Traits of leadership.

[TeeDee]

God, that looks like the worst kind of Leadership Management training soundbite I've ever seen.
I would feel morally obliged to oppose anyone who came out with that kind of trite nonsense.
Even just looking at it now I have my fist rammed in my mouth and my toes are curling.
Definitely the David Brent school of leadership.
Sheesh.

I can appreciate you don't like it and I'm not looking to have a handbag swinging match with anyone here - But isn't it as Valid as your 'Don't be a Cad'??

I appreciate your advice is more succinct but surely we are all entitled to an opinion on the matter and word it in our own way.

There are plenty of words that could be supplemented for the word 'Cad'


( Just saying )

 

[Van-Wild]

God, that looks like the worst kind of Leadership Management training soundbite I've ever seen.
I would feel morally obliged to oppose anyone who came out with that kind of trite nonsense.
Even just looking at it now I have my fist rammed in my mouth and my toes are curling.
Definitely the David Brent school of leadership.
Sheesh.

I'm glad it evoked such an emotive response......

Maybe this one will do better for you...

Lead by example
Encourage thinking
Apply reward and discipline
Demand high performance
Encourage confidence in the team
Recognise individual strengths and
weaknesses
Strive for team goals



Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

 

[Broch]

I do appreciate where you're coming from VW, but to me that kind of mnemonic is just straight out of the 'how to be a good manager' manual wrapped around the word leader - a leader is a completely different beast to me.

 

[Van-Wild]

I do appreciate where you're coming from VW, but to me that kind of mnemonic is just straight out of the 'how to be a good manager' manual wrapped around the word leader - a leader is a completely different beast to me.

Each to their own @Broch. The last one is actually from the British Army Leadership Code. It is taught at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. @TeeDee's post was evocative, opening up debate. Most peoples responses are wholly subjective. I don't have an issue with anyone's opinion on what a leader is, like I said, each to their own because everyone likes to be led in their own way as well.

In my humble experience, there are those disciplined enough to need almost no direction and there are others who only understand a more brutal form of leadership. A well rounded leader knows when and where to apply......

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

 

[TeeDee]

Each to their own @Broch. The last one is actually from the British Army Leadership Code. It is taught at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. @TeeDee's post was evocative, opening up debate. Most peoples responses are wholly subjective. I don't have an issue with anyone's opinion on what a leader is, like I said, each to their own because everyone likes to be led in their own way as well.

P'ah... Snadhurst - Never heard of them - flash in the pan.

 

[C_Claycomb]

Is it the qualities, attributes and actions that Van-Wild described that folk think are bad or do not characterise good leadership, or is it just a visceral dislike of mnemonics beyond telling people to STOP if they find they are lost while out for a walk?

My view is that this learning to be a better leader thing is like sanding and polishing metal or wood. Reading or hearing that mnemonic is like a quick rub with some medium grit sandpaper. Only the laziest and most ignorant Brent-esque person would think that that would be enough to produce fine finished and high value results. However just because the end result is a 10,000 grit polish, initial work with 220 grit isn't worthless if it is applied thoughtfully and as part of a process.

 

[C_Claycomb]

I am a little biased in my view. I have been in a couple of professional positions where I had to lead without the ability to use either carrot or stick. Not for a day or a week but two and half years. The first couple of years went well enough, but I was leading a small group of similar minded people and had good support from above. The second role was 18 months, a bigger more disparate group with much less support and it was a lot harder. I went in with no training and even an afternoon discussing that mnemonic and related concepts would have helped. It wouldn't have made me a great leader , but it would have made me better.

 

[TeeDee]

The good leaders I have known have been confident, but not overly so, have clearly been interested in the welfare of those around them, those that they are leading, have listened well, and acted decisively when needed. They have not suffered fools, but they have been better than average diplomats about it. There have been other characteristics, but those are the easiest to describe quickly.

Leadership can be taught, but like everything else some people are more naturally talented than others.

I think it is also important that one differentiates between leaders, and managers. Most people encounter managers more often than leaders. Managing and leading are not the same, and often the people that are good at one are not good at the other. Good leaders have good managers working for them

I took a course with the IMECHE about "Leading without formal authority" and did a fair bit of reading and watching on the subject. I liked the way Simon Sinek described leadership in the following talks.

I also enjoyed his description of Infinite Games vs Finite Games with examples from wars and businesses, but that is a little different than the leadership talks.

Only just gotten around to viewing those. ( Thank you Insomnia for freeing up my diary )

Good content with ideas to think upon and consider.

Cheers

 

[Van-Wild]

Is it the qualities, attributes and actions that Van-Wild described that folk think are bad or do not characterise good leadership, or is it just a visceral dislike of mnemonics beyond telling people to STOP if they find they are lost while out for a walk?

My view is that this learning to be a better leader thing is like sanding and polishing metal or wood. Reading or hearing that mnemonic is like a quick rub with some medium grit sandpaper. Only the laziest and most ignorant Brent-esque person would think that that would be enough to produce fine finished and high value results. However just because the end result is a 10,000 grit polish, initial work with 220 grit isn't worthless if it is applied thoughtfully and as part of a process.

Mnemonics help you think, they do not help you 'do' (if that makes sense?)

Becoming a good leader is a learning process, developed over years. Training in leadership is not designed to turn you into the compleat leader, it is designed to prepare you for a role as a leader.

Ultimately, the individual will lead with their own style. As many here have no doubt had the same experience as me with both good and bad leadership, they themselves will form an opinion of what a good leader is. I find that those who set unrealistic demands upon their leaders are of a kind who ultimately do not like to be led. It is amusing that people with this opinion of leadership also, while being vociferous in their opinion of their leadership, are unlikely to step up to a leadership role! (Not everyone of course, I'm broad brushing here.....).

I have led many times with both small and large teams. My current team consists of 18. I am responsible for them all. Some are extremely well disciplined while others are not. I have the 'maximum outputters' and the 'bare minimum outputters' and many inbetween. How do I manage them all? As individuals. I aim to develop them in their weaknesses while promoting their strengths. I allow freedom of action and freedom of thought, I encourage risk taking and invite question and critic at all levels, while maintaining professional courtesy. I will draw the line firmly when needed. Genuine mistakes are discussed and worked through, I don't jump down peoples throats if they were genuinely trying. Open insubordination is dealt with immediately.

I have learnt over the years that the best way to get your team to work better and actually enjoy their role is to relinquish control and encourage each person to push their own boundaries.

Of course, there will always be the 'bare minimum' people in your team. I value those people just as much. They are generally steadfast and reliable people who are simply content to do their job and go home. They'll most likely be there for years...... kudos to them.

The constant whingers who are never ever happy, constantly calling out others and loudly voicing how it should/could be done better? I invite them to step up or step out. Do something positive or leave if they don't like it...... I even smooth their way out the door if I need to. These people are a cancer to your workplace, spreading discontent and bringing down morale. They like to call you out but they hate being called out.... .

Anyways, sermon over (I didn't mean it be, sorry folks).

'Lead, Follow, or get out of the way.....'

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

 

[Broch]

I think I am still confusing the desire to define what a 'true leader' is as opposed to defining what a 'team leader' or 'team manager' is.

As I said before, I don't think I have met many 'true leaders' - lots of good and bad 'team leaders' and loads of people who think they are leaders

I ran my own companies for thirty years, I have organised and 'led' treks in the Arctic, the desert, and the jungle; so, I consider myself to be a competent manager, but I know I'm not a 'true leader'.

 

[C_Claycomb]

@Broch,
Can you some name people the rest of us might know of, or be able to look up, who you put in the "true leader" category?

 

[Broch]

@Broch,
Can you some name people the rest of us might know of, or be able to look up, who you put in the "true leader" category?

There is a problem with identifying historic figures as 'true leaders' as history has a habit of romanticising events. However, just off the top of my head, I would suggest Mahatma (Mohandas) Gandhi, Fidel Castro and Napoleon Bonaparte showed 'true leadership' qualities beyond the normal business manager or military officer.

 

[Van-Wild]

I am still confusing the desire to define what a 'true leader' is as opposed to defining what a 'team leader' or 'team manager' is.

Using your own terminology....

The term 'true leader' is a subjective opinion, while the term 'team leader/manager' is a role descriptor?

In this case, your opinion as to what a 'true leader' is will be totally subjective and formed by your own bias.... I for one wouldn't name Fidel Castro as a true leader, but that's just my opinion eh....



Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

 

[Athos]

Leadership is the art of getting people to do things they probably don’t want to do. As for desirable traits, honesty and integrity are very important. Once you lie you lose all credibility as a leader. Same goes for accountability, and that is holding yourself to the same standards to which you hold others.

Mentoring is very important, you have to invest in your people and give them the tools required for growth. If, in a position of leadership, you’re concerned that one of your team may end up taking your job - guess what, you aren’t good enough at your job.

Be decisive and be prepared to out work everybody. Whilst you are not the focal point of their lives, your subordinates will scrutinise everything you do.

The team comes first, look after your people. Have a sense of humour and spend the time getting to know your team. Most importantly, as someone said previously - don’t be a cad!

As for Castro… yeah he was pretty good at leading trials that resulted in thousands of deaths. I think Meriwether Lewis and William Clark (Lewis and Clark Expedition) are a good place to start when examining leadership. Undaunted Courage by Stephen Ambrose is a worthwhile read too.

 

[Broch]

Sorry guys, but nobody said 'good leaders' had to be 'good people'

There are a number of quite awful people historically that have been excellent leaders in as much as they managed to talk millions of people into following them no matter how extreme the mission.

 

[Paul_B]

Fidel Castro isn't a true leader he's just ruthless, rose to the top and stayed there.

Mahatma Gandhi was an inspirational figure who inspired people to act but was that a true leader? No doubt behind the scenes there were people running things who might lay claim to leading.

Napoleon was a good military strategist but I wonder... I do not know enough about his campaigns to know whether he's a technocrat in power with others actually leading the men or if Napoleon was the true leader. Being good at strategy doesn't make you a good leader but I would tend to think napoleon was. However Wellesley was ultimately better in the end.

Success doesn't mean true leadership. It just means their side did well. What the role of ppl in their side was in the leadership you need an expert to find out.

It all goes to demonstrate that true leadership is subjective. Sometimes leadership is just confidence of power.

 

[Wander]

Sorry guys, but nobody said 'good leaders' had to be 'good people'

There are a number of quite awful people historically that have been excellent leaders in as much as they managed to talk millions of people into following them no matter how extreme the mission.

Erm, true enough.
But that categorisation would also include people such as Adolf Hitler and Jim Jones among others.
Not that that invalidates your point.
To give it an ethical dimension, should a good leader be one who leads people on 'good' endeavours?
That is, an essential part of a good (meaning to have outstanding skills) leader is to have an ethical goal?

What's missing from this discussion is to consider it from the opposite direction - what makes people follow? I wonder if that would shed any light on it?
For example (and I'm going to use an extreme example, because it makes the point clearly - but concentrate on the moral dilemma, not the actual political issue), I would hope we are all against murder. Yet some of us may be in favour of the death penalty. We may say taking another life is a wicked thing to do, but why is OK if it's state-endorsed murder? I would argue the problem one has is not so much with the killing of someone else but the risk of being branded an outsider - hence why capital punishment is tolerated - so long as the person has endorsement for their actions they are happy to go along. Is that why some follow - to absolve themselves of personal responsibility?

 

[Broch]

Fidel Castro isn't a true leader he's just ruthless, rose to the top and stayed there.

Mahatma Gandhi was an inspirational figure who inspired people to act but was that a true leader? No doubt behind the scenes there were people running things who might lay claim to leading.

Napoleon was a good military strategist but I wonder... I do not know enough about his campaigns to know whether he's a technocrat in power with others actually leading the men or if Napoleon was the true leader. Being good at strategy doesn't make you a good leader but I would tend to think napoleon was. However Wellesley was ultimately better in the end.

Success doesn't mean true leadership. It just means their side did well. What the role of ppl in their side was in the leadership you need an expert to find out.

It all goes to demonstrate that true leadership is subjective. Sometimes leadership is just confidence of power.

It is true that a lot of inspirational leaders of history have ended up being despots but that should not bias us away from acknowledging their leadership qualities.

Success does not mean true leadership, again, there are many examples where brave and courageous leaders have fallen.

As for Gandhi, I am sure there were hundreds of 'managers' running around doing things, but the people followed Gandhi.

 

[TLM]

If one wants to list the dark side:
Lenin
Stalin
Hitler
Pol Pot
Various Kims
Gengis Khan
Tamerlane
and a few others ...

 

[Paul_B]

Leadership or inspirational? Which was Gandhi? I think more inspirational than leadership. I see him as religious figure but behind him the actual leadership leads the movement headed by. He sets the rules, methodology or tactics but I think there's others leading the activities that got the results. More than just managers behind the scene. One became head of the government and really did well with the fledgling independent state. Better leader but not the inspiration that got the people moving. Figurehead or leader?

You see we'll not all agree over who are good leaders.

Even castro was only one of a few good revolutionaries that took over but the ruthless castro took the top position. Not sure castro was the better leader. Success over true leadership skills perhaps