What does leadership mean to you and what do you consider traits of a good leader? This is of course a potentially unanswerable question because what most people don't usually consider, are the conditions. People look at a person and consider someone as leadership material or not without looking at the case by case needs that may require leadership. As they say, fair weather doesn't make skilled sailors, but some people are better at leadership under stress than when conditions are fair and optimal - does that make them a bad leader?
One of the things I find interesting around leadership is the idea that there are born leaders (not true) or that leaders can be trained to be leaders (partly true). Leaders might not be born, but they are made. The problem that I find is that people often misunderstand this position, as they assume it is about a person developing leadership skills, which is possible to train like any skill, but this isn't what makes a leader.
There is only one thing that makes a person a leader.
A follower.
It doesn't matter how competent one is in the art of leadership, without followers, it is all just theoretical. This doesn't mean that developing the skills is a waste of time as if one is able to build a following, those skills come in handy as they help develop the relationship between leader and follower, they help build trust.
People follow leaders because they have the sense that they can trust the direction in which they go, but this is not to be confused with influencers. Having influence doesn't make a leader, or at least not one that is trusted. A lot of the social media "influencers" aren't leaders, they are just people who have a lot of followers and while they are necessary for a leader as well, the relationship is quite different. Not only that, one can have a lot of followers due to publicity and popularity and possess none of the leadership skills.
An influencer is someone who can affect decision making, a leader is someone who people are willing to proxy as the decision maker. People follow the choices of the leader as if they made the choice themselves. I find it quite intriguing that people willingly follow the decisions of a person and then blame that person if they don't like the destination. This is the problem with proxying out decisions, the first decision to proxy overrides the decisions the proxy makes - the blame is ill-directed.
Pretty much, whenever someone plays "follow the leader" there is fine print that says,
AT YOUR OWN RISK
Like I was saying about the influence of peer groups is large, so we should choose well - choosing a leader to follow is our own responsibility and while influencers might sway our opinion, ultimately, it is up to us.
Of course, leaders aren't just people, they can be ideals to, concepts that we follow and often do not pay attention to where we are being led. A lot of political affiliation is like this, where people pick a side and then set and forget, no longer sensitive to what their side is doing, no matter how much it might have changed since they first made the decision. "Brand loyalty" - even though the brand ain't what it used to be.
People expect leaders and influencers to do the right thing and lead by example and take those they lead by the hand and drag them along. I disagree. Everyone "should" be doing the right thing and setting an example. Easier said than done of course as no matter who we are, one thing we are always is, human.
I think this is definitely one of the key differences between leaders and social media influencers - the influencers will do things for attention, while the leaders will do things because something needs to be done. They don't do it because it will gain more followers, they do it because they believe it is the right thing to do - at least for them. If people "follow their lead", who is to blame if things go awry?
As said, leaders are made by the people who follow them into doing whatever the leader does, influencers are made by people doing what the influencer says. There is a big difference between following in one's footsteps, and going where someone tells you to go. The latter is not leadership, by my estimation of what a leader is.
I work with management levels to help them develop leadership skills and I can tell relatively soon who is going to likely make a good leader that people follow and who will likely not with a simple question.
Do I trust that this person is going to do their best?
If the answer is yes, it means that even when they make mistakes (as we all do), their followers will trust that they did their best and it didn't work out. Without that trust, a person can be influential, but not necessarily have people follow where they walk and when things go wrong, the followers disband. The other part of this is that when someone does their best, they do more than they would otherwise and when uncertain, measure twice and cut once. They make less mistakes.
Again though, I will reiterate, that a good leader in one dominion and set of conditions doesn't mean they are an all-round good leader. A good leader will understand this and surround themselves with people they trust enough to proxy and follow the lead of, when they themselves are out of their depth or understanding.
One thing I have observed often in my experience is that while people don't like being told what to do, most people will look for leadership in times of uncertainty and often, choose poorly. The reason is, they tend to follow the person who is confident that they know which way to go, not the one who has the skills and process to work it out - but leaves room for error, miscalculation and the risks of the unknown.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
