Leadership

I think maybe because one does not want to be seen as a failure to his/her peers...

I have always had Management positions due to being outspoken and taking control of situations and using logic at hand...not that I am a pushy person either.
I think with staff I use a guiding hand rather than the stand over boss tactics that Ive seen others use, but then thats another thread altogether.

Actually that seems like it would go well in this thread. The idea of guiding is one that I understand and maybe I feel I can do that better from where I am. Or maybe that's a cop out.

I think your first answer is definitely accurate. I'm still chickenshit of being seen as a failure. However, I can see that subsiding with time. Maybe it's just time to get over it.

Interesting question.

I like being a leader, though I often get in that position by default/ a lead from behind sort of thing.

A story that one of my staff members loved to tell about me is about when I once attended an interpreter workshop for CEU's and because an old friend of mine was one of the presenters. I was one of just a handfull of deaf people; everyone else was hearing interpreters (including the staff guy). Probably about 200 people total. He said at the beginning, kiddingly, something like, "Now I don't want to see you up on stage teaching everyone at the INTERPRETER workshop!!"

So there was some activity, about translating a hearing idiom into ASL. (If you just translate the words, you're not really translating, because the ASL-speaker isn't aware of the idiom.) I was in the group of deaf people, and they didn't understand the idiom, and I explained it (all in ASL), and they came up with some good interpretations, and then when it was time to present the possibilities, I encouraged one of the guys to present what he came up with. He started to from the audience, and then went up on stage so everyone could see, and then was explaining, and then got stuck and looked at me, and I quickly threw out some stuff, and he was like oh right and continued, and then got stuck again and looked at me, and this happened a few more times and he begged me to just come up too, and the rest of our group started pushing me up there, and I turned beet red and looked around for my employee but he wasn't there, so I went ahead and supported the other guy and we really got into it and were coming up with some good stuff and THEN my employee came in the room...

... and totally hysterically cracked up laughing.

Hmph.

Meanwhile, I think you have all the qualities of an excellent leader, FreeDuck, go for it if the going is there.

That's a great story. I can so see you doing that.

I think part of why I always thought that those positions were unappealing is because I've seen it done badly so many times and have an inherent disrespect for authority in general. But, I've noticed that I tend to do it anyway. I think it's something that will probably just naturally happen if I stay anywhere long enough for it to.

Still, what about when you end up on a team with a bunch of duds. How do you lead them? If you're not in a position of leadership, you can hide behind them and/or get off the project quick. There are a lot fewer options when you have greater responsibility. Maybe I'm confusing responsibility with leadership.

And thanks, soz, for that mighty big compliment.

Leading duds is my absolute least favorite thing. It's only happened a couple of times, but I hate it. One was when I started at my job at the agency -- I was hired for the director position but my two (at the time) staff were already hired. Major duddage. I can't stand the rock and hard place of letting a dud do dud things and damage the whole enterprise, or take over for the dud and do it myself. Or, the other unattractive option, spend a lot of time and energy getting the dud up to speed -- actually just fine if the dud budges, but triply frustrating if he/ she doesn't.

One dud budged, the other didn't (after a LOT of effort), I fired the dud and started anew.

The other time I was the prez of a volunteer committee chock-full of duds. Nobody was getting anything done, and it was important stuff, and I was doing it all, and this was when sozlet was little and I had even less time than I do now -- and I wasn't getting paid! Plus the egos, ugh. One person had a Ph.D (HOW she got it, I have noooo idea, I'm not sure I've ever met such a comprehensively stupid person), and expected instant agreement every time she opened her mouth (well, all-Deaf group, so opened her hands I guess), and got huffy when there was any opposition to her (mind-bogglingly stupid!) suggestion.... etc., etc.

So I muscled through until I got the most important stuff done, then quit.

That one was all responsibility and no power, which is the worst combo, IMO. If you have the power to affect the makeup of the team, that is greatly preferable to just having the responsibility for coming up with some end product without having any power over the raw materials.

I agree with Soz completely. First, I think you'd make a terrific leader, FreeDuck and second, having all the responsibility and no power is the worst position to be in. Couple that with a group of duds and you can plan on losing a lot of sleep.

There are different leadership styles and each one has a group of adherents that think its the best way to lead. I don't think there is any one best way to lead. It depends on the individuals in the group, the dynamics of the group, the scope of the project, the temperament of the leader, and a whole host of things totally outside the control of anyone.

I guess I'm a natural leader because I've been in leadership roles in almost every job I've had. At the same time, I like projects where I can be an individual contributor as long as no one is in my shorts telling me how to do my job.

I've developed a leadership style based on my philosophy that people do a better job if they enjoy what they are doing. That can mean putting the right person on the right task, or making sure everyone has what they need to get the job done, or telling Mary and Sally to figure out a way to get along or leave their differences at the front door because its disruptive to the group and won't be tolerated, or springing for a surprise pizza party on a random Tuesday, or telling everyone to leave early because they worked so hard to meet last week's deadline and the sun is shining, or... you get the idea. The biggest thing I always do is to make sure that whatever the project or goal is, we work toward it as a group. I've never looked for or gotten a promotion on the backs of anyone. We've all grown and climbed as a team because that's who did the work and that's who gets the credit.

Thanks for that, J_B. I think the responsibility with no power is the situation I often end up in anyway. With only a few exceptions, I've been on projects with absent or disengaged or even confused "leaders". I hadn't realized that I respond to these situations by taking on the responsibility myself, but that is what I do. Hence, responsibility and no power, but not quite as much risk. If a massive failure occurred, my name would be several levels down on the **** list. But the truth is that a massive failure hasn't happened, and probably won't happen, and I just need to get over that.

And the duds, ugh. Those have to be dealt with whether or not I'm the actual leader, I guess. Those examples from soz gave me lots to think about though.

By the way, I completely agree with everyone's ideas of good leadership/management in this thread. It almost seems obvious if your goal is to complete the project. I think a lot of people have different goals -- like looking good, getting a promotion, or just asserting their authority, or maybe they don't even want the job. I always thought I wouldn't want such a job, but since my teammate made that comment, I started thinking that maybe I should want such a job. Somewhere in the back of my mind, though, I keep thinking that if people knew I was the one leading, they wouldn't follow, not at first anyway. Just call me Karl Rove.

Right up front let us be clear; there is no single, definitive model of what makes a leader. Trying to distinguish between "good" and "bad" leaders raises its own definitional problems, after all what is "good" is not universally known.

Leading strongly implies group activity, and we humans are for better or worse, herd animals. We need other people around us. One of the worst punishments we deal out, short of death, is exile. To transgress on the groups norms can put one into "Coventry", or into solitary confinement. We all want to be a part of the in-crowd, even though we sometimes deny it even to ourselves. We constantly check our behavior and beliefs against our groups norms. Our values, expectations and goals are absorbed from our parents, our classmates, friends, and our cultural set. What we think about leaders and how they "should" behave is also a product of our socio-cultural background.

Even within a homogenous culture, there are many different sorts of groups, and how they are led may be just as varied. A parent likely leads the family in a very different way than a basketball coach leads a team of high school players.

Scientific Management Theory describes one sort of organization, while Human Relations Management Theory describes very different organizations, and each theory calls for a different sort of leadership style. Managers (a type of leader) in organizations using the Scientific mode are authoritarian, issue orders and others follow them, more or less exactly. Communications tend to be formal and within a well-defined chain-of-command. Things tend to be compartmentalized, and tasks carefully defined. Those at the top of the organizational pyramid tend to make most of the important operational and policy decisions, and have the greatest amount of discretionary freedom. The organization type and leadership style in these authoritarian organizations is well suited to fast, decisive, and efficient use of resources. This sort of organization is found in the military and in those industries where the emphasis is on production of established goods at the lowest prices. Politically, this sort of organizational structure is found in totalitarian states. Though many in our culture dislike this organizational style, it has its proper place and will often be superior in results to alternative organizational styles.

Human Relations models are more horizontal, and less formal in structure. Important decision making can occur at almost any level within the organization. Short, informal chains-of-command encourage lateral thinking and far less "red-tape". Members of these organizations tend to be better educated and are more often creative thinkers than those in authoritarian structures. Tasks are less rigidly defined, though more emphasis on organizational goals is common. Effective leaders in this sort of organization must be persuasive with a very high order of verbal skills. Managing a group of Phds or wiz-kids, is like herding wild cats, and it ain't easy to set goals and objective for such groups. Most members of the organization will have a great deal of discretion in how they attain their objectives. This is a popular organizational type, though it often is a failure when applied to the inappropriate organizations/enviorments. It is able to respond more quickly to radical change than authoritarian systems, but finding the necessary consensus among the competing interests of the organization can be deadly. Gossip, intramural warfare, and inefficiencies are very common. This is the sort of organization often found in research groups, academic life, high-tech companies, church and school boards, etc.

Those are the extremes, most organizations are a mix of the two organizational styles. Some people are more comfortable in one organization, while other people seek out the opposite organizational style environment. If one were to try to engage most factory workers in discussion of what should be done, you are going to be frustrated and the workers will probably think you're trying to play some sort of trick on them. Tell a researcher that he must fill out a series of forms to change the course of his work, and he will resign or fight you to the last breath. Leaders have to be aware of the organizational style in order to best fit their personal style to problem solving before them.

Not all leaders are formally recognized. Informal leaders always exist, and sometimes they may have far more influence over the organization than the "boss". Informal leaders tend to exemplify the groups "ideals". A police Lieutenant may have the authority to order patrolmen about, but the real leader of the group may be an old patrol officer who couldn't pass a promotional test if all that was required was that he spell his name correctly at the top of the first page. Policemen tend to idealize experience, courage, integrity, street smarts, and the ability to avoid all un-necessary involvement with the formal organizational structure. The old street soldier will never make much money, receive public acclaim, or recognition, but other patrolmen will follow him into hell, while the Lieutenant may earn only contempt. Other examples, I'm sure will occur to the reader.

There are traits that seem to be common with effective leaders. Leaders, whether they are formal or informal, in an authoritarian or in a Human Relations style situation, can and should become more effective in their roles.

Effective leaders:

Reflect the group's idealized superior person. People don't often follow the odd-ball, the person who doesn't fit into their vision of what the group represents. There is also a tendency for people to have different idealization about what constitutes a formal leader from their own peer group. It is very important that the "leader" be regarded as being successful and lucky. In our culture some of the characteristics people look for in their leaders are: courage, loyalty, sincerity, forthrightness, a strong sense of values, compassion, and class. The leader is one of us, but better.

Has a vision of the future, and is able to communicate it to the group. People are anxious about what the future might bring, and they want someone to tell them what it either will be, or should be. Perhaps the most persuasive visions are those that the group already holds, but hasn't been able to quite express before the leader arrives. When the leader's vision reflects that of the group, or stirs them to make that vision come true, the group will throw themselves into the effort with enthusiasm … even if it means their own ruin. Being able to reach out and "touch" the emotions of the group is desirable. Communications skills may sometimes be in knowing when to stay silent. Shyness, uncertainty, and lack of decisiveness can destroy a leaders credibility in a heart beat, and once lost credibility is hard to regain.

Are able to motivate and direct the group through a coherent organizational structures appropriate to the environment, and the goals and objectives of the group. Collegial competition conducted in an atmosphere of cooperation can be a good thing, but cut-throat partisan politics within an organization can greatly degrade the groups ability to achieve their goals. The larger and more complex the organization, the more difficult it generally is to manage remote projects and people. The ability to appoint loyal subordinates with good leadership qualities, and investing them with discretion in carrying out their missions, is the essence of delegation.

Have a plan to achieve the group's goals. The plan doesn't have to be perfect, or even detailed, so long as it is clearly believed in. Plans and budgets are necessary, but have to be flexible enough to meet unforeseen snags. Inspiring plans that are fuzzy and ambiguous leave room for others to fill-in the blanks in ways that no single person could. No plan is perfect, and the leader may benefit by not being associated with elements of the plan that later fail. When the plan is a group effort, there is more dedication to making it come true and less finger-pointing and acrimony when failures occur. The leader will always remain "responsible" for outcomes, whether they be great successes or dismal failures. The members of the group need to feel protected and appreciated, and that is a big part of any leaders job.

Don't over manage. They point the direction, provide a "plan", and then step out of the way. "Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom." To pick over minor details can be taken as distrust, or lack of confidence. Both emotions reduce group members commitment to the leader and the goals the group wants to achieve.

To be clear, when I speak of "bad" leaders I'm speaking of ineffective leaders. Meaning, the project does not run well, has no clear direction or plan, the leader is absent or non-communicative, etc... It's possible that someone somewhere thinks that is a good leadership style, but somehow I doubt it.

Anyhoo, thanks for that second bit. That pretty much sums up what everyone here seems to be saying about the qualities of an effective leader. Those words give me a lot to think about.



That first bit is why I think I tend to lead from behind. I think that people who have worked closely with me might see me this way (definitely regard me as successful and lucky), but most people in my industry, when they think of "one of us but better" wouldn't picture someone like me right away. So I think the only way to become a leader in name as well as deed is to stay in one place long enough for everyone to be able to accept the idea of someone like me being a leader. That in itself will be quite an achievement since I am a consultant who can be sent on new assignments at any given moment. But it is something to contemplate.