In fact the last decisions might not have been his, if I remember correctly he died the second day.
Traits of leadership.
- Thread starter TeeDee
- Start date
Charismatic...And the difference between having charisma and being goo at bull-shi**ing is?
'exercising a compelling charm which inspires devotion in others'
Bullshitting...(lying)
'to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive'
Charisma is a positive trait (the key word being "inspire'), while lying (bullshitting) is a negative (the key word being 'deceive') with the deliberate intent on doing so....
Do you need charisma to be a good leader? I think you do need a certain amount yes. But you need to back up that charm with action.
Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk
And the difference between having charisma and being goo at bull-shi**ing is?
It seems we are going to get dragged to this rabbit hole by hook or by crook so my take on it is as follows.
Con-men ( confidence tricksters ) tend to have good Charisma -doesn't mean they are handsome or if female ( P.F.Of.J ) beautiful. They have to have charisma to sell the ' Con'
To me Politician are much like Confidence tricksters and Con men. They are there to sell a lie and manipulate you into believing in ' them' as a personality and not necessarily being too specific on their policies.
In recent years there have been different leaders of the Western World , one in my mind was extremely charismatic - good voice , confident , excellent body language skills , etc - I would say as a person I would 'like' this candidate.
Now - If I revisit their policies and actions of their 8 year reign in retrospective hindsight they actually didn't do or achieve that much of note. But they are still remembered by many as being an 'Excellent' leader.
So being full of B/S is maybe and potentially unpalatably part of Charisma
Some of the mass will be able to see through the B/S and see the little person behind the Green Curtain - others won't.
I totally agree with that,but lots of us still vote them into some sort of power trip.
That is the trick. So Its best to see through the glamour and B/S
Focus on the Policies , not the personality.
But, are they likely to deliver the policies if they don't have the personality to persuade others and manipulate it through the maze of political in-fighting and blocking?
I think alot of that is down to the 'tribe' to gauge the authenticity of the potential leader - if the BS-ometer is hitting Red in your gut -something is wrong.
Which I why I think most of 'us' unfortunately fall for the charisma of a leader rather than the policy or actions. Media can play a MASSIVE part in that.
I think Politicians are maybe the extreme end of where Leadership and Spin intersect. Maybe not quite the traits I was hoping to seek definition upon.
Obvious Leaders, whether good or bad need the skill to manipulate others, to me what is most important is their motives, now the motive may well be to scam people, or for self gratification.
But to reiterate there is a distinct difference between Leaders, and those who have been put into a situation where they are seen as leaders, so you could say there are natural leaders and artificial leaders, we do see this a lot in Politics and business, where people are promoted to a leadership role, only to fail miserably, quite often brought on by their lack of management skills, promoted to their "level of incompetence". we see also in other fields, like for instance Football, where managers are held solely responsible for the performance of the team, yet the appointed Captain of the team who in reality, being one of the boys, may well have more power over the performance of the team than the actual manager, yet it would be the Manager who would be sacked, "the buck stops here" scenario, and when this happens we usually see the sacked manager swept up by another team, where on many occasions he has done very well with the new team, proving overall he is a good manager.
The one thing managers do need is the permission of the workforce, to be managed, without that they are bound to fail, no matter how charismatic and manipulative they are.
But to reiterate there is a distinct difference between Leaders, and those who have been put into a situation where they are seen as leaders, so you could say there are natural leaders and artificial leaders, we do see this a lot in Politics and business, where people are promoted to a leadership role, only to fail miserably, quite often brought on by their lack of management skills, promoted to their "level of incompetence". we see also in other fields, like for instance Football, where managers are held solely responsible for the performance of the team, yet the appointed Captain of the team who in reality, being one of the boys, may well have more power over the performance of the team than the actual manager, yet it would be the Manager who would be sacked, "the buck stops here" scenario, and when this happens we usually see the sacked manager swept up by another team, where on many occasions he has done very well with the new team, proving overall he is a good manager.
The one thing managers do need is the permission of the workforce, to be managed, without that they are bound to fail, no matter how charismatic and manipulative they are.
Except that the dictionary definition (Collins, Oxford or Cambridge) of "manipulation" as applied to people has strong negative connotations, whereas there are no such connotations when the term is used with reference to machinery. I think that saying that leaders must by definition manipulate people, does not follow the current use of language and does not communicate the idea clearly.
Also, we have long ago established that managing and leading are different things, so saying that "manage infers manipulation" and therefore leaders are manipulative isn't accurate either.
Thinking of the managers I have had, I would never have called any of them manipulative. Nagging the tardy, maintaining the project plan, keeping an eye on all the balls in the air and being responsible for budget is managing (not leading), but is hardly manipulation.
Last edited:
No.
Some leaders are manipulative, by the dictionary definition of the word, but that does not mean that all leaders are, or that being manipulative is necessary for leadership.
I wouldn't agree that a person who manipulates someone is always seen to do it in a negative way, a person who has a deadline to meet, may offer inducements to meet their goal, this is a form of manipulation,, a female may use her attributes in a manipulative way, again not negative to her or whoever her prey is. A good leader has to bow to certain influences in order to maintain the status and to maintain his leadership, and may need to manipulate certain members of a team to meet the ultimate aim, maybe manipulation is too strong a term, as encouragement may be seen as a weak term, Leaders can be bullies, and a lot are, or leaders can be too weak to manage, especially when leading or managing a team, and i am sure that team members would see the Leader in several ways, mainly dependent on their own skills, the weak members may see the leader as a bully and the strong members would see the leader as someone who is ok, and a good manager, if we look at a disgruntled football player who was looked on by the team manager as essential, but the player felt he was not being treated right and wanted a transfer, if the Manager offered the player more money to stay, and succeeded in keeping him, I would say that was manipulation, it wasn't encouragement, it wasn't bullying, enticement yes,
I may have gone too far by saying all Leaders have to be manipulative, but Ii said it not meaning they had to be negative, maybe wily would be a better word.
( but don't look at the synonyms, for Wily)
I may have gone too far by saying all Leaders have to be manipulative, but Ii said it not meaning they had to be negative, maybe wily would be a better word.
( but don't look at the synonyms, for Wily)
Well, I was going on the way the word "manipulate" is generally used and understood with disapproval, as per the definition in three separate dictionaries.
The examples you give, if I had to use a word for what is going on, I would use "influence". When that is a little too general, I would say "persuade".
I know @Fadcode didn't say this, but he made me think about it since the sort of idea of how leaders motivate has been mentioned before.
If a "leader" needs to bribe the people around them with offers of money or power, then they are not demonstrating much in the way of leadership.
The examples you give, if I had to use a word for what is going on, I would use "influence". When that is a little too general, I would say "persuade".
I know @Fadcode didn't say this, but he made me think about it since the sort of idea of how leaders motivate has been mentioned before.
If a "leader" needs to bribe the people around them with offers of money or power, then they are not demonstrating much in the way of leadership.
Surely a good Leader/Manager would delegate power, and with it responsibility, and would may also relieve him/herself of the chance of it going wrong, whether giving power to someone could be classed as a bribe, I don't know, but delegation has always been seen as a good aspect of management/leadership.
We have seen this in Govt with devolution, privatisation, where the Govt although being the Governing body, would stand aside when things go wrong, and blame the body which they gave the power too, and they have been willing to offer bribes, most of our biggest Banks, and muti-national firms have been found out offering bribes for contracts etc, good example is when Mrs May gave the NI DUP a few Billion to help her form a Govt, obviously a bribe, without it, it was doubtful they would have backed her, did she manipulate them by offering the bribe?
What about the failings of the NHS Trusts which have been found to be at fault, very rare would you see a Minister sacked, even though they had, or should have had the responsibility to ensure the Trusts were run properly.
The delegation of power and responsibility, can often be a bad thing, depending on the intent, it does give those in power the use of a scapegoat when things go wrong, but can give them kudos when things turn out right.
Using specific words, to properly describe these actions/traits can be hard, influence, manipulate, coerce, bribe, etc can be quite difficult and I would be surprised if there was one that met all the criteria. There are many different types of leaders and many of the traits of some are not to be applauded, but they do lead and manage, take for instance Gadaffi, Saddam Hussein, and others of the same ilk, they ruled by fear and they lead by fear, but they were still revered by the populace, like we have seen many times in history, leaders no matter how cruel seem to be revered, and in most cases revered by fear.
We have seen this in Govt with devolution, privatisation, where the Govt although being the Governing body, would stand aside when things go wrong, and blame the body which they gave the power too, and they have been willing to offer bribes, most of our biggest Banks, and muti-national firms have been found out offering bribes for contracts etc, good example is when Mrs May gave the NI DUP a few Billion to help her form a Govt, obviously a bribe, without it, it was doubtful they would have backed her, did she manipulate them by offering the bribe?
What about the failings of the NHS Trusts which have been found to be at fault, very rare would you see a Minister sacked, even though they had, or should have had the responsibility to ensure the Trusts were run properly.
The delegation of power and responsibility, can often be a bad thing, depending on the intent, it does give those in power the use of a scapegoat when things go wrong, but can give them kudos when things turn out right.
Using specific words, to properly describe these actions/traits can be hard, influence, manipulate, coerce, bribe, etc can be quite difficult and I would be surprised if there was one that met all the criteria. There are many different types of leaders and many of the traits of some are not to be applauded, but they do lead and manage, take for instance Gadaffi, Saddam Hussein, and others of the same ilk, they ruled by fear and they lead by fear, but they were still revered by the populace, like we have seen many times in history, leaders no matter how cruel seem to be revered, and in most cases revered by fear.
Close enough to wallow in the Glory if it all goes well but just distant enough to not be directly associated with it if its a massive turd-sandwich minus the bread.
