Why Do People Follow Leaders Who Show Their Weaknesses? The Power of 'Imperfection' in Weaving Trust
Modern society is often described as a VUCA (Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, and Ambiguity) era, continuing to change at an unprecedented speed and scale. In such unpredictable times, the qualities required of leaders who head organizations and teams are also facing a major turning point. In the past, the ideal leader was a powerful figure filled with absolute authority and unwavering confidence. The organization would push forward as one toward the single 'correct answer' pointed out by the leader. That style was certainly an effective tactic in an era where the outlook was relatively clear and success models were well-established.
However, in today's business environment, it is no longer realistic for one person to hold all the answers and constantly make perfect decisions. In fact, clinging to the illusion of such a 'perfect leader' can become a major risk that strips an organization of its flexibility and hinders growth. What is truly needed now is not a shift toward authoritarian leadership dependent on status and authority, but a shift toward essential leadership based on values and judgment.
This time, as a fundamental stance for leaders in the coming era, we will explore how important it is to discard the mindset that 'I am right because I am the leader' and adopt the perspective that 'it is the leader's responsibility to keep choosing the right thing.' Furthermore, we will unravel from specific perspectives how 'humility,' 'willingness to learn,' and 'transparency'—the keys to fulfilling that responsibility—build solid relationships of trust and maximize the power of the entire organization. This is not merely an ideal theory, but an extremely practical leadership theory for surviving in an era of intense change and achieving sustainable growth.
Chapter 1: The End of the Illusion That 'I Am Right Because I Am the Leader'
In many organizations of the past, there was an implicit understanding that 'what the leader says is absolute.' Behind this lies a history where it was believed that a top-down organizational model—in which a leader with abundant experience and knowledge stands at the top and makes optimal decisions based on their deep insight—was efficient. In an era where the market environment was relatively stable and the flow of information was limited, this model enabled rapid decision-making and organizational control, producing many successful experiences. The leader served as a hub of information and a sage who made the final judgment.
However, the situation has changed completely due to the advancement of the information society in the modern era. The spread of the internet has eliminated information asymmetry, and it is not rare for members on the front lines to grasp 'live information'—such as customer trends and the latest technological trends—in real-time. Under these circumstances, relying solely on the knowledge and experience of one leader to make decisions is an extremely dangerous gamble. Past successful experiences can even become 'negative legacies' that are completely useless in today's market. The idea that 'I am right because I am the leader' is no longer anything more than an outdated illusion, and it may even become a shackle that stagnates the organization.
Under a leader who clings to this illusion, subordinates stop thinking for themselves. A sense of helplessness spreads—'it's useless to say anything anyway' or 'it will be decided by the leader's word in the end'—and a wait-and-see attitude becomes the norm. This is an immeasurable loss for the organization. The buds of innovative ideas that should have been born from diverse perspectives are nipped in the bud, and opportunities for constructive discussion are lost. As a result, the organization will be unable to adapt to environmental changes and will gradually lose its competitiveness.
Even more serious is the impact on psychological safety. An atmosphere where it is not permitted to voice dissent against the leader creates intimidation and fear among subordinates. This can foster a culture where mistakes are covered up and problems are difficult to report, leading to situations where small issues are left unaddressed until it is too late. This is the greatest harm of continuing to play the role of the 'correct leader.'
Chapter 2: 'Humility' as the Source of True Strength
So, what kind of leadership is required after breaking away from the illusion that 'I am right because I am the leader'? The core of the answer is 'humility.' Humility here does not refer to a superficial attitude of being merely humble or modest. It is the intellectual courage to recognize that one's own knowledge and abilities have limits and to honestly admit that one is not a perfect being, as well as the eager stance of actively trying to learn from the opinions and knowledge of others. This humility is the source of the true strength that modern leaders should possess.
A truly humble leader does not try to hide their own mistakes or errors in judgment. Instead, they strive to openly admit them and turn them into opportunities for the entire team to learn. The sight of a leader who can frankly say, 'My judgment the other day lacked consideration in this point. Let me hear everyone's opinions,' gives subordinates a tremendous sense of security. By showing that the leader themselves is imperfect, the message that 'it is okay to fail in this organization' and 'it is acceptable not to be perfect' is conveyed, and the psychological safety of the organization is dramatically increased. In an environment where psychological safety is ensured, members can take on new challenges without fear of failure, which becomes the soil for innovation.
The fact that 'psychological safety' was the greatest factor in success in 'Project Aristotle,' in which Google investigated the commonalities of its high-productivity teams, eloquently speaks to this truth.
Welcoming frank feedback from subordinates and using it as fuel for one's own growth is also an important aspect of humble leadership. In many cases, leaders tend to unconsciously take a defensive attitude toward criticism from subordinates. However, that causes subordinates to gradually close their mouths. A humble leader perceives that 'things that are hard to hear are precisely the valuable information that will help me grow,' and instead actively seeks feedback. Such an attitude not only promotes the growth of the individual leader but also plays an extremely important role in rooting a culture of learning throughout the organization.
By showing the leader taking the initiative to learn from others, a culture where each member also learns from and elevates one another is naturally fostered. There is no doubt that leadership that honestly repeats dialogue while acknowledging imperfection can build a far stronger and more sustainable relationship of trust than leadership that pretends to be perfect and tries to make people follow through authority.
Chapter 3: Continuous Learning to Keep Choosing the 'Right Thing'
The phrase 'it is the leader's responsibility to keep choosing the right thing' accurately captures the essence of leadership. What is important is not being a 'correct leader,' but the dynamic process itself of continuing to choose the 'most correct option' for the organization at any given time. And what supports this process is none other than the leader's own 'continuous learning.' In the modern era, where market environments, technology, and customer values change from moment to moment, the criteria for 'correctness' also constantly change. It is a daily occurrence that the correct answer of yesterday becomes the incorrect answer of today.
Therefore, leaders need to constantly update their own knowledge and skill sets. This does not just mean deepening professional knowledge in the industry. The subjects of learning are infinitely expanding, such as learning from the expertise of subordinates, interacting with leaders in different industries to gain new perspectives, and cultivating the power to discern the essence of things from liberal arts such as history and philosophy. In particular, a stance of not being averse to encountering opinions and values different from one's own is important. If you are surrounded only by information that is comfortable for you, your thinking will become rigid and you will be prone to cognitive bias. By daring to listen to opposing opinions and trying to deeply understand 'why do they think that way?', the quality of decision-making will improve significantly.
Also, along with 'learning' new things, the importance of 'unlearning' (discarding learning)—consciously letting go of old knowledge and successful experiences—is increasing. Past successful experiences can be a great source of confidence for a leader, but at the same time, they can also be the biggest shackle that hinders adaptation to change. By clinging too much to methodologies that were successful in the past, one may misjudge the trends of the new era. A leader who is a true learner constantly asks themselves, 'Is this way really the best even now?', and has the courage to boldly deny their past self if necessary.
Such a stance of continuous learning not only sharpens the leader's judgment but also has a positive impact on the entire organization. The sight of a leader learning enthusiastically becomes the best role model for subordinates. The awareness that 'our leader is always learning and trying to grow. We should not be satisfied with the status quo either' naturally spreads, and the entire organization evolves into a 'learning organization' that continues to self-transform. In an era of intense change, there is no future for a leader who has stopped learning, and an organization that has stopped learning. To bear the heavy responsibility of continuing to choose the 'right thing,' it is essential that the leader themselves remains a more voracious learner than anyone else.
Chapter 4: Communication That Weaves Trust: The Power of Transparency and Dialogue
The essential elements for a leader with a humble stance and a willingness to learn to sublimate those qualities into the power of the organization are communication that emphasizes 'transparency' and 'dialogue.' What is the leader thinking, and based on what information are they trying to make decisions? In an organization where that process is a black box, members accumulate anxiety and distrust. Even if the final decision was logically correct, if the background is not shared, a sense of alienation—'our opinions are not listened to anyway' or 'things proceed by the leader's arbitrary judgment'—is born, and engagement drops significantly.
A leader with high transparency honestly shares not only good information but also bad information and the challenges the organization is facing with members. Of course, there are cases where it is not appropriate to disclose all information indiscriminately. However, by sharing the decision-making process and the context behind it as much as possible, members can come to perceive the current state of the organization as their 'own business.' Why choose this strategy, what risks are anticipated, and what is expected of the members? By carefully explaining these things, members can have a sense of being a party involved in creating the future together, rather than just a recipient of instructions.
Furthermore, two-way 'dialogue' is essential for ensuring transparency. One-way communication from the leader is insufficient. It is necessary to intentionally create a space where members can freely voice their questions, concerns, or opinions from different perspectives. Regular 1-on-1 meetings and town hall meetings that transcend departmental boundaries are effective means for this. The important thing is for the leader to commit to a 'listening posture' in such settings. Instead of interrupting subordinates or immediately trying to refute them with one's own opinions, first, try to fully accept the other person's words and understand the thoughts and feelings behind them. This attitude of active listening creates a space for dialogue with psychological safety.
As mentioned in the provided text, 'an attitude of sincere engagement while showing human-like weaknesses' draws deep empathy and trust from people. When a leader speaks frankly about their own worries and uncertainties, and asks for help by saying, 'I haven't found the answer to this yet. I need everyone's wisdom,' it is by no means a sign of weakness. Rather, it is proof of wise and sincere leadership that seeks to draw out the autonomy of members and maximize the collective intelligence of the organization. People naturally gather around a leader who acknowledges their imperfections and tries to face difficulties together with their colleagues, rather than one who plays the role of a perfect hero, and they are more willing to exert their full potential.
Summary
In this article, we have discussed the new form of leadership required in today's rapidly changing world, focusing on the shift from the traditional authoritarian idea that 'the leader is right because they are the leader' to the essential perspective that 'it is the leader's duty to keep choosing what is right.'
The key to realizing this shift is, first, 'humility'—having the attitude of acknowledging one's own limitations and learning from others. The courage for a leader to admit mistakes and show imperfection fosters psychological safety in the organization and cultivates a challenging culture that does not fear failure.
Second is 'continuous learning' to keep adapting to environmental changes. The attitude of practicing 'unlearning'—constantly absorbing new knowledge and perspectives without clinging to past successes, and sometimes discarding the old self—keeps the leader's judgment up to date.
And third is 'transparency and dialogue' to turn that process into organizational strength. By sincerely sharing the background of decision-making and earnestly listening to the voices of members, strong and sustainable relationships of trust are built, and the wisdom and creativity of the entire organization are maximized.
Leaders of the future do not need to be omniscient and omnipotent command centers. Rather, they are required to act as 'catalysts' who understand that they are not perfect, and who draw out and unite the talents of diverse members. They might be described as facilitators who do not teach the answers, but rather pose questions, stimulate discussion, and support the process of the team finding the answers for themselves.
This kind of leadership—humble, constantly learning, and valuing dialogue—is by no means something that can only be practiced by a few people with special talents. It is a skill that anyone can acquire by changing their mindset and behavior. Why not start by setting aside the assumption that your own opinion is absolutely correct and listening deeply to the voices of your subordinates? That small step will surely become a solid driving force to help you, and the organization you lead, grow stronger and more resilient.
