Leadership without followership?
Leadership without followership? An interesting question, that was actually on my mind as I sat through the first class. If no-one follows, is one really leading? While it feels right to answer yes, I somehow logically think the answer is no. One of the key themes that was carried through the class discussion on leadership, was that leaders motivate. If no-one follows, they must not have been motivated.
The example of this behavior that first comes to my mind is, Crazy Diag Guy (CDG) – the guy who stands on his soapbox telling everyone they are going to hell. CDG exemplifies many of the ideals that my classmates identified as those of leadership. He has conviction, some set of morals, and he is very passionate. The key item that stops CDG from being a leader is that he cannot motivate people (except to make fun of him). Since there is a lack of motivation, no-one follows and thus CDG is not a leader.
Leadership – What do I believe?
So it is probably clear from my stance on leadership without followership that I believe the ability to motivate is the real key to being a good leader. I believe that every good leader has had the ability to motivate. Whether one looks at the outspoken, commanding types such as a Bo Schembechuler and George Patton whose leadership styles involve yelling, the motivating / inspirational types such as Martin Luther King Jr. and JFK, or the more quiet, lead by example types a common thread immerges – leaders motivate people.
I believe that a good leader has conviction and is passionate and confident. Even when they do not know the correct answer, they demonstrate conviction and confidence in a process that will enable them to solve difficult decisions. They know they are doing the “right thing” – whether or not history agrees is another matter.
When I look at the other items that were identified as traits of good leaders – even some I came up with in our brainstorming session, I see traits that while admirable are not required to be a good leader. For instance, our group brainstormed that leadership is not intimidation. While I agree that ideally one shouldn’t have to intimidate to be an effective leader, history is full of examples of very successful leaders who led through intimidation. One comment I found especially interesting is the concept that “a leader doesn’t have to care about people, but a good leader does”. I find this interesting because I would agree that a good person cares about people, however this trait isn’t necessarily required for leadership.
Means or an End?
Is effective leadership a function of the “means” by which one leads… or is effective leadership a function of the “end state”? When looking at such a question I believe it is very important not to confuse the word effective with good or moral. As I mentioned in class, Hitler was a very effective leader. While I certainly would not condone his actions, or deem them as moral or right, the fact remains that he convinced a nation of people to commit genocide. While he is certainly not an admirable person, he was an effective leader. History is full of examples of people leading unmoral or unjust causes thus I don’t understand how the “end state” plays into this argument. Obviously as a student of Ross who is taking this course to make myself a more effective leader, the end state is very important, however I believe that is a separate issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment