This is where I’m at in my thinking about what it means to be a leader. I’ve boiled it down to five statements, each of which is essential.
- A leader is someone choosing to be a leader at this moment and in this situation.
- A leader is given by that choice, and not by other people and their choices. In other words, a leader is a leader by virtue of his own choice or declaration.
- A leader sets out, or intends, to make change. A leader may or may not be successful in having the change occur. If the change does not occur, the leader is still a leader.
- A leader takes on the risk of setting out to make change. A leader’s stance is “I’m willing to be blamed, criticised, attacked, ridiculed or worse if things don’t work out.”
- A leader faces off the “tyranny of fear”* and offers possibility in its place.
Simple, isn’t it?
Next post, some implications.
***
* Rosamund Stone Zander and Benjamin Zander, The Art of Possibility
Image: Siesta, Joan Miró, 1925
Nice work! The biggest danger I see (which I think is a big plus) is that these points require the reader to think and we are used to a lot of leadership material being easy to digest sound bites. So maybe some trenchant examples of each point would be useful to keep the reader focused.
One other thing–esp with respect to point 3. It might be nice to define “make change” a little more narrowly. Couldn’t a leader also try to prevent change? Or slow it down? Maybe I’m being pedantic but maybe instead of change you could talk about upsetting or altering the status quo?
I look forward to the implications!
haha … ooooh yes, feel the poor little cogs straining to turn. I can hear them creaking …
Got a whole lot more to say about this point, including having a satisfying vent over one of the recent replies I received to an offer I made to write about leadership for an organisation’s blog. “Just gimme some bullet points and how-to’s” is the gist of it. And people wonder why leadership is going to hell in a handbasket …
I get your hesitation about point 3. I’ll test how it works when I write the implications.
BTW, you’re the best editor someone writing a book on leadership could have. Thanks.
Without much thought
“The most thought-provoking thing in our thought-provoking time is that we are still not thinking.”
M. Heidegger
He did say it well, didn’t he? I’d forgotten.
It can be an uphill climb, being a leader. I refrain from the task but will step up when necessary. I’m more the type to develop ideas but any one of us are leaders at some point when I really think about it. Whether that’s parenting, coaching, leading a group project, etc.
I’m deliberating your last response to a comment in why I deserve that ‘A’. Will get back with you, Mam. :-) (Salute)
I like your thinking, Tots. It sure can be an uphill climb. People being led can be ungrateful, uncooperative, obstructive, resigned, etc. Which raises the question, why do it? I’m going to make this a post all on its own.
re the A … good, I was hoping you hadn’t forgotten or put it aside. Remember, it’s about standing in the future and looking back … doesn’t have to be why you deserve one now, though there’d be plenty I’m sure (Wink)
Why do it? I think you need another chapter in your book! What makes this issue interesting is that there are probably good reasons and bad reasons to do it. In no particular order these might be some reasons people step up:
1. No one else will.
2. They think no one else will get it right.
3. They want the credit.
4. They want the power (perceived or real).
5. They want to help.
6. They are passionate about the issue/problem.
7. They are “volunteered.”
As WS said, “Some men are born great, some achieve greatness and others have greatness thrust upon them.”
Ok, good list. I can think of three other possibilities at the moment.
8. It’s their turn (the leader role rotates among group).
9. They don’t want to be a follower.
10. They have discovered that when they’re being a leader they are fully alive; life is rich and passionate and exciting, even though there are challenges.
I’m definitely the reluctant leader myself. I’m numbers 1, 2 and 5. And it’s kinda interesting, no. 4. In my experience, those type lack people skills and aren’t open to the ideas of those under his/her leadership.
I’m pretty clear that no-one would step up to being a leader if there weren’t some expectation of increased power and influence. And personally, I’m all for power. I just like to distinguish it from “force”, which is a whole diff matter.
“I just like to distinguish it from “force”, which is a whole diff matter.”‘
A loose thought on power and force:
Power one can have and must always rely on the potential inherent in difference; force is the release of potential such as it happens when ions flow from the inside to the outside of the biological cell – the release of electric potential as a current.
Once force is exerted power is lost; power is regained if the differential potential is rebuilt; say you hire more soldiers after the battle and your opponent cannot… or hires less.
You can also take a nap. No leading anyone on when the potential is lost. Dread!
Yes, this works. Power as unspent potential, force as the spent. A kind of transfer of energy.
What also distinguishes them for me is the presence or absence of coercion.