Traits of leadership.
- Thread starter TeeDee
- Start date
Delegate = I will give you responsibility because I think you will do a good job, maybe even a better job, than I will.
Bribe = I want something from you, I will promise you something of value to you in exchange.
We might need to define what TeeDee meant when he asked us to describe what we thought were the traits of Good Leadership. Based on some posts, people apparently have different ideas about what "good" means. When the same word is being used to describe the leadership of Gandhi and Stalin it should be a sign that we need to step back and define terms better.
I don't know how we can have reached a place where it is suggest that politicians and businesses offering bribes is a trait of good leadership.
Im guessing it is from what perspective we approach it - is it quintessentially Good for the leader or for those that he/she Leads.
Complicated.
Maybe time to take a step back from the Far end of the spectrum ( strategy ) and focus upon day to day experiences ( tactics ) of Good Leadership and how that displays itself or is worked towards
Last edited:
Mrs May and the DUP, maybe that could be called a bribe, but Mrs May was not leading the DUP, she was leading the Conservatives and attempting to buy an ally. Subsequent events showed that it was not a very effective method of forging an alliance. Was it manipulation, well, Manipulation = controlling someone or something to your own advantage, often unfairly or dishonestly. Offering funds in exchange for support is neither unfair or dishonest unless there is an X ingredient that the fund recipient is unaware will bite them later.
Well you can't look at these things through rose tinted spectacles, unless you know the bad, it's hard to know the good.
It would be hard to look back and pick out a good leader, Manager, as they have all had their faults, but saying that most of them got the job done, so maybe if the job gets done regardless of the harm caused you could say they were GOOD leaders.
I must take you to task for your last statement, the bribe to the DUP meant May took office despite being beaten in an election(no majority), so therefore against the electors, if she had not been in power she could not have offered the bribe, therefore in my opinion it borders on corruption.
It would be hard to look back and pick out a good leader, Manager, as they have all had their faults, but saying that most of them got the job done, so maybe if the job gets done regardless of the harm caused you could say they were GOOD leaders.
I must take you to task for your last statement, the bribe to the DUP meant May took office despite being beaten in an election(no majority), so therefore against the electors, if she had not been in power she could not have offered the bribe, therefore in my opinion it borders on corruption.
I am willing to bet that there are people who went on trips with Broch, or worked with him, that reckoned that he was a pretty good leader, even if he doesn't think of himself that way 
I am willing to bet that there are people who went on trips with Broch, or worked with him, that reckoned that he was a pretty good leader, even if he doesn't think of himself that way
LOL, only if they subscribe to the despot, maniacal, dives in where others are too sensible to tread, model of leadership
Could do.
It's easier dealing with in extremis examples though because they are clearer and help make a point easier.
On a day-to-day basis it's going to be very variable.
In hierarchical organisations such as the Police and armed forces then leadership is pretty much a given. It's more about do as I say or you're in trouble (the kind of leadership that Van Wild seemed to be nudging toward).
In my day-to-day life (and, again, this is about my experiences) then leadership is generally by accord. My line manager is only in charge of me nominally - she 'leads' me by my consent. I will only do something if I think it's right, not just because I've been told to do something. If I think I have been given a poor instruction I will refuse to do it. Though I will explain why I think it's poor and why I am refusing. But that may also be because of where I work - in a professional (hopefully) setting in the NHS. As such, any dissent is respected and not treated as insubordination (or told, as in Van Wild's example, to lead, follow, or get out. So in my day-to-day experience, leadership is merely tacit and nominal.
I like it that way, and find myself instinctively dubious about anyone overly enthusiastic about wanting to be a leader or what even makes a leader. That starts stinking of alpha-male quite quickly and I don't get on well with people like that.
