choose carefully.
Evidence-based psychology offers more robust tools. The Big Five (0CEAN) personality traits instead of MBTI; Self-Determination Theory instead of Maslow; Hackman’s model of team effectiveness instead of Tuckman’s tidy stages or Lencioni's Five Dysfunctions metaphors. These may be less catchy, but they are far more useful for anyone serious about growth and leadership.
My Own Learnings
As someone who has built my own BRAVE model of leadership, I am not immune to these challenges. Creating a framework is seductive, as you want something memorable, simple, and inspiring. But I have learned that if it is not anchored in evidence, tested with real leaders, and open to evolution, it risks becoming just another catchy acronym with little depth. A solution trying to find a problem.
So for BRAVE, I continue to work on connecting each pillar of the model to established research.
For Bold leadership, I explore psychological safety and the work on assertiveness in the Big Five (OCEAN) model.
For Resiliant Leadership, I explore resilience research, stress and recovery science and antifragility, learning how systems improve from disorder, volatility, and randomness
For Agile Leadership, I explore Heifetz’s theory of Adaptive Leadership, as well as Complexity Theory and the VUCA framework, among others.
For Visionary Leadership, I tapped into work around Strategic foresight, Scenario planning, and Transformational leadership, while also paying attention to critiques that show vision alone does not guarantee effective leadership.
For Ethical Leadership, I explore Ethical Decision-Making models such as principlism, the Four Box Model, Rest's Model of Ethical Action, and Ferrell and Gresham's Contingency Framework. Governance research and Servant Leadership also play an influential role in the development of this pillar.
The BRAVE model is a living thing that doesn’t settle for a singular truth. We gather feedback, adapt, and treat it as a living framework rather than a final truth. We are currently beta-testing an Insight Engine so that we can provide evidence to ourselves and our clients on the thinking behind our work. But most importantly, I resist the temptation to overclaim.
BRAVE is not THE answer to leadership, but it is a useful synthesis that leaders can apply and grow with.
That is the lesson I hold onto.
Be careful what you believe, be discerning about what you teach, and always test whether the stories you share can withstand scrutiny.
Endnotes
Smith, M. L. (2006). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: A critical analysis. See also psychology reviews that question the strict hierarchy.
Pittenger, D. J. (2005). Cautionary comments regarding the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57(3), 210–221.
Credé, M., Tynan, M. C., & Harms, P. D. (2017). Much ado about grit: A meta-analytic synthesis of the grit literature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 492–511. See also recent replication critiques of growth mindset interventions.
Roberts, B. W., et al. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 313–345.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Self-determination theory: The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Harvard Business Press.
Miller, R. (2007). Futures literacy: A hybrid strategic scenario method. Futures, 39(4), 341–362.
Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1995). Scenario planning: A tool for strategic thinking. Sloan Management Review, 36(2), 25–40.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19–31.
Carton, A. M., Murphy, C., & Clark, J. R. (2014). A (blurry) vision of the future: How leader rhetoric about ultimate goals influences performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1544–1570.
If this article resonates with you, and you want to explore what evidence-based, practical leadership looks like inside your organisation, I’d love to help. My BRAVE leadership programmes and executive coaching are designed to cut through the noise, apply what works, and build leaders who are bold, resilient, agile, visionary, and ethical. Contact us.
