Those who don't want to lead are the best leaders

[tinkerdan]

This is great::

Besides, where does it end? Leaders create other leaders. And to be leaders those new leaders must create more leaders. Who in turn create leaders, who ... Ultimately, who is left to take care of the small practical details when everyone is leading and looking for more people to turn into leaders? Even people who play the smallest roles have value if they take pride in what they do and do it well.

::Leadership as a pyramid scheme.

I do have to say that I was placed in a leadership position three times without wanting it. In those cases it was that someone had to take the lead and no one wanted it; but things had to get started or nothing would finish. So basically I became the leader when I chose to be the first person to speak.

Everywhere I've worked, leadership has been placed upon me without any effort on my part. But that led to all sorts of effort afterwards, because I had to learn how to lead in order to be effective. I will grant that I could have said no.

I think that people do develop qualities that make them more easily trainable toward leadership positions.

I don't think leadership requires the leader to bring their own coal to the fire; but they do have to know how to stoke the fire of the coals that they are meant to work with and that is a learn-able quality.

Innovators can be leaders and some become leaders because they feel they are the best person to push forward the innovation. They don't have to be leaders if they are willing to put their notions into the hands of someone who can stoke the flames.

On the other hand I think one of the ideas here is that a leader doesn't have to make followers because they are always there (as long as the leader treats them well), but a great leader has to have the vision to teach others to lead otherwise he'll eventually exhaust himself from fanning the flames alone.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I think it might be the difference between being The Leader and being a leader, if that makes sense. One thing that has happened in management and leadership recently is a recognition that there needs to be a blending of both disciplines* - that without management skills a leader is ineffective, and without leadership skills a manager's efforts are wasted. Which is why, in the UK at least, there are fewer leadership courses (I refer to accredidated courses, not in-house and the like) and more management and leadership blended courses.

* the focus of the manager is to plan, to do - the practical hard skills that keep companies moving and systems operating. Thr focus of the leader is the vision and mission - the things that allow a company to have focus and energy.

 

[Nick B]

I think it might be the difference between being The Leader and being a leader, if that makes sense.

That is basically what I am saying. Of course there is usualy one (or a few) ultimately in charge. But people who think like a leader, who take ownership of their actions and position make at better force. The ability to make decisions, rather than having to be told what to do at every turn.

 

[MWagner]

I've come to understand that a lot of our roles in life are strongly influenced by innate and deeply-rooted qualities that are not at all easy to change. Sure, people sometimes have untapped strengths that can be cultivated and flower in the right conditions. But some people simply are not the kind who want to take responsibility or initiative, and will never be the kind who want to take responsibility or initiative. Conversely, some people cannot stand to put their heads down and do a task as directed by someone else. We're not blank slates. And that's okay.

 

[tinkerdan]

Depends on which type you have:: Leadership Styles: Dictatorial, Authoritative, Consultative, Participative

I think it might be the difference between being The Leader and being a leader, if that makes sense.

Dictatorial and Authoritative still will require some lower tier leadership and some sort of training for those leaders. Otherwise those slots will fill in naturally with defacto leadership until and unless the leader wakes up and removes them. Making other leaders does not always equate to making those leaders equal to The Leader.

Leaders need to learn to delegate and it always works best when they train those to whom they delegate.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Depends on which type you have:: Leadership Styles: Dictatorial, Authoritative, Consultative, Participative



Dictatorial and Authoritative still will require some lower tier leadership and some sort of training for those leaders. Otherwise those slots will fill in naturally with defacto leadership until and unless the leader wakes up and removes them. Making other leaders does not always equate to making those leaders equal to The Leader.

Leaders need to learn to delegate and it always works best when they train those to whom they delegate.

But delegation is a managerial skill and not a leadership skill - it lies in the operational plan, do arena. In general, leaders tend to be much poorer at delegation than managers because they a. expect others just to be as committed to the outcome as they are and and b. not as concerned with HOW they get to the end, just that they do.

I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be tiers of leadership in an organisation. Of course there should. Nor am I saying that some leadership attributes can and should be encouraged - and that encourages understanding the situational model you've outlined and being able to shift styles acccording to situation and needs (because a good leader shouldn't be one of those styles, but able to utilise all to a greater or lesser degree.)

What I'm saying is that leadership is often an innate set of skills and true leaders - not team leaders, who apply some leadership skills to what is often a managerial role* (which is absolutely what's wanted) - tend to be very much in the minority. And when a true leader emerges, it is by the support of their followers that they gain the commitment to their vision. Some of those followers might indeed become lower tier leaders - but they do so to support the leader, or else they go elsewhere and become the leader there.

*And, actually, I think this is the key difference. For many of the leaders underneath the leader themselves, they are in a managerial role. They are responsible for getting the job done (whereas the leader is responsible for bringing about commitment and belief in that job). The more leadership skills they have, the better, but it's still a person with leadership skills, to a greater or lesser extent, in a management role.

 

[tinkerdan]

Okay

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Okay

Ach, now I've been all mouthy and too excitable, haven't I? Apologies. I promise to sit on my hands better.

 

[Ursa major]

But delegation is a managerial skill and not a leadership skill

Well.... There's:

• knowing how (and when) to do it (the management skill); and
• having a soupcon of leadership (skill), i.e.
  • having the willingness to do it, and
  • having the confidence to do it.

Don't we all know someone who will not delegate because either they fear for their position or they're worried that if others are able to take part, these others will see how ramshackle and barely tactical it all is?

 

[ratsy]

I went to a 2 day leadership workshop a couple months ago for my Supply Chain Management designation program. We basically just had to read about different leaders in distribution and manufacturing companies and the point was to see what overlapping traits they brought. We consistently saw a few traits that they all shared. I know this is for my area of work, but I think many of these are effective leadership skills at any level. I especially like the part stating that great leaders have great vision and are able to effectively get others to see their vision and believe in it with out pressure, threats, or coercion. At the end I had to chart where I stood within each of these categories and what I would do to improve myself. Of course then I had to write a leadership profile on myself. Good thing I'm a fiction writer!!!

• Collaborative – They have the ability to work not just well with others, but they effectively
bring people together. They create unity and teamwork between multiple team members, inside
and outside their organization.

• Visionary – They see the future of the company. They not only know what they need to set as
goals, but also how they will get there. They have the ability to influence others to see the big
picture and strive for the same end goals without pressuring or coercing.

• Relentless – They will do everything needed to accomplish their goals. Nothing will stop them
from making their division/company succeed. They are extremely driven and being around
them drives their employees.

• Broad business knowledge – Any successful leader in their respected supply chain field must
have a strong business knowledge. This is achieved from training/education as well as on the
job experience.

• Effective relationship building – A great leader builds solid relationships with all parts of the
supply chain. They treat everyone they deal with, with respect and empathy.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

• Effective relationship building – A great leader builds solid relationships with all parts of the
supply chain. They treat everyone they deal with, with respect and empathy.

and then came the connundrum that is Steve Jobs...

@Ursa major - that's exactly it. A blend of skills

 

[Parson]

The truly visionary leader is a rare bird, and in my view is "born" with the gift. Others of us are leaders and followers of a different stripe. As a leader I am one who can generally build consensus in a team. That's a not inconsiderable gift. However it's not the kind of leader that one thinks of as "The Leader" type like a Ghandi, or a Jefferson.

 

[chongjasmine]

I disagree with the statement.
Leaders need to want to lead, before they can do a good job of leading.

 

[Idealect]

Imo leading does have a useful role to play, and not just in terms of the "too many cooks spoil the broth" coordination. A good leader can provide inspiration, an ethos, a vision, can take some responsibility off other's shoulders, can focus on strategic decision making of certain kinds, and on having a broad zoomed out overview. Perhaps these jobs should sometimes or often be split off to different people, but that doesn't seem to be the tradition at present, and I think sometimes there is an inherent complimentarity between at least some of these jobs.

For instance the person who has the best broad overview should probably be the person focusing on strategic decision making and guidance of the larger entity. Whether this person should be meaphorically the head of said entity I don't know the necessity of, -as opposed to one of the head's modules, or one of a few head-type-things that serve different roles, but it seems to be the current tradition to roll up all these potentially separate roles into one.

I do think a natural aversion to "leadership", I-think-as-in "having power over others" or "being in charge", is a sign of high scrupulosity, which I think is in turn extremely useful for a leader to resist any "power corrupts" impulses or drift, or not have them in the first place, as well as to avoid complacency.

At the same time sometimes someone needs to be a leader, and if the best people are the ones least natively drawn to it, some good leaders should come from the ranks of such people who see this, and "correct for" that aversion in themselves. -which would be an exception to the rule even assuming it was natively 100% true (which it might be for all I know. There's certainly a plausible mechanism for it.)

 

[svalbard]

I went to a 2 day leadership workshop a couple months ago for my Supply Chain Management designation program. We basically just had to read about different leaders in distribution and manufacturing companies and the point was to see what overlapping traits they brought. We consistently saw a few traits that they all shared. I know this is for my area of work, but I think many of these are effective leadership skills at any level. I especially like the part stating that great leaders have great vision and are able to effectively get others to see their vision and believe in it with out pressure, threats, or coercion. At the end I had to chart where I stood within each of these categories and what I would do to improve myself. Of course then I had to write a leadership profile on myself. Good thing I'm a fiction writer!!!

• Collaborative – They have the ability to work not just well with others, but they effectively
bring people together. They create unity and teamwork between multiple team members, inside
and outside their organization.

• Visionary – They see the future of the company. They not only know what they need to set as
goals, but also how they will get there. They have the ability to influence others to see the big
picture and strive for the same end goals without pressuring or coercing.

• Relentless – They will do everything needed to accomplish their goals. Nothing will stop them
from making their division/company succeed. They are extremely driven and being around
them drives their employees.

• Broad business knowledge – Any successful leader in their respected supply chain field must
have a strong business knowledge. This is achieved from training/education as well as on the
job experience.

• Effective relationship building – A great leader builds solid relationships with all parts of the
supply chain. They treat everyone they deal with, with respect and empathy.

We must have being on the same course...or do they just all sound the same.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

We must have being on the same course...or do they just all sound the same.

They all teach mostly the same models. (Some trainers just do it better than others, of course. ) But your standard leadership models tend to be:

Lewin's 3 styles - autocratic, democratic, laissez-faire
Herschey-Blanchard - situational leadership - looks at four quadrants of leadership styles and maps where, when and how to use each
Tannenbaum-Schmidt's Continuum - looks at the amount of control a leader holds vs the maturity of the team.

And then you get a range such as Steve Covey, Adair's action-centred leadership model, Kotter, Blake and Moulton, etc etc, lots and lots and lots. and then you get models exploring traits of leaders, like Ratsy outlined, and when to apply them and what not.

 

[svalbard]

Yep, had them all ☺

Collaboration, Resiliance, Innovation and Empathy are my constant companions.