Thursday, October 8, 2009
It is not about me.
It is not about me. I imagine that could be a mantra for any leader. It is not about me. How often do leaders think it is about them (me)? I've said before I have a hard time with the concept of "leader and follower." I don't want to follow anyone, I don't know too many folks who do. A leader can be anyone that supports, encourages, motivates others to do things that matter to them. In my mind the real essence of leadership is the capacity to help others make meaning of what they are doing. So, what do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting that you question the leader/follower concept but later define the essence of leadership as helping others make meaning. Aren't the others you speak of followers?
ReplyDeleteFor me, it is a two step process: I need to think about myself first and only then can I help others make meaning. Using this two step approach (which expands on your statements), I agree with your statements.
My original thinking: how do I XX underproductive YY and make them better? Where XX is motivate, train, or lead and YY is teachers, employees, or volunteers, for example.
My new thinking: What is my role in creating or allowing an environment that fosters under-productive YY?
Would love to hear other thoughts and opinions.
Kirk
The leader follower concept is an interesting debate. I, too, struggle with this idea but truly think it is possible to be a leader on a deserted island. For example, I see a leader as the type of person who will fulfill their potential and perhaps go beyond even though nobody is looking and nobody is going to reward them for their efforts. It is a survivor/pioneer mode of ethics to strive and surface to the top if for nobody else but yourself.
ReplyDeleteMy thought (still in it's infancy) is that leadership is situational. In some situations people would rather have someone else lead (assumption). For example, I have no presidential aspirations. I do not envy anyone in that office, so I will defer to others. However locally I could run for office. At my school site there are plenty of people who have told me they are happy that I am an administrator and "leading the charge". I got into this gig as I was unhappy about some of
ReplyDeletemy own experiences with past leaders (quality).
In some instances I am perfectly happy to let others make the decisions while I focus my efforts elsewhere. While in issues that matter I prefer to be a key architect. This is why I have a hard time getting past the leader/follower paradigm. However, perhaps there is room for both, or a variety. I understand what Dr. Faverty is getting at, I just am not sure it applies all the time.
I like the dichotomy of the "idea" of leaders and followers. It seems so simple and black and white; you are either one or the other and once you picked a side you play that role.But that is too simple to be true. In fact I personally believe there are more than two parties involved in an organization - not just leaders and followers - but also "observers". Those who choose to not pick a side and not take any action and allow others to do the "work" whatever that may be.
ReplyDeleteNow, that being said, in regards to being a leader - I think that in any organization, in any event the leader is a chameleon and may begin as a leader but plays multiple roles throughout. I think its that flexibility that makes a good leader. So in that sense I agree with Patrick that its not a "leader and followers" relationship but folks with one common goal making each other better. I also agree with Kirk that it is necessary for the leader to look within to identify their strengths and weaknesses first so that they know how to lead and when.