Leadership Lies: The debunked theories still running your workplace

A proud rooster once noticed that every morning, as soon as he crowed, the sun would rise.

Convinced of his power, he believed that his crowing caused the sun to rise. He strutted around the farm, teaching the younger roosters how to crow properly, ensuring the sun would never fail to appear.

One morning, he was ill and couldn’t crow. The sun rose anyway. But instead of admitting his mistake, he concluded that his previous training had been so effective that the sun now rose on its own.

Centuries later, we’re still falling for the rooster’s mistake. Across boardrooms and training rooms, leadership courses promise success based on debunked theories, repackaging old myths with new buzzwords. Entire industries have been built around teaching leaders how to “crow like a rooster”—following techniques that seem connected to success but have no real causal link.

From personality tests that claim to define leadership potential to learning styles theories that have been repeatedly disproven, bad science continues to thrive in leadership training.

In this article, we’ll discuss three areas: What are the psychological drivers behind the enduring nature of these theories, some examples of those that are the most enduring today, and what can we do to address their use within our own businesses, teams and organisations.

Crowing lessons for all!

When it comes to our examples of the rooster’s crowing lessons, many might seem both familiar and believable.

From 10,000 hours of practice resulting in mastery to the belief that we are predominantly left-brained (logical) or right-brained (creative) individuals, many examples might be commonly accepted practise in our business.

If you consult, train or lead, you might even innocently utilise many of these approaches, such is their believability. (Note: Psychologists term this believability as face validity – a definition we’ll come back to in a little while.)

Let’s share some examples that might sound familiar.

Myth: The 10,000 Hour Rule

In his famous 2008 book Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell simplifies (some might say oversimplifies) Anders Ericsson’s research into mastery of skills.

This popularised the idea that 10,000 hours of practice is required to become an expert in a field, and cited examples such as the number of concert hours performed by The Beatles and the amount of time Bill Gates had spent programming computers as applied examples of this 10,000-hour rule.

The issue? Mastery is not just about time spent. It is also about the quality of deliberate practice, our genetic predispositions, and environmental factors.

Gladwell’s work was based on a study by Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Römer (1993) that actually emphasises deliberate, structured practice, not just the total hours spent. This has been researched in multiple studies since, with a 2014 meta-analysis of 88 studies by Macnamara, Hambrick & Oswald finding that this deliberate practice only accounts for 12% of the variance in performance (and less so in professional and educational settings).

In success, we can often overlook the impact of the environment and opportunity. Access to quality coaching and instruction has been found to be a direct influence on mastery. This access opportunity is likely increased when socio-economic position is favourable and when the innate talent is “spotted”.

In essence, this means that, whilst structured practice is important – and is more important that simply hours practiced – most of the reasons for success have to do with the environment, group relationships, socio-economic status, high-quality instruction, the genetics of the individual, and even luck.

Myth: Brainstorming is the best way to generate ideas

Return to office mandates are in the news again.

There are many reasons cited as rationale for the change in direction from, mainly large, organisations – and none more loudly that the need for the natural ideation, creativity and innovation that happens when people get together.

It persists because leaders believe that open collaboration fosters creativity, and because it feels good to engage employees in this way.

But studies have shown that innovation is not serendipitous. It’s not the fortunate result of having people together. In fact, research shows that traditional brainstorming often leads to groupthink and social loafing

As early as 1972, Irving Janis identified that brainstorming session stifle dissent (a powerful catalyst for creativity) and encourage conformity. The most dominant voices in the group tend to shape the discussion and lead to less innovative solutions.

This is the essence of groupthink. As social animals, we tend to prefer harmony over conflict. This was useful when we evolved on the savannah. But, in the boardroom, it leads to self-censorship, stereotyping of group outliers and a preference for the known, predictable or status quo.

Traditional brainstorming is less effective than structured techniques like brainwriting, electronic brainstorming, or nominal group technique. However, companies still use it because it feels fun, engaging, and democratic—despite a mountain of research showing it hinders creativity more than it helps.

Myth: Grit is a primary determinant of success

Cards on the table. This is one of the most annoying myths that prevails, for me personally.

The symptoms of this belief permeate LinkedIn and many leadership, entrepreneurial and business articles, encouraging a suck-it-up, buttercup approach to success.

Hustle culture. 5am Clubs. Fake it ‘til you make it.

Each of these has roots in an over-simplified version of Angela Duckworth’s concept of grit (perseverance + passion) when viewed in isolation. This view aligns with meritocratic ideals, which are easy to teach, and offers a simple “hard work = success” narrative.

But that narrative dismisses the impact of factors outside of the equation. Factors that have larger influences, such as systemic barriers, intelligence and cognitive ability, our old friend socioeconomic status again, and opportunity or luck.

Additionally, grit has potential downsides.

Lucas & Nordgren (2015) found that too much grit can be harmful, leading people to persist in unproductive or futile endeavours (e.g., staying in failing careers or bad relationships). Vazire & Funder (2006) also found that grit often correlates with the personality facet stubbornness, which can prevent adaptation and flexibility.

Angela Duckworth herself has warned against viewing grit as a magic bullet. In a 2016 interview, she laments that the popular view of the research has resulted in an oversimplified, one-size-fits-all view of success, where hard work is the only factor to be considered.

While grit plays a role in perseverance, its importance has been overhyped. Intelligence, environment, and systemic advantages are often far more influential. Yet, companies and leadership programs continue selling grit-based training because it aligns with the appealing (but flawed) idea that success is purely a matter of effort—ignoring deeper structural and individual factors.

Myth: We each have preferred learning styles

When I first started in the corporate world in the mid-nineties, this seemed to be the new kid on the block. But it’s actually been around since the 1920s.

Early educational psychology proposed the idea that we have specific sensory modalities: set ways in which the body perceives and processes sensory information. With five key senses – visual (sight), auditory (sound), kinaesthetic (touch), olfactory (smell), and gustatory (taste) – this VAK/VAKOG model falsely assumes that people have dominant sensory modalities for learning.

It gained momentum as a model in the seventies to the nineties, largely due to people’s awareness of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (or NLP); a subject deserving of its own article, such is its own mix of science, mythology and prevalence in the organisational zeitgeist.

In a comprehensive review of the learning styles research, Pashler et al. (2008) found that there was no reliable evidence that teaching according to learning styles improves learning outcomes. A separate large review of 13 different learning styles models, including VAK, found that none were backed by strong evidence. They noted that while the concept of learning styles sounds appealing, the empirical support for tailoring teaching to learning preferences was largely absent.

Willingham (2009) has pointed out that while there’s no evidence supporting learning styles, educators, trainers and leaders continue to use them because they offer an appealing, simple framework for categorising individuals and organising learning strategies.

But this is simply an example of how confirmation bias and simple heuristics lead to the persistence of ineffective practices, even in the face of scientific evidence.

That evidence is clear: people do not have fixed learning styles, and catering to them does not improve learning. Instead, evidence-based techniques like active learning, multimodal teaching, and retrieval practice should be used.

Why do we still encourage learning how to crow?

There are many other examples that could have honourable mentions. From Maslow to Myers-Briggs, to people believing that the Dunning-Kruger effect is about incompetent people thinking they’re experts (spoiler: that’s not what it means and irony is abound), there is a plethora of beliefs and practices which still find huge popularity in organisations today.

But why? What is it about them – or perhaps about us – that makes these objectively and demonstrably ineffective approaches endure?

Is it a case that we prefer simple bullshit over complex accuracy? Well in a way, yes.

But that statement in itself is oversimplified too. Irony strikes again it seems. The truth – as is the answer to most questions – is both more complex and more nuanced.

At its heart is our friend from earlier: face validity.

Validity is about confirming that what we’re measuring is actually what we’re measuring. For example, if you were to ask “Do you agree that our company is the best place to work?”, you might think that the answers would indicate that your company is or isn’t the best place to work.

However, there are three core issues with the question.

• Firstly, it’s leading. The phraseology encourages respondents to answer positively, leading to a response bias
• Secondly, it’s vague. The term “best” is subjective and can mean different things to different people. Is it best salary, culture, leadership style?
• Finally, the scope is limited. It assumes that the respondent will evaluate the company as a whole, rather than their local area, line manager, team or network

This question has low construct validity and content validity. I won’t get into the nuance of these specific types of validity. But let’s just say that the questions responses will not be accurate.

However, it has high face validity.

Face validity occurs when something seems correct or credible on the surface—even when it’s actually not. Face validity is about the degree to which an assessment or test subjectively appears to measure the variable or construct that it is supposed to measure. In other words, face validity is when an assessment or test appears to do what it claims to do – not that it does what it claims.

From a psychology viewpoint, several biases can encourage face validity, making people continue to use these practices – to continue the crowing – because they feel intuitively “right.”

Many come into play, validating the invalid and perpetuating the use of these approaches.

Confirmation Bias

What it is: The tendency to search for, interpret, and favour information that confirms pre-existing beliefs or hypotheses, while ignoring information that contradicts them.

How it encourages face validity: If someone believes that a certain training method or concept (like VAK learning styles or grit) works, they’ll be more likely to notice and remember instances where it seemed effective, even if the broader evidence shows otherwise.

They’ll likely dismiss contrary research as irrelevant or flawed. The face validity of the method feels convincing enough to reinforce their existing beliefs.

Sunk Cost Fallacy Bias

What it is: The tendency to continue investing in something (e.g., time, money, effort) because of past investments, even when it’s clear that the future benefits won’t justify the costs.

How it encourages face validity: Businesses may have already spent significant resources on training programs or tools based on practices like VAK learning styles or the 10,000 hours rule. These methods may look “logical” on the surface, and because so much has already been invested, people feel compelled to continue using them, despite evidence showing they aren’t effective.

The face validity of these ideas keeps them in use, since abandoning them would mean acknowledging previous investments were misguided.

Illusion of Validity Bias

What it is: The tendency to overestimate the accuracy of our judgments or decisions, even when the evidence supporting them is weak or non-existent.

How it encourages face validity: When a method has surface appeal people might overestimate how valid or effective it is because it feels intuitively correct.

This illusion of validity leads people to overlook research that contradicts these methods, as the initial presentation feels so believable and coherent. It can also combine with Confirmation Bias so that any supporting research or evidence reinforces the illusion of validity.

Attribution Bias

What it is: The tendency to attribute success to internal factors (like effort or innate qualities) and failure to external factors (like luck or other people’s failures).

How it encourages face validity: If someone succeeds after participating in a program based on a debunked method (e.g., grit-based training as being a sole determinant), they might attribute that success to the program itself, reinforcing the face validity of the method. They overlook that external factors (such as access to resources, timing, or luck) could have played a larger role in their success.

For example, if someone succeeds after participating in a grit-based program, they might attribute that success to their perseverance, overlooking other external factors such as timing or resources.

The focus on internal attribution makes the method seem more valid than it really is.

Bandwagon Effect (Social Proof) Bias

What it is: The tendency to adopt certain behaviours or beliefs because others are doing it, assuming that their actions are correct.

How it encourages face validity: If a popular business figure or organisation promotes a method like VAK or the 10,000 hours rule, people may follow along simply because it has widespread usage or appears accepted by peers.

The method feels legitimate because everyone seems to be doing it or endorsing it, creating a sense of face validity that is based on popularity rather than empirical evidence.

Cognitive Ease Bias

What it is: The preference for things that are easy to process and understand. We are more likely to believe something when it’s simple and easy to grasp, even if it’s incorrect.

How it encourages face validity: Concepts like “learning styles” or “grit” are easy to understand and align with common-sense ideas: “If I’m a visual learner, I should learn best by seeing things” or “If I work hard enough, I will become successful.”

These ideas feel intuitively correct, which creates a face validity bias. People prefer these simple frameworks over more complex, evidence-based approaches that might require more effort to understand.

As a side note, this is part of the driver of popularism in politics. The idea that there are simple, often binary, explanations or positions to resolve a complex societal issue is more attractive than having to deal with that complexity.

Status Quo Bias

What it is: The tendency to prefer things to remain the way they are, even when better alternatives exist.

How it encourages face validity: Businesses and organisations may continue using outdated or ineffective methods because they are part of the established norm. Even when evidence contradicts the effectiveness of these methods, status quo bias makes it harder to change or adopt new, more accurate practices.

These methods have face validity because they are already entrenched in the organisation’s culture or processes.

Halo Effect Bias

What it is: The tendency to allow an overall positive impression of something to influence judgments about its specific qualities.

How it encourages face validity: If a person or company with a strong reputation or a successful history endorses a method (like choosing MBTI for talent selection), it can create a halo effect where people assume that the method is effective simply because it’s associated with success or a reputable figure. This creates face validity, even if the method itself lacks scientific support.

So, we should stop teaching people to crow?

The magic bullet answer – and trap – is “yes”. But hopefully this article has illuminated just how challenging that bullet can be to fire.

We have over 170 recognised cognitive biases that have been identified, studied and understood. Yet psychologists still don’t fully understand how the interplay between these, our personalities, social norms, learned behaviours, coping mechanisms, and other processes affect our individual behaviours – let alone our approaches when in complex groups, such as businesses and organisations.

It might be tempting to produce a simple answer. Perhaps a list of tried-and-tested approaches, or a wall of shame for those debunked approaches of yesteryear.

But, in practice, this doesn’t work.

Our perception and processing approaches evolved thousands of years ago in very different times. People not only still find comfort in horoscopes, flawed practices and pseudoscientific approaches; our cognition actively encourages us to do so.

We are rational beings. But only when we choose to be rational. Our default wiring is for ease, energy efficiency and bias.

And in that lies hope.

As psychologist and Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl is often (mis)quoted as saying, “Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”

Our gut reaction to hearing about VAK, 5am Clubs or crowing bringing up the sun might be to believe it. It might seem to make sense. Our biases confirm and support these views. But with self-awareness, we have the space to critically assess, apply rational thought, and to determine our response.

Stop. Think. Challenge your own beliefs about why you believe.

Scientific scepticism is not pessimism. It’s the fuel to expend in that pause. By actively questioning and evaluating information, remaining open to alternative explanations, and seeking out reliable, evidence-based sources, we can reduce the likelihood of simply accepting the face validity of a premise.

Practicing critical thinking and recognising biases allows us to avoid the face validity trap – the illusion that something works simply because it seems intuitive or looks good on the surface.

Conclusion

Just as the villagers once believed that the rooster’s crowing was the cause of the sunrise, many of us continue to cling to business practices that feel right on the surface, but lack empirical backing.

These ideas, like VAK learning styles or the myth of 10,000 hours, persist because they are comforting, simple, and easy to believe. The face validity of these concepts—how true they appear in our minds—makes them hard to challenge, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

But, just as we now know the rooster doesn’t bring the sun up, we need to develop the skills to critically examine the methods and practices we adopt in business. To do this, we must question things that seem overly simple, seek out evidence-based practices, and, perhaps most importantly, acknowledge our biases that make us more likely to accept pseudoscience.

By adopting a mindset of scientific scepticism and using tools like the scientific method, reflective thinking, and continuous learning, we can avoid being swayed by the intuitive appeal of flawed methods.

The truth, as often happens with long-held myths, may be more complex than the easy answers we’re offered – but it’s only by seeking out that complexity that we can achieve true growth, both in business and in life.

Just as the rooster mistakenly believed his crowing caused the sun to rise, we can easily fall into the trap of assuming that certain leadership practices bring success simply because they feel intuitive or familiar.

The challenge is clear: it’s time to question practices that feel comfortable but lack solid evidence