Have you heard of George Washington? Of course. What about Napoleon Bonaparte? Certainly. But how about Toussaint Louverture? Perhaps not – a rather curious fact, for reasons we shall see.

Like his two aforementioned contemporaries, Louverture was a leader during the turbulent ‘Age of Revolution’ that stretched from the late 1700s to the early 1800s. His Haitian Revolution stands out as the only successful slave revolt in history, putting an end to European rule of what had been France’s most lucrative colony. Its legacy has reverberated through time, serving to this day as a source of inspiration and hope to the dispossessed around the world.

So why have we neglected him? And neglect it is. Among the many means of studying leadership out there, a particularly prevalent one involves the drawing of contemporary lessons from leaders of the past: Winston Churchill, John F Kennedy, Ernest Shackleton and, of course, Washington and Napoleon. So why not Louverture?

The prevailing narrative

There are many reasons why some leaders are celebrated and others are not, both historically and in the present day. In Louverture’s case, there is an obvious, but no less repugnant, one: the fact that most history books are written by white men. In fact, as an introductory page to a relevant archival collection at Brown University explains, “Many statesmen of the 19th century simply refused to admit that [the Haitian Revolution] had taken place.” Similar reasons also explain why many capable women leaders of the past are also absent from our contemporary examinations of past leaders.

However, there could be more at work behind our neglecting of Louverture. His story – the series of events and decisions that led him and the island that would become Haiti towards independence – does not conform to our preferred leadership narrative. I’ve come to call this phenomenon the ‘Action Fallacy’.

As I explain in my recent book, The Unseen Leader, this phenomenon “describes our persistent belief that while accountants or engineers may accomplish their work through quiet reflection and in a modest manner, leadership is characterised by energy and movement in the face of harrowing odds. In any given crisis (the larger the better), the good leader is the one who moves and acts, while everyone around them is paralysed by indecision. It is this lively action, so the Action Fallacy holds, that is the essential quality of a good leader and the ultimate indicator of the leader’s effectiveness.”

Put differently, when we look for leaders in the past, we are more likely to pick out those who were the liveliest, who made the most noise, fought the hardest and, therefore, whose stories are the most entertaining, rather than those – often picked out by professional historians – who may have had a huge impact through more subtle means.

Louverture is a case in point here because his story is probably not fit for a Hollywood action movie. When the insurrection in Haiti first started in 1791, Louverture hung back and let other men lead from the front. Later, as a military leader, he championed retreat and negotiations over standing his ground on the field of battle. And, by the time the revolution was over, he was already dead.

A broader cast of characters

As societies that strive towards truth and equity, setting the historical record straight is important in itself. However, there is also a contemporary business imperative in counteracting the Action Fallacy and how it causes us to celebrate only a narrow set of historical leaders.

If we’re sloppy with the historical leaders we profile, then the same is likely to happen in our teams as well, as recent studies suggest. The ‘babble hypothesis’ proposed by Binghamton University’s Neil MacLaren, for example, shows that those who talk more are more likely to be perceived as leaders, regardless of what they actually say. 

Put simply, we tend to be more concerned with who behaves the way we think a leader should, rather than those who actually create a positive impact, or potentially could. This is bad for business. So, what can we do?

For a start, we have to change how we teach leadership by profiling a broader cast of characters in the case studies used in business schools. If we continue to celebrate primarily action-oriented leaders, then these are the types of new leaders we will produce.

More broadly, we must reframe our conception of what a leader looks like and what they do to create a positive impact. We need to be more nuanced and be willing to look beneath the surface, rather than be bedazzled by those whose response to any challenge is to leap into action. After all, in light of the pressure and disruption facing today’s organisations, you will want to make sure that you have not only your Washingtons and Napoleons in the right place, but also your Louvertures.

This article is adapted from one that originally appeared in Business Impact magazine (Issue 4 2023, volume 18)