Olivia: The worst piece of leadership advice you've ever received is probably 'just be yourself.' It sounds empowering, but in reality, it might be the very thing holding you back from becoming a truly effective leader. Today, we're finding out why. Jackson: Whoa, coming in hot. I feel like 'be yourself' is the foundation of every motivational poster ever made. You're saying it's a trap? Olivia: A well-intentioned one, but yes, often a trap. And that's the central challenge posed in Leadership Revolution: The Future of Developing Dynamic Leaders by Lori Mazan. Jackson: And Mazan is someone who would know. She's not just an author; she's been an executive coach for decades, one of the first 300 certified coaches in the world, in fact. She's also a longtime Tai Chi teacher, which brings this fascinating blend of corporate strategy and mindful presence to her work. Olivia: Exactly. Her book is part memoir, part coaching session, and it completely dismantles these easy, one-size-fits-all rules for leadership. Jackson: I'm intrigued. So if 'be yourself' is bad advice, where do we even begin? Olivia: We begin with the paradox of authenticity itself. Mazan argues that effective leadership isn't about choosing between being your 'authentic self' and being a 'skilled leader.' It's about blending them.

Jackson: Okay, 'blending them.' What does that actually mean in practice? Because it sounds like you're saying we should be a little bit fake. Olivia: Not fake, strategic. Mazan tells this great story about a client she coached, a brilliant, analytical executive. He was incredibly successful, but he read some trendy business book that said all great leaders are charismatic. So, he decided he needed to become charismatic. Jackson: Oh no. I can see where this is going. Olivia: Precisely. He started trying to be this bubbly, outgoing person. He'd walk into meetings with this forced energy, telling jokes that didn't land. His team, who respected his analytical mind, was just confused. They started pulling his colleagues aside, asking, "Is he okay? What's going on?" He was trying to wear a costume, and it was so inauthentic that it actually undermined the trust he'd built. Jackson: That's so relatable. It's that pressure to fit a mold, to be the 'visionary Steve Jobs type' or the 'super-empathetic Brené Brown type,' when that's just not your natural operating system. It's exhausting. Olivia: It is. And it's unsustainable. But Mazan points out the other extreme is just as dangerous. She tells another quick story about a manager at an oil company training. He decided his 'authentic self' was a funny guy. Jackson: A noble aspiration. Olivia: But his idea of humor involved making a series of wildly inappropriate double-entendre jokes about 'horizontal drilling.' Jackson: Yikes. Okay. So on one hand, you have the guy trying to be someone he's not, which comes off as fake. On the other, you have the guy being his 'authentic' self, and he's just being a jerk. Olivia: Exactly. And this is the paradox. Mazan's solution is what she calls the 'Unity of Opposites.' It’s not about finding a bland compromise in the middle. It's about holding both truths at once: "This is who I am" AND "This is what is required of me as a leader." The goal is to blend your genuine personality with the skills and capabilities the situation demands. Jackson: I like that. It’s not about changing who you are, but expanding your range. Like a great musician who has their own unique style but can also play in different keys and tempos depending on the song. The core of their artistry is always there, but they adapt it. Olivia: That's a perfect analogy. You're not abandoning your instrument; you're just learning to play it with more sophistication. And that idea of sophistication, of moving beyond just basic skills, is the real heart of the book.

Jackson: Okay, so if we're not just being ourselves and we're not just learning a list of 'charismatic leader' skills, how do we actually grow? Olivia: This leads us to what I think is the book's most powerful idea: the difference between horizontal and vertical development. Jackson: Alright, I'm bracing for some business jargon here. Break it down for me. Olivia: It's actually very simple. Horizontal development is about adding more skills to your toolkit. It's learning how to run a meeting, how to use a new software, how to give feedback. It's informational. Most corporate training lives on this horizontal plane. Jackson: Okay, I'm with you. Learning new stuff. What's vertical? Olivia: Vertical development is about increasing your capacity. It's not about what you know, but how you think. It's about your ability to handle complexity, to see patterns, to manage your own emotional state, and to deploy the right skill at the right time. It's transformational. Jackson: Huh. So horizontal is the 'what,' and vertical is the 'how' and 'when.' Can you give an example of where this goes wrong? Olivia: Absolutely. Mazan shares this fantastic story about a company where the CEO declared that 'listening' was the number-one skill they needed in their leaders. So, the company invests a fortune in active listening workshops. Jackson: A classic corporate move. Olivia: Right. So all the managers go through the training. They learn to nod, paraphrase, and make eye contact. They go back to their teams and they listen. They listen intently in every meeting. And then... nothing happens. Jackson: What do you mean, nothing? Olivia: The managers would listen to all the team's problems and ideas, the meeting would end, and they wouldn't take any action. They had acquired the skill of listening—the horizontal part—but they had zero capacity to synthesize the information, make a tough decision, or navigate the political landscape to solve the problem. That's the vertical part. Their teams just got more and more frustrated, thinking, "You're hearing us, but you're not doing anything." Jackson: Wow. That explains so much about why corporate training often feels so hollow. We learn the 'what' in a sterile classroom environment, but the moment we're back in a messy, real-life situation, we don't have the 'how.' The vertical capacity is missing. Olivia: Precisely. You can't solve a vertical problem—like navigating ambiguity or inspiring a team—with more horizontal training. It's like trying to become a better chef by just memorizing more recipes. At some point, you need to develop the feel, the intuition, the judgment. That's vertical growth. Jackson: And I imagine that kind of growth is much harder to measure on a spreadsheet, which is why companies focus on the easy, horizontal stuff. It's interesting, the book has had a pretty positive reception from professionals, but reader ratings are a bit more mixed. I can see how this idea would be a game-changer for some, but maybe feel a bit abstract for others who are just looking for a checklist of five things to do. Olivia: It definitely challenges the quick-fix mentality. And that challenge extends beyond the individual leader to the entire organization's culture.

Jackson: How so? How does this individual vertical growth connect to the whole company? Olivia: Well, it shapes how we think about connection at work. This brings us to Mazan's scathing critique of one of the most common corporate clichés: the 'workplace family.' Jackson: Oh, the 'we're a family here' line. Honestly, it's the biggest red flag in a job interview. It usually means 'we have no boundaries and expect you to be on Slack at 10 PM.' Olivia: (Laughs) You're not wrong! Mazan tells this story that is just the perfect, almost painful illustration of why this is so toxic. There was a tech start-up that went all-in on this metaphor. They even renamed their all-hands meetings 'Fam' meetings. Jackson: Oh, that is cringey. 'Fam meeting.' Olivia: It gets worse. They built this whole culture around belonging and being a family. Then, a business downturn hits, and they have to do layoffs. And how do they announce it? Jackson: Please don't say it. Olivia: At the 'Fam' meeting. Jackson: No! That is brutal. It's a complete betrayal. A family doesn't fire you when times get tough. Olivia: Exactly. The sense of betrayal was immense. Because a company can't be a family. A family offers something close to unconditional love and security. A business, by its very nature, is conditional. Your place there is conditional on performance and the company's financial health. Promising a family is a lie. Jackson: So what's the alternative? If we're not a family, what are we? Just a group of mercenaries? Olivia: Mazan's alternative is the idea of a 'Community.' A community isn't built on a false promise of unconditional belonging. It's built on a shared purpose, mutual respect, and psychological safety. She references Google's famous study on high-performing teams, which found that the number one factor wasn't talent or strategy—it was psychological safety. The feeling that you can take risks and be vulnerable without fear of punishment. Jackson: That makes so much more sense. It's an adult relationship. We're here for a common goal, we support each other, we challenge each other, but we're not pretending it's a lifelong, unconditional bond. Olivia: And part of that challenge is what she calls 'cooperative competition.' It's the idea that in a healthy community, people can compete and debate rigorously, not to tear each other down, but to make the collective work better. It's about pushing each other to be sharper, smarter, and more innovative, all while maintaining that foundation of respect. Jackson: It’s a much more realistic and, frankly, more respectful way to treat employees. You're treating them like adults who have chosen to be there, not children who need a parental figure in their CEO.

Olivia: And that's really the thread that runs through the entire book. Whether it's about our own authenticity, the way we develop our abilities, or the cultures we build in our organizations, the revolution is about moving from these rigid, simplistic rules to a more dynamic, context-aware, and deeply human approach. Jackson: It feels like the ultimate message is that leadership isn't a destination you arrive at. It's a practice, like Mazan's Tai Chi. You're constantly balancing, adjusting, and responding to the moment. The goal isn't to be a perfect, static leader, but a resilient, self-reliant one. You have to build that internal capacity to navigate the chaos. Olivia: I love that. It's not about having all the answers, but about having the capacity to find the next right answer for that specific moment. And maybe the first step for anyone listening is to just notice one outdated rule they're following—either about themselves or their team—and ask: 'What if I tried the 'third right answer' instead?' Jackson: That's a great takeaway. And we'd love to hear what outdated leadership rules you've all had to break. Find us on our socials and share your story. We're always learning from the insights our community shares. Olivia: This is Aibrary, signing off.