Leadership

[Jammer Six]

Since leadership came up in a different thread, rather than hijack that thread for my own nefarious purposes, I thought that I'd start this thread.

Leadership is a fascinating study. It takes a lifetime to master.

It is one of my core beliefs that the most valuable resource is people, and leadership is, therefore, the most valuable single skill.

Given a core of a thousand random people, certainly with a core of ten thousand, and good to fair leadership, I would say that most goals are attainable. Very few people are truly dead weight. That's why folks whose sole value is the ability to hit a small ball thrown at them with a bat are so well paid. (A side street here is that is exactly why turning away folks in the face of a disaster is one of the worst possible choices, but that's another discussion. I leave it to the tin foil specialist to make that case.)

I would like to keep this thread theoretical. Examples are usually necessary, but I would like, in particular, to avoid current politics. Not only is this not the forum for it, but I'm not really interested in who you vote for. Like your choice in bed partners, both of us will be more comfortable if you keep that knowledge to yourself.

I would like to discuss leadership theory, skill, practice and principle.

It is my belief that leaders are made, not born, and it is my experience that leadership, like welding, diving, shooting or public speaking is a skill, with all of a skill's attributes. It can be learned, taught, studied, applied and ignored.

Most of the things I've learned about leadership have their basis in the military, and I've applied what I learned there over a career in construction, using leadership, authority and power over crews of various sizes to perform construction tasks of most scales. Most of my beliefs about leadership, therefore, can be traced to military teachings, and the sources for formal leadership theory and instruction are mainly military. There are, however, significant differences between military and civilian leadership, and there are further differences between professional leadership and political leadership. I don't know a lot about political leadership, and I try not to discuss politics. I avoid the political forum here for exactly that reason, and invite you to go there if you'd like to discuss politics.

To start off, I open with my favorite definition of leadership, since that's usually the first thing asked of students or taught in formal leadership training.

Leadership is the deliberate inspiration of both the act and the spirit of following.

In the future, I will add some of my favorite quotes about leadership. For now, I invite the rest of you to relate your favorite definition of leadership, and if you don't have one, I invite you to find one.

Carry on.

[375RUGER]

I've always said that if you desire to be a good leader, first you must be a good follower.

[Jammer Six]

I agree with that! Everyone rolls their eyes at me when I say if you want to lead, learn how to follow, regardless of who's leading, but I believe it!

[tomme boy]

In politics, it is more about making a name for ones self than actually leading. Most seem to have had everything given to them. They don't actually know what it means to have to chose between a box of macaroni an cheese or $1 worth of gas. These people are not leaders in my opinion.

[geargnasher]

Four posts and we're already on politics :roll:

Gear

[RugerFan]

It is my belief that leaders are made, not born, and it is my experience that leadership, like welding, diving, shooting or public speaking is a skill, with all of a skill's attributes. It can be learned, taught, studied, applied and ignored.



You can teach anyone welding, but some will have a knack for it and be better at it. Others will continually produce goose poop.

Likewise, you can teach anyone the basics of leadership, but certain individuals will excel at leading for a variety of reasons (personality, confidence, discernment, articulation, ect).

[missionary5155]

Good morning
Leaders lead ! By example, determination, dedication and faithfulness with compassion. The toughest part I see is remembering each individual has a dedication level that needs to be challenged. Not everyone is willing to grow to the task at the moment but if the leader is out front doing what he is supposed to be doing you generally will have working followers. There will be quiters. There are always some who will jump in looking for easy acclumations till they discover there are no free rides.
Mike in Peru

[largom]

I believe that true leaders have an instinct that they are born with, part of their genes or DNA. Leaders will follow as long as the direction is right but true leaders have a need to be at the front, setting an example for others. I don't think the military is a good example since the followers face punishment if they do not follow correctly. A true leaders conduct and personality inspires others to follow them.

I do not believe that leadership can be fully taught. Yes, one can be taught all of the proper steps to take but, they still need that special inner substance that makes others want to follow them. In the military one is commanded to follow but in civilian life one is free to choose who they will follow.

Just my opinion, Larry

[flounderman]

I don't agree that military leadership has any comparison with civilian leadership. military leadership is dogmatic command. you will, do what I say and that leads to an authoritarian style that isolates people. the true test of leadership is when your peers select you to lead because they trust you. it is my opinion, you lead by example and don't send anyone else to do something you wouldn't or couldn't do yourself. it isn't in everyone to be a leader. sometimes circumstances promote someone and he rises to the challenge. some don't want to carry responibility. wanting to be a leader doesn't mean you will be a good one. If you have the instincts, your skills can be developed and if you learn from your mistakes, someday you might make it.

[MT Gianni]

There are plenty of good leaders with no military background. Historically up until the mid 1800's if you wanted land, success and to eat regularly the military was the way to go. The Ministry gave you regular meals and a roof but no family or land.
There are some who really want to lead that never will have more than a few true followers and others thrust forward by circumstances that if they looked around would have hundreds of folks following them.
Some study materials are Endurance, by Sir Alfred Lansing with emphasis on Ernest Shackleton, Blood and Thunder, re Kit Carson. Carson was an illiterate frontiersman who when asked to lead was admired for his abilities in the frontier, dedication to his goals and absolute honesty with men. It also gives a lot of insight on James Polk as a US President. Both James Madison and Benjamin Franklin deserve a lot of study as well as five rings, the art of war and Machiavelli.
I believe that a great leader should be very introspective, constantly examining what works and what doesn't. Methods that were sucessful in the 1500's may fail now and some that have been around for thousands of years still work.
I have had CEO's that I would not buy a used car from that I thought were effective leaders. I have had others that were extremely likeable that just didn't get it. Having been on the boards of a few volunteer organizations I know how hard it is to lead from the front and the rear of only 100 people. I think if you want to lead you have to learn to listen not just hear. Listen without formulating a response while someone speaks, hear not just words but tone and determine what is important and why. It's too hard for most folks.

[felix]

Leaders are no different than anyone else, in that "obvious experts" use God given talents as God intended, either innately or not, for either good or bad outcomes. Would you call Christ a Leader, or Teacher, as His primary purpose? So, do leaders have to be teachers? What about vice-versa? ... felix

[RugerFan]

I believe that true leaders have an instinct that they are born with, part of their genes or DNA.

Agreed


I don't think the military is a good example since the followers face punishment if they do not follow correctly.


Disagree. In the military, those in leadership positions will find out very quickly that unmotivated subordinates will be a detriment to their (the leaders) career. On the other hand, leaders that garner the true respect of their subordinates will see an increased level of support and productivity. Rules must be followed and discipline maintained, but the strict "rule by fear" method is a very poor style of leadership.

[felix]

The next question that comes up is the primary characteristic of a master salesman. Is he, by default, a leader? Or is he a beyond the call-of-duty teacher? Both wrapped up in one? ... felix

[glw]

Leadership has different levels and purposes. Sometimes a leader only functions to have people do something. In other cases a leader is someone to be emulated. It really depends upon what is the purpose of the leadership.

From my religious context (having been been both a pastor and seminary prof), the ideal leader is someone who has character worthy of emulation, with an understanding of the proper God-given task, with a concern for those whom God has given to him to lead. I also don't think that a good leader is unconcerned about the needs of those over whom he is responsible. It isn't just about the task, but how you get there.

Glenn

[Ickisrulz]

Agreed



Disagree. In the military, those in leadership positions will find out very quickly that unmotivated subordinates will be a detriment to their (the leaders) career. On the other hand, leaders that garner the true respect of their subordinates will see an increased level of support and productivity. Rules must be followed and discipline maintained, but the strict "rule by fear" method is a very poor style of leadership.

I agree. I've seen poor leaders in the Air Force removed because they were not able to get their troops motivated and earn their trust.

[akajun]

This is about the best guide on how to be a Leader I have ever come across, Written by Dick Winters of Band of Brothers fame.
1. Strive to be a leader of character, competence, and courage.

2. Lead from the front. Say, “Follow me!” and then lead the way.

3. Stay in top physical shape--physical stamina is the root of mental toughness.

4. Develop your team. If you know your people, are fair in setting realistic goals and expectations, and lead by example, you will develop teamwork.

5. Delegate responsibility to your subordinates and let them do their job. You can’t do a good job if you don’t have a chance to use your imagination and creativity.

6. Anticipate problems and prepare to overcome obstacles. Don’t wait until you get to the top of the ridge and then make up your mind.

7. Remain humble. Don’t worry about who receives the credit. Never let power or authority go to your head.

8. Take a moment of self-reflection. Look at yourself in the mirror every night and ask yourself if you did your best.

9. True satisfaction comes from getting the job done. They key to a successful leader is to earn respect--not because of rank or position, but because you are a leader of character.

10. Hang Tough!--Never, ever, give up.

[montana_charlie]

Most of the things I've learned about leadership have their basis in the military, and I've applied what I learned there over a career in construction, using leadership, authority and power over crews of various sizes to perform construction tasks of most scales.
Leadership is not about authority or power.
It is about being able to convince people to act in a certain way for reasons they believe are worthwhile.

There are good and bad people who inherit the 'leadership gene'.

The good people will enjoy long careers as leaders because of the honesty of their intentions.
Bad leaders will eventually have to resort to authority and power to maintain a leadership role.

CM

[Recluse]

I don't agree that military leadership has any comparison with civilian leadership. military leadership is dogmatic command. you will, do what I say and that leads to an authoritarian style that isolates people.

Respectfully disagree.

Don't confuse leadership with command authority.

The two are entirely separate.

:coffee:

[Jim]

Respectfully disagree.

Don't confuse leadership with command authority.

The two are entirely separate.

:coffee:

You got that right, brother!

[pmeisel]

Well said, Recluse.

For years I have kept a copy of the Marine Corps Guide on my bookshelf at work, just to refer to the leadership section. It has great application in business, even more so when working cross-functionally with people you don't have direct authority over.

I recall a great article I clipped 20 years ago and have since lost. The basic premise of the article was that leadership is a three-legged stool:

People have to believe you are competent (know what needs to be done and how).

People have to believe you care about them (won't risk them or use them needlessly).

People have to believe in your integrity.

I have found much of this to be true. People won't follow a fool, a liar, or a user.

The article didn't mention communication, and that's important too. You can't lead people if you can't get your point across to them. I have worked with many competent technicians who would have been good leaders, except they just couldn't communicate clearly to others.

[MT Gianni]

So, do leaders have to be teachers? What about vice-versa? ... felix
I think all leaders must be effective in teaching what they want done. I think all teachers should be leaders but that is not always the case.

[montana_charlie]

To start off, I open with my favorite definition of leadership, since that's usually the first thing asked of students or taught in formal leadership training.

Leadership is the deliberate inspiration of both the act and the spirit of following.

In the future, I will add some of my favorite quotes about leadership.
Will those quotes, like your favorite definition, be developed within the 'Raid Leader' thread on the World of Warcraft website?
http://www.tankspot.com/showthread.php?70950-Raid-Leader

CM

[Jammer Six]

I agree that there are significant differences between leadership, authority and power.

The standard example is a subordinate who some of the other subordinates would follow in the event of a conflict.

[Jammer Six]

Will those quotes, like your favorite definition, be developed within the 'Raid Leader' thread on the World of Warcraft website?
http://www.tankspot.com/showthread.php?70950-Raid-Leader

CM
Nope, I don't live there anymore. :D

Warcraft is a fascinating leadership study, though.

(Warcraft is an online game.)

Leaders there have no real authority and no real power. I would come very close to saying that if you can lead there, you can lead in most places.

The problem with that statement is that in leadership, leaders sometimes have a legitimate need for both power and authority, and leaders in Warcraft never gain experience beyond that boundary.

[RugerFan]

Right out of FM 6-22 Army Leadership:

"Who is an Army leader?
An Army leader is anyone who by virtue of assumed role or assigned responsibility inspires and influences people to accomplish organizational goals. Army leaders motivate people both inside and outside the chain of command to pursue actions, focus thinking, and shape decisions for the greater good of the organization."

and

"Leadership is the process of influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization."


I think its important to note that in the first quote it says "...inspires and influences people..." rather than orders are given that are blindly followed.

[Jammer Six]

Likewise, you can teach anyone the basics of leadership, but certain individuals will excel at leading for a variety of reasons (personality, confidence, discernment, articulation, ect).

I agree with that, to a point. I've seen the argument that taller, better looking folks with a certain type of voice can be trained into better leaders, but I don't think that will get you all the way. There are running backs in the NFL that stand 5'-7", and destroy the idea that running backs have to be big.

You could argue that it's the drive, the "fight in the dog", but I think that applies in all things, not just leadership.

I think the attributes you're born with will only carry you so far, and when you get out in the tall grass, when you're the final arbiter of a sticky, complicated ethics question, or you're the one who will pick the method, or when both sides have excellent cases, other attributes, things that can be trained and practiced, will have more weight. In those cases, what I"ve heard called "character" will matter more. Followers who believe to the center of their souls that you only have the mission in mind, subordinates who trust your professional judgement, and who trust you will matter more than that final inch in your height.

On another note, it's been my observation that the job changes. In the service, the job changes with rank, in civilian life, the job changes as the size of the project changes.

Lieutenants are expected to lead from the front, generals commanding corps would quickly lose track if they tried to lead the lead platoon. This example also demonstrates one of the anomalies of military leadership-- a lieutenant can be trained in a year, a corps commander takes twenty five years to train. The anomaly is causalities. In war, losing an experienced corps commander is more significant than losing a platoon leader. In civilian leadership, casualties are extremely rare, and there is no real civilian parallel to the concept of casualties.

In civilian leadership, the idea of leading a framing crew by driving nails is viable. It's not possible to build highrises the same way-- you'd run out of nails. Just handling material logistics if a full time job, one that comes with headaches and ulcers.

The person running the high rise crews is absolutely a leader, but he's a different kind of leader-- the job has changed from the framing lead carpenter.

In my experience, the leader who deals with other leaders is, generally speaking, an easier job than dealing with subordinates who have no subordinates. The offsetting issue is that the responsibility, in lives and dollars, is usually much higher.

There is a balance there-- I've never had any respect for leaders that have become desensitized to the cost of their mission, in dollars, lives or whatever the currency is. But the balance is that the cost can paralyze a leader to the point that they are not effective. That balance, and how leaders deal with it, could be an entire thread of its own, but I wanted to mention it here.

[RugerFan]

Respectfully disagree.

Don't confuse leadership with command authority.

The two are entirely separate.

:coffee:

Totally agree.

[Bret4207]

It has been my experience that most people in leadership positions, even the good leaders, even the great ones, sooner or later fall into the "ego trap" and start thinking more for themselves than for the group or goal. Happens in business, in public service, the ministry, the military and para-military. There have been very, very few examples of people not following that path- Christ is the only example I can think of off hand. OTOH, leaders with great skill that fall into that trap abound- MacArthur, FDR, Kennedy, pretty much every King, Premier, Chairman or Prime Minister that ever lived, basically any head of any really successful business here and abroad.

After some time all leaders turn into demi-gods in their own minds. It almost never fails. It doesn't mean they don't still accomplish their goals, but as time passes it becomes more about THEIR goals than the groups.

[WRideout]

I don't agree that military leadership has any comparison with civilian leadership. military leadership is dogmatic command. you will, do what I say and that leads to an authoritarian style that isolates people. the true test of leadership is when your peers select you to lead because they trust you. it is my opinion, you lead by example and don't send anyone else to do something you wouldn't or couldn't do yourself. it isn't in everyone to be a leader. sometimes circumstances promote someone and he rises to the challenge. some don't want to carry responibility. wanting to be a leader doesn't mean you will be a good one. If you have the instincts, your skills can be developed and if you learn from your mistakes, someday you might make it.

I was a medic in the US army, and later a medical section chief in the CA army national guard, lo these many years ago. Even back then, in the days of the 'Hollow Army" in the 1970's we were taught about styles of leadership. It is widely recognized that leadership can be very situational in nature, two examples being authoritarian vs. democratic. Both can work, although not always for the same purpose.

An example from history is the story of Mutiny on the Bounty (I have seen both movies, but not read the book). Interestingly, the same Captain Bligh that drove his sailors to mutiny by his authoritation leadership became the same man who piloted an open lifeboat over open sea for weeks to take his remaining officers and himself to safety. It is still considered one of the greatest feats of seamanship ever seen.

Wayne

[Digger]

It has been my experience that most people in leadership positions, even the good leaders, even the great ones, sooner or later fall into the "ego trap" and start thinking more for themselves than for the group or goal. Happens in business, in public service, the ministry, the military and para-military. There have been very, very few examples of people not following that path- Christ is the only example I can think of off hand. OTOH, leaders with great skill that fall into that trap abound- MacArthur, FDR, Kennedy, pretty much every King, Premier, Chairman or Prime Minister that ever lived, basically any head of any really successful business here and abroad.

After some time all leaders turn into demi-gods in their own minds. It almost never fails. It doesn't mean they don't still accomplish their goals, but as time passes it becomes more about THEIR goals than the groups.

Just found a interesting twist on your statement Bret .....go to the link ... short article, but good,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2136547/Power-really-does-corrupt-scientists-claim-addictive-cocaine.html

The input in this thread is fascinating and excellent reading , we are allways learning ( or at least , I am always learning . )
Thank you Gentlemen

digger

[montana_charlie]

It has been my experience that most people in leadership positions, even the good leaders, even the great ones, sooner or later fall into the "ego trap" and start thinking more for themselves than for the group or goal.
Consider Patton.
Huge ego, authoritarian to the greatest degree imagineable.

Motivation? To win wars by defeating the enemy.
Method? In as much as possible, lead from the front.
Leadership qualities? Knowledgeable, focused, and loved his troops.

The 'ego trap' never affected his leadership. It complimented it.
He went until there was no more war to win.

CM

[76 WARLOCK]

The Army leadership manual is FM 22-100. Almost 40 years ago I enlisted in the CO National Guard for 20 years I spent 10 years in the USAR then I retired as a Col, I do not think real leadership is learned, I think you have to be born with some ability, then get the proper training.

Politicians are the winners of a popularity contest in which leadership is not involved. If they are to be succesful they will learn some leadership along the way.

[felix]

Agree. Some are natural leaders, and others SHOULD learn by example as exhibited by the naturals. ... felix

[crabo]

I always try to remember that it is easier to take people with you, rather than try to push them somewhere.

[sparky45]

Great leadership is extremely difficult to quantify. Leadership labels are easy to place. I'm remembering a great leader of times past that had a massive following, members who would go to the very end with him; his name was Jim Jones. Leadership is a valuable tool but being a thinker and not a follower is also a valuable asset, especially in these times.

[Jammer Six]

OTOH, leaders with great skill that fall into that trap abound- MacArthur, FDR, Kennedy, pretty much every King, Premier, Chairman or Prime Minister that ever lived, basically any head of any really successful business here and abroad.

I like the quote from another general that said (paraphrased, therefore no quotes. Cite and correct quote on request, but it's downstairs somewhere.) McArthur has been a general too long. He made Brigadier in France, in the First War. He's been a general for forty years. Forty years of people jumping, kissing his ***, doing what he says. That's not good for anyone.


Interestingly, the same Captain Bligh that drove his sailors to mutiny by his authoritation leadership became the same man who piloted an open lifeboat over open sea for weeks to take his remaining officers and himself to safety. It is still considered one of the greatest feats of seamanship ever seen.

I noticed the same thing! I've wondered at times if this wasn't merely an example of a leader promoted above his abilities. Clearly, Captain Bligh was an effective, technically excellent seaman, who, given a smaller crew and craft, could deliver a performance of both leadership and seamanship that literally made history.

Maintaining order and leading this smaller craft was both easier and magnitudes more difficult than his larger ship-- easier because he started with a crew that, in the face of what had become the enemy, chose almost certain death to follow him. Therefore, he had a crew that was absolutely dedicated to both the spirit and the act of following him, and would follow him even if that meant almost certain death. And in this case, that wasn't theory, it wasn't just words. It was also deliberate. Every one of them would have known exactly what the risk was when they made their choice.

It was also easier simply because the crew was smaller. That would have multiplied the effect of the crew's loyalty. In contrast to his ship, then, it was a small, fanatically loyal crew that would die to follow him, or a large crew that would eventually mutiny.

It was more difficult in two key ways: one, the obvious, he didn't have the logistic, morale and symbolic resources he had in a ship of the line, and two, he had already lost one crew to mutiny. Two is more than one might think, but it is extremely difficult to recover from.

There is no civilian parallel to mutiny, unless it's a crew quitting together, or staging a wildcat walkout. I've only witnessed that phenomenon twice, when I was an apprentice. I wasn't involved in either, but the first was over safety in a tunnel, the second over the issue of apprentices doing nothing but cleaning. I suppose that's mutiny, civilian style, and I don't know what the resolutions were, or what the long term effects on the leaders were.

As I became a leader myself, I've often wondered why a leader would risk either. I've noted many times, too many to count, both that a worker who is safe and who knows that he's safe is far, far more productive than a worker in a questionable position. That extra production almost always far outweighs any cost of getting him safe, not to mention the moral duty to provide all the safety for a subordinate that you can. The second is simple, spreadsheet arithmetic. It's not even math. A hardcore, front-line, all-weather Journeyman Laborer (note the capitals) will clean far more square feet and leave them far cleaner than twice his wage in apprentices. Apprentices have to be taught everything, and then, after teaching, have to practice. That includes how to clean properly, and what clean is. I don't understand the choice to pay more for less that goes with using apprentices for cleaning.


Consider Patton.
Huge ego, authoritarian to the greatest degree imagineable.

The 'ego trap' never affected his leadership. It complimented it.
He went until there was no more war to win.

I would answer, with respect, that we don't know that. General Patton was killed by a freak accident, shortly after the peak of his career. What would have happened if, as planned, he had been transferred to the Pacific? That would have put him in direct conflict, because of rank, with General McArthur, who already hated him and any commander assigned to Europe. That didn't have a chance to happen, so I suggest that we don't actually know how the story would have ended.

That said, they write books about people who attain great rank and remain of high character.


Some are natural leaders, and others SHOULD learn by example as exhibited by the naturals.

Very well. Since this has come up a number of times in this thread, can the concept be defended?

Can you, for instance, present some of the attributes that can identify a natural leader? Can you present some attributes that would lead to the failure of a natural leader? Can you do so using means other than results?

The service academies search constantly for such criteria. Do you see some?


I'm remembering a great leader of times past that had a massive following, members who would go to the very end with him; his name was Jim Jones. Leadership is a valuable tool but being a thinker and not a follower is also a valuable asset, especially in these times.

I agree, to a point. Wasn't the number of Jamestown something like 300? 400?

That would make him a company commander, a Captain or a Navy Lieutenant. A junior, company grade officer.

[gbrown]

The Army doctrine is that Leadership is the ability to influence people to do something that they would not otherwise do--assault a hill, complete an assignment, etc. I was a leader in the Army--both active and NG. I have given it much thought, why could I influence people. I have come to the belief, nothing solid, that I was given genes (both sides) and experiences, which made me so. Leadership comes naturally to me--why?--really got no clue. I excel where there is an abscence of leadership. I've done it many times. I've been in leadership positions in both civilian and military situations. My people followed me and believed in me. I got them to do things they really did not want to do. I believe that first there must be a propensity (genes) for leadership, and then the experiences and education that lead to it. My personal belief is that (as already stated in this thread) that to be a successful leader, you must be a committed follower. I cannot tell you how many lowly tasks I have been assigned, regardless of rank. Shut up, do the work. Secondly, you must have a rapport with the followers. Thirdly, you must make the followers stake holders--they must be committed to the action, whatever it is. They are involved in the planning, execution and success (rewards/recognition?) of the outcome, whatever it is.

[montana_charlie]

Comment about Jim Jones ... That would make him a company commander, a Captain or a Navy Lieutenant. A junior, company grade officer.
Leadership is a quality that is separate from 'rank'. People of rank hopefully have ability, but the number of people who choose to follow a leader will depend upon how many are exposed to him, rather than his 'standing' within a social strata.

Leonidas led 300 in the final battle at Thermopylae. But he was not a captain.

CM

[Jammer Six]

Leadership is a quality that is separate from 'rank'.

Sometimes.

I wasn't commenting on his rank, I was commenting on the scale of the "massacre", and putting it in perspective regarding the size.

You could say the same thing about Leonidas, but Thermopylae is noted far more for the results relative to the lopsided odds than for the leadership.



The Army doctrine is that Leadership is the ability to influence people to do something that they would not otherwise do--assault a hill, complete an assignment, etc.

I'm not certain that's the case-- and I disagree with it as a theory.

Under that definition, guards are the leaders of prisoners, and that is not leadership, in my opinion.

What is missing is the sprit-- and it's why I like my definition rather than this one.

[felix]

Some are natural leaders, and others SHOULD learn by example as exhibited by the naturals.... felix


Very well. Since this has come up a number of times in this thread, can the concept be defended? Can you, for instance, present some of the attributes that can identify a natural leader? Can you present some attributes that would lead to the failure of a natural leader? Can you do so using means other than results? The service academies search constantly for such criteria. Do you see some? ... Jammer

What is missing is the sprit! ... Jammer

There, Jammer, you said it perfectly! That is the primary and ONLY personal attribute required for ANY career. All other necessary attributes fall into place naturally. For a management position, the candidate's indicated past performance while using subordinates exclusively to meet objectives is verified. No spirit equals no enthusiasm. Always! ... felix

[Jammer Six]

So, what are you saying, Felix? That a leader must have past subordinates who demonstrated the spirit of following?

I agree, completely, but once it's happened, that is not an attribute of the leader, that is an attribute of the subordinates, generated (hopefully) by the leader. Furthermore, it is not an attribute that can be predicted.

Am I misunderstanding your last post?

We are in absolute, total agreement that the act and spirit of following indicates a bona-fide, honest-to-god leader at the helm. We also agree that it's the spirit of following that makes the real difference. Prisoners give the act of following. Slaves, fearing the lash, give the act. But it takes leadership to get both the act and the spirit.

The problem I see with the theory that people are born with some kind of "leadership gene" is that if that were true, it should be possible to identify objective attributes in individuals that correctly predict success as leaders.

And reading back over this thread, I've left several points unanswered, and that's my fault; I'm not ignoring anyone or their comments. I just jumped at the points that caught my interest, and had to read some of your points again.

One of the points I've noticed (again) in a few posts is military vs. civilian leadership, and I want to say that I certainly don't believe that the military is the only path to excellent leadership. History is full of purely civilian leaders with brilliant records. The military just happens to be where I, personally, first noticed leaders and leadership and where I received my first formal training. It's also when I started to wonder why there were good leaders and bad leaders. Later, when I noticed good leadership and bad leadership in construction, I drew a line connecting leadership and dollars and cents, and still later, when they were MY dollars and cents, I started studying leadership in earnest.

[felix]

Everybody wants the future explained in advance. Even DNA analysis would be no good. Why? DNA is nothing but a predictor in itself, and can never be positive proof of anything because of outside influences such as radiation, for example. Type 1 diabetes can only come about using both a certain gene (missing or present, forgot which) PLUS the individual contacting a specific flu organism (also, forgot which one). ... felix

[Jammer Six]

Okay, let's go at it another way.

We find a "perfect" leader. Everyone follows him. No one can pin down why. But when he gets into combat, it turns out he's a coward. (No disrespect there, at least from me. I'd never question anyone's reaction to combat.) Or he gets into construction, and a month into his career finds out that he's terrified of heights. (No disrespect there, either. Everyone has some fear that will stop them cold, and I mean cold in their tracks. It's just that some people haven't come face to face with theirs yet.)

Or the guy that everyone loves to follow turns out to be a complete liar, or steals the credit from his subordinates.

I think that all those things probably matter more than the "leadership gene".

And I'm not sure I buy the theory of the gene, and that's what I was asking. If that gene exists, why can't it be used to predict who will be able to lead and who won't?

My answer is because there are a multitude of other things, things that can be taught, practiced and learned, that are more important. Honesty. Honor. Integrity in all things. Focus only on the mission. Technical expertise. Communication skills. Physical and mental stamina. (I like that one, and it was mentioned by someone else earlier.) Many others.

[montana_charlie]

I served 20 years in the Air Force, so I fell under the influence of quite few officers.
Because our 'business' was communications, we usually existed in a situation much like 'boss and workforce' in a service company.

There were no shouted orders, and no do-or-die emergencies. Just managers who had fewer people that they would have liked to get the job done, and workers who felt slightly behind the eight ball all of the time.

As I progressed in rank, I worked in closer proximity to our officers, which gave me more insight into their personalities.

Of the many(?) officers I knew(?), three stand out as 'leaders' rather than 'managers'. Lt. Col. Lipscomb never did anything for me personally, but he treated people so straight-forwardly it was impossible not to like and respect him.
Anybody can do things to make you like him, but to earn liking and respect is a sign of 'leadership'.


Captain Hicks was immediately above my station at Malmstrom AFB, and I met with him regularly. He had appointed me to a special project with a poor history, and made it clear that he felt I was capable of making that group succeed.

Since I thought he showed extreme intelligence for thinking that, his faith in me gave me a lot of faith in him. Earning my respect in that way is a sign of 'leadership' that was separate from his talents as a manager of his office.

The third guy was an Army captain I served under in Vietnam. I appreciated his efforts to get us all through a difficult situation without skimping on accomplishing our (three) missions, and he appreciated it whenever I went the 'exrta mile' to help us survive till sunrise.

As an Army officer he was hesitant to actually give me and my team 'orders' in the military sense, but as an NCO working for a proven leader, I was fully willing to take them when he did.
Mutual respect is a big part of 'leadership'.

Oh ... and one last thing, in case anybody cares.
Captain Hicks was a 'leader' who will always have my respect, and he was the only black officer I ever served directly under.

CM

[Jammer Six]

There's an excellent point there-- in the beginning, at that platoon level, first command, framing crew level, you usually generate the respect of your crew by demonstrating straight up, technical expertise.

But as the job changes, and you get more and varied subordinates under you, at some point you hit the wall where you simply don't know.

If you're a carpenter by trade, you can out-carpenter all the carpenters under you, and that's fine. But as soon as they put an electrician, a plumber and a HVAC man under you, you have subordinates who know more about what they do than you do.

If they don't, you have the wrong guys.

I suppose there's a super somewhere who knows more about all trades than any of his people, but I think he should get better subs.

When you realize that these people have knowledge that you need to bring out, in the spirit of following, it's a milestone in your leadership. All of a sudden, you realize that just as they have hidden knowledge, so do all those carpenters that you've been out-carpentering, and so do all those laborers, equipment operators and broom pushers. In fact, there's not a soul on the job site who doesn't have something you need from them. If there is, he or she has no business being there.

That was when I truly stopped caring who got credit, and, in fact, wanted everyone to start giving me that which I hadn't been seeing, and in return I would be thrilled to see to it they got credit for it. I would insist that they got credit for it, as long as I could get that spirit of following, hidden knowledge.

It was a blinding revelation.

I wish I'd had it ten years earlier.

And yes, an excellent name for it is mutual respect.

[Trail Finder]

I think that Leadership has a lot to do with ownership. I worked for a company where the owner treated everyone as if they were part owner. And reminded them that without them them doing there job the company wouldn't function. From the guy sweeping the floor keeping a clean safe working area. To the guys out selling the product in the field. He eventually sold the company and everyone got a cut from the sale, and kept their jobs. That is a person you want to work for. When the boss gets done patting himself on the back he needs to walk around and pat the people who took him there on the back.

Later I worked for a company where the new CEO came in and collected a 6million doller annual paycheck. First thing he did was major layoffs in the plants to cut cost. Then he lowered inventory levels (that lead to lost sales). He did it to raise the stock prices. In the end stock prices went down and market share was lost. I think if he took ownership in the company he would have only taken home 5 million dollers let the guys in the foundry keep their jobs, and put a little product on the shelf so when customers needed it it was available. This is the type of guy that takes a good family owned company and destroys it to fill his own pockets and never gives a rat about the people.

If the people respect the leaders, they will want to work harder for them. If they are treated with respect and feel that what they do is noticed and makes a differance they will feel good about working harder for them. If a person makes a mistake, you teach them how to not make the same mistake next time. If you beat the **** out of them for it, they will never want to make a decision.

There are no bad people just bad leaders (most of the time). If a person fails it is often due to lack of training or direction. If a person under you fails make sure they understand the task. Make sure they know how to ask for help. Dont treat them like a jerk when they do ask for help.

[Jammer Six]

I used to meet a group of guys for a weekly poker meeting. This started back when several of us were in college, and just kept going until it was an important part of life.

We chattered about everything, of course, and knew when each other was close to graduating, when one of us had an important interview, and when one of us got that first job.

One of us went to Microsoft. (This is Puget Sound, after all...)

He came to poker, and reported that they had given him one share of stock. One share. He didn't see the point.

Six weeks later, he mentioned that yes, he gets up in the morning, fixes coffee, and checks the price of that one share of stock. And he also admitted that he thinks about the price of his one share when he's making decisions at work. After a year, he admitted that giving him one share of stock was a brilliant, subtle, elegant piece of leadership.

[pmeisel]

There are no bad people just bad leaders (most of the time).

Well, my experience is that in any large group you will have somewhere between 2% and 20% idiotic jerks. But good leadership improves the ratio, and bad leadership hurts it. If the idiots are challenged, held accountable, the people on the edge will see that and avoid the idiot behaviors. On the other hand, if the idiots are let to do as they please, people on the edge will follow them.

Pretty soon, quitting early, goofing off, subpar work, all become acceptable as a standard.

I like to tell people this: We aren't running a prison or a nursery school. It's a business, and we are paying you to do certain things. If you hold up your end well, most of our conversations are going to be about the weather and sports. Outside of line-up meetings, there will be no reason to talk about the work, because you will have done it already.

[William Yanda]

You got that right, brother!
__________________
Jim

+1, or What he said!

[Jammer Six]

It used to surprise me that firing people for cause would actually improve crew morale, until I figured out why. Nobody likes to play the game straight, and be around someone who is "getting away" with something.

[MBTcustom]

Well, my experience is that in any large group you will have somewhere between 2% and 20% idiotic jerks. But good leadership improves the ratio, and bad leadership hurts it.
Unfortunately, I work in the less fortunate example. I am trying to figure out office politics so that I can effectivly reinforce and support the good employees and challenge the ones that are acting against the company and destroying moral. The problem is, that when you try to challenge the problem folks, it is seen as making waves and you are thrown under the buss by the very folks you thought were the good ones. It kills moral like cancer when there is no leadership but that of self serving bullies. On one hand you have some who are using policy to boost and reinforce their position, and on the other, you have employees that are using those exact policies as an excuse not to work. I am trying to lead from the bottom and take responsibility for things that others wont and stand up for people that are afraid to stand for themselves. It all sounds very virtuous I'm sure, but all I succeed in doing is looking like the idiot who is causing trouble. I wish there was a way to get some traction because I realy like the company that I work for and I care about my fellow employees.
I realy hope I can get the hang of this. I feel like I'm 90% of the way there, but certain things like lack of patience and no desire to compromise with folks that are not part of the solution, keep becoming my downfall.
I realy have enjoyed this thread so far, because I desperately want to lead in an environment that desperately needs leadership. Maybe someday I'll get my chance; for the moment, I consider every day to be that chance.

[OBIII]

Leadership, in my opinion, is something that can be sought by many and acquired by few. There probably are some genetic traits that provide the basis for "Successful" Leadership, a couple of which may be empathy and compassion. A "Leader" who can only look at the bottom line or try to raise his annual bonus, is more than likely to be no leader and will fail (no concerns for the little people). A "Leader" who determines a course of action, and utilizes his employees in such a way as to increase their morale and what is required to enhance the company for all would in all likely hood succeed. The first would be lacking in empathy and compassion. The second would seem to have them in balance. A third example would be a Leader who try's to "Please" everyone while offending none. This, too, will produce dismal results. I have served for and worked with "Leaders" who inspired me to do more than I thought that I could, and I have had others that inspired me to find ways to slack off.

Jammer: Guards are not leaders, even though they are in positions of authority. They are there to prevent the prisoners from rallying around one individual endangering their well being.

For those who are history buffs, Audie Murphy was not an imposing figure, but his men would have done anything requested of them. On the other side, look at Hitler. Go figure.

OB

[gew98]

Here's a good one. A good friend in his 20's just came back from Asscrackistan in january - Infantry US Army. Had a hard time . His Girlfriend is a combat medic still in country for another month plus. She called him this AM from "over there". She had a bad day. She just got her fives - 24 year old motivated woman - and her current command structure has stood in her way on that from day one. She still does patrols , does ER/aide post and STILL is assigned KP. Today she had to treat a mass casualty call of US and ANG that resulted from a two teired IED and small arms ambush. As a new E5 whom loves what she does ( her dad's a sheriff in small town midwest USA if that says anything ) she had to take control and put her foot in E6's and above that froze in that environment. Non died in Her triage and all were forwarded up for higher level care...but it was not pretty. My buddy was rather upset , firstly she's still there in the sh*t , secondly that her direct leadership is rife with failure at doing their jobs but full of telling others how to do it or else. It was bad enough at one point that an ANG pointed an AK at her chest and thankfully a grunt behind her felled him with a buttstroke.
The command structure over there has become so political...it's all but worthless right down to the "platoon level". With the forces being forced into downsizing it's dog eat dog and screw your fellow soldier.
Thanks lord barky...thanks for your talking wiht the tallywhackers and creating this awesome environment that makes good people want out.

[MBTcustom]

The command structure over there has become so political...it's all but worthless right down to the "platoon level". With the forces being forced into downsizing it's dog eat dog and screw your fellow soldier.
Thanks lord barky...thanks for your talking wiht the tallywhackers and creating this awesome environment that makes good people want out.
I dont see how anyone accomplishes successful leadership in that kind of an environment. Its much more stressful than what I am dealing with, but the core problem is the same. I see it all the time, the leadership is a bunch of clowns that are only good at one thing and that is getting job titles. Meanwhile the folks that are the more obvious choice are beat down and penalized for taking responsibility.
What I would like to know is how I can beat these suckers at their own game, while getting the dad-burned job done at the same time![smilie=b:

[Jammer Six]

It's happened, and in surprising places, for surprising reasons, leadership has materialized in people (if only, as in this case, momentarily) where it just shouldn't have been so.

The classic is Lord Cardigan, a truly dreadful leader under the truly dreadful leadership of Lord Raglan, when he was in command of the Light Brigade of the Cavalry Division at Balaclava.

The Four Orders to the Cavalry exemplify how not to give orders, the charge itself was wrong, the mission incorrect, the courier a fool, the Division Commander by that time was not on speaking terms with the Brigade Commander, and yet...

He charged, in the wrong direction at the wrong objective for the wrong reasons at the wrong time under the wrong conditions, and the entire brigade followed.

P.S. Thirty-five years down the road, you can come to regret your attempts to de-humanize the enemy. If you're like me, you won't see that coming. But I tell you this: that can be overcome, too.

[markshere2]

I don't agree that military leadership has any comparison with civilian leadership. military leadership is dogmatic command. you will, do what I say and that leads to an authoritarian style that isolates people. the true test of leadership is when your peers select you to lead because they trust you. it is my opinion, you lead by example and don't send anyone else to do something you wouldn't or couldn't do yourself. it isn't in everyone to be a leader. sometimes circumstances promote someone and he rises to the challenge. some don't want to carry responibility. wanting to be a leader doesn't mean you will be a good one. If you have the instincts, your skills can be developed and if you learn from your mistakes, someday you might make it.

It does not sound like you spent much time in the military. There are great military leaders and lousy ones. There are few of the former and lots of the latter.

The more you lead, the better you CAN get at it. Practice and feedback are essential to devloping leadership skills. The military is good for that.

But, just because you have been leading for a long time, does not mean you are a good leader.

The Air Force teaches leadership and management, and they grow leaders.
The sister services all have leadership schools.

[375RUGER]

If people are coming to work excited...if they're making mistakes freely and fearlessly...if they're having fun...if they're concentrating on doing things, rather than preparing reports and going to meetings--then somewhere you have a leader.

I kind of knew it at the time, but today I see very clearly, that a long time ago my immediate supervisor saved me and others from all the bs meetings so that myself and coworkers could get things done. Now I know why he was crotchety.

Some more random thoughts about leaders--

Workers have to know and feel like they are being led in order to do productive work.
A leader can distinguish among his followers who can manage themselves and who needs to be managed.
A leader doesn't make his subordinates feel like they are subordinate.

An example-
Once I almost witnessed a whole welding crew leave a job. It only took someone to simply asked them what the problem was. They explained it was their lead and no one would listen to them. In a nutshell he wasn't qualified to be their lead, nepotism put him in the position.
The engineer who was inquiring, had no authority and was not even in a leadership position. No sense talking to his supervisor or manager. No sense in talking to their supervisor or manager. He went straight to the department head, on his day off no less. By the time he came in on Monday, everybody knew what he had done. And the problem was fixed within the week.
Those welders said no one had ever done anything like that for them ever. And that engineer got anything he wanted from those welders.

[Jammer Six]

Found this today. It's older than I like to admit, apparently, I was not on top of things when it came out.

http://nets.ucar.edu/nets/intro/staff/jcustard/jc-la2004/powell-leadership.pdf

[SciFiJim]

I think we have still not defined what leadership is. We have looked at attributes of leadership, both good and bad, but not pointed at the one thing that says "this person will be a leader". To study leadership in its purest form, we can look at pack mentality. Think of a pack of preteen girls roving in a mall. One will be the leader and the others are followers. The leader will have not received any formal training, but will clearly have the ability to lead. The dynamics in the "pack" can be brutal, but the hierarchy is relatively fixed.

The question remains. What makes a leader a leader, regardless of all other circumstances? And can that attribute be taught if it doesn't naturally exist?

[Jammer Six]

The question remains. What makes a leader a leader, regardless of all other circumstances? And can that attribute be taught if it doesn't naturally exist?

Perfectly stated! The only thing I would note is that the answer might not be one attribute.

My opinion is on record, I believe it can be taught.

[montana_charlie]

I happened upon this quote today ...

"There is an inborn subtlety to leadership that those who do not possess it never understand. People will do their jobs for whoever is in charge because they must, but they only do it willingly and beyond the call of duty for those to whom they give their hearts." -
- John Buchanan, The Road to Guilford Courthouse

[Faret]

Hello gentlemen I am subscribed to a leadership program that teaches leadership and life skills. The company is founded by Orin Woodward and Chris Brady number 6 and 11 leadership gurus. The materials I have been listening to and reading are fantastic. They have helped me through alot of struggles in life that I otherwise had no clue how to deal with. For more info you can email me or visit this site http://www.the-team.biz/39910798

[onesonek]

I just really seen this post, but only read the first few repiles.
I agree that a true leader also is follower, as he/she must lead succeeding follower's with their confidence.
I also believe as stated that Leader's are made,,,,, with most leader's being quick study's, and with skills and persona to elevate into the role.
Of which brings me to my definition of a Leader.
One that commands respect rather than demands respect,,,,,,, in whatever the particular role may be.

[bowfin]

I recall a great article I clipped 20 years ago and have since lost. The basic premise of the article was that leadership is a three-legged stool:

People have to believe you are competent (know what needs to be done and how).

People have to believe you care about them (won't risk them or use them needlessly).

People have to believe in your integrity.

I have found much of this to be true. People won't follow a fool, a liar, or a user.

The above covers it as clearly and concisely as anything I have seen.

[bowfin]

Leadership doesn't depend on authority. I have seen people of the factory floor turn their backs on their supervisors and follow a fellow employee in a course of action. I think they did this because the fellow peon:

1. Had a better plan
2. Was looking out after the people
3. Had a proven track record of success
4. Bought into his own plan of action himself.

[375RUGER]

I think we have still not defined what leadership is. We have looked at attributes of leadership, both good and bad, but not pointed at the one thing that says "this person will be a leader".

The question remains. What makes a leader a leader, regardless of all other circumstances? And can that attribute be taught if it doesn't naturally exist?

Don't the attributes define? Character, charisma, communication ability, courage,
discernment, initiative, self discipline, etc.

If there is "one thing" that says "this person will be a leader"--than many people who have no business leading anything might posess that "one thing" or "attribute" if you will. It is a combination of "things" that define who is and who is not a leader.

Some people need training to lead, some need a little "brushing up", and some just can. Some are just circumstantial leaders and some leaders are just "bosses" which my be the case in your example of the teenage girls in a mall.

[john hayslip]

Retired now but when I was in position of leadership I had two rules for myself.

1) Never ask anyone to do something I wasn't willing to do.
2) Always assume the first decision I made may have not been the correct or best one and to listen to and consider seriously alternatives that arise later.

Worked for me.

[Faret]

I'll add one more don't do something for somebody else that they are fully capable of doing for themselves.

[Jammer Six]

I'll add one more don't do something for somebody else that they are fully capable of doing for themselves.
Well, that would cut down on the workload for medics, roofers, mechanics, plumbers, loggers and carpenters.

But I don't see what it has to do with leadership.

[Faret]

Think BIGGER.