The case study in HBR this month is about leadership competency models. I have to say, very few things make me care less than the term “competency model.” In theory I understand they are important—they identify the skills and behaviors you are looking for in leadership and help you to evaluate both existing and potential leaders in a systematic way. Maybe it’s just that I am a strong “N” on the Myers Briggs (intuitive), so the notion of a data driven model that identifies good leadership doesn’t make sense to me. Bottom line: I have a bias against competency models.

Of course, most of my clients are small organizations, and I think this kind of modeling is by definition more useful for large enterprises. In the case study, the executives at a fictional candy company (thousands of employees) are considering developing a leadership competency model so they can get more consistency among senior leaders.

After the presentation of the case, several experts weigh in with their opinions. The first was Reuben mark, who is the CEO of Colgate-Palmolive. Here’s how he started:

The central characters in this case study are addressing the wrong problem. They’re worried about “leadership competencies”—business jargon for the skills, behaviors, and experiences managers need to succeed at an organization. Instead they should be looking more closely at the culture of Barker Foods: How do employees relate to one another? Are they honest with one another and with customers? Do the company’s leaders manage with respect?

Strong, successful leaders will flourish, at every level of the organization and in every division, in a caring and consistent culture. Certainly, a checklist of desired behaviors can be a practical tool. It can help people understand what’s expected of them; it can also help managers and supervisors coach people and grow their careers. We use competencies at our company. But if you’re [the characters in the case study] and you try to suddenly impose a competency model—or, for that matter, any leadership development tool or technique—on a cracked cultural foundation, the model will never take hold.

That last part is huge for me. And it’s not just whether or not the culture is “cracked.” It is easy to say that if you have a lousy culture, your leadership development will be flawed. I would argue that your leadership development must be done within the context of your culture, even if it’s not cracked. The issue is the imposition of a tool or model on ANY culture. How can you develop models that emerge more organically from your actual culture? Good leadership should not be defined by a book (although it’s fine to read the books). It must be defined based on your culture. Of course this requires you to define your culture, and many leaders can’t really do that.