Most leaders, whether political or corporate, are “turtles on a post”.
When, along a country road, you see a turtle balanced on top of a fence post, one thing is immediately clear: it did not get there by itself.
Someone put it there.
And it is equally evident that this is not its dimension.
It is not its environment. It is not its natural role.
It is out of context.
Then there is the behaviour.
The turtle remains still, uncertain, unable to move effectively.
Not because it is inherently useless, but because it has been placed in a position that exceeds its operational capabilities.
It does not know what to do, because it was not made to be there.
At that point, the inevitable question arises: who put it there, and why?
The strength of this metaphor, when read through the lens of leadership, lies in shifting the focus from individual criticism to collective responsibility.
Because a “turtle on a post” is not merely the result of a personal failure.
It is the product of a selection process.
Of consensus dynamics.
Of compromises.
Of internal balances that reward visibility, loyalty or opportunity more than competence and suitability for the role.
In business as in politics, the problem is never only who occupies a position.
The problem is the system that decides who should occupy it.
A mature organisation does not limit itself to judging those at the top.
It asks how they got there.
Because every time you see a turtle on a post, the real question is not what it will do up there.
It is who had the idea of putting it there.