Moderator: Joy
Anonymous submission wrote:
While I do not believe any of the mentioned characteristics are incorrect for a leader to have, I do not think they go deep enough. Sure, a leader should be able to know "when to shut the fuck up [and all other posts related to knowing when to listen (and to add to this, people should also know when to speak up)]," have empathy, take criticism and use it to learn and grow, know their own shortcomings, be a team player, communicate well, etc. etc. But these aren't "basic features that a leader must possess" in my opinion. These are basic features everyone should possess. They aren't specific to leaders. Every individual who strives to have those characteristics would be a better person than they were yesterday. I'm sure there are many more characteristics that are basic requirements for leaders, but there are three that come to mind first:
1. A leader must be inspiring. By being inspiring, a leader can get the most out of the people in their charge. Inspiration via their words or actions can get people to do things they didn't even think they were capable of. Whatever the goal the leader has, through inspiration they not only direct the creative power and determination of the people they lead, but they can tap into a well of unknown and unbridled potential and harness it. Inspiration is also important in difficult times. A great leader can inspire people through a defeat, a near defeat, and when possible, turn those defeats and near defeats into victories. Be it on the battlefield, or personal difficulties, or whatever the "defeat" may be. And likewise, inspiration is important when things are going well. Inspiration to not grow complacent. Inspiration to continue to strive for betterment even though it seems things can't get much better.
2. A leader is charismatic. Now, this kind of goes hand in hand with inspiration. And I don't necessarily believe this is something a leader NEEDS as much as it's something we tend to see very often, if not always, in leaders. People are drawn to leaders for one reason or another. I think charisma is something that can have an opinion question of its own ("what does charisma mean to you?") so I won't delve too deeply into it. But if you are looking to be a leader and aren't there yet, one of the best things you can do is learn to be more charismatic and learn how to use it.
3. A leader must be a teacher. Now, a leader must be a student, as well. But again, everyone should be a student. So I am going to leave that out. I don't think I need to go into great detail as to what being a teacher means, but I think it's important to note that a great teacher is adaptive to the learning styles of their students. Not everyone learns the same way and needs the same attention, but a great teacher will be aware of this and do what they can to maximize the potential of each of their students.
And, as a bonus, I thought of a fourth thing as I was writing (and I'm too lazy to go up and edit "three" to "four"): A leader must know how to delegate effectively. I think something about delegation was in one of Anthony's posts, but I don't think it's a specific style of leadership. I think it's a quality that all leaders should have and goes hand in hand with "knowing one's shortcomings." While knowing one's shortcomings is something everyone should do, a leader has an ability no one else does: Delegating those shortcomings. While we all can learn from those shortcomings and try and better ourselves going forward, a leader has the ability to delegate any shortcoming to an individual in their charge. And I believe that recognizing you have a shortcoming and delegating it to an individual is only half the battle. The other half of the battle is delegating it to someone who will be effective. Delegating something to someone who is not any better at it than you are is not an effective use of delegating. That being said, I think this fourth ability may mean that "teaching" isn't a basic feature a leader must possess. But, if a leader delegates being a teacher to someone else and that person is charismatic and inspiring...they may find they are no longer the leader."
My views on this have not changed.From 2016 "On the Nature of Leadership" discussed on Ab Antiquo v.1 wrote:Success is measured only by acquisition. A leader, by definition, motivates, organizes, and mobilizes a group of individuals to achieve a single goal or vision. As a result, a successful leader must make use of their resources to achieve, and those resources aren't just material, but also the people gathered in active support of the vision in question.Oberon wrote: What makes a leader successful?
A leader, however, isn't a singular driving force in the mechanism of success. One mustn't think of a leader as the head of a the great beast that is the idea, goal, or vision. A leader is just another cog in the machine, a part of a whole, and as a great man once said, "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts." (Aristotle) Assuming the leader is the head of an idea leads one to mistakenly assume that, once you cut off the head, the idea dies, but an idea is like the Hydra. It's not so easily killed, and when you cut off one head, another will grow in its place.
That said, a leader is as integral a part as any other parts of the whole. A leader holds the responsibility of organizing the parts for the benefit of the whole. A leader has to focus on the big picture, and in that, a leader has to be able to see the big picture — the whole — in order to consider leading at all. Without that perspective, the whole suffers because the part in which its main function is to organize the whole to run isn't working effectively and may need an upgrade.
Because of this position, a successful leader knows that they can't do everything. It's impossible. One part can't simultaneously perform the functions of all the other parts of the whole. That's just simple mechanical logic. However, a successful leader must still know the functions and purposes of all the parts in order to best arrange them and make the best use of them. A successful leader also knows to delegate tasks and responsibilities effectively.
From the position the leader sits, they are also responsible for not only spotting possible crisis, but preparing for it well in advance as well as being flexible enough to be able to arrange the parts of the whole to overcome it and continue with business as usual. They must also use this sight and mobilizing skill to see opportunity when it comes and act for the benefit of the whole. A poor leader, in contrast, is blind and unprepared.
Another core responsibility of a leader is troubleshooting. A successful leader checks to make sure all the parts are functioning properly, and since these parts are people, that means they must be happy and healthy in order to work. That's not to say that it's the job of a leader to be the psychologist, the parent, the teacher, the cook, the house keeper, etc. There are people who can fulfill those roles far better than the leader can. But a leader can recognize an issue and direct an individual to the proper person or channels to get back into working order (happy and healthy). Just as the leader knows they can't do everything, their followers must also be aware of that fact and not mistake the leader as a god who can personally fix all of their problems and has all the answers. They aren't and can't.
A successful leader is part of a successful team. They must possess an eye for excellence so that they know it when they see it in others or not. That way, a leader can appoint the best to jobs, tasks, and responsibilities with the trust that they can do them correctly and effectively. Said trust is only forged through the knowledge of one's apparent excellence. With an eye for excellence, the leader also knows what can be done to help make a person excellent, encouraging and driving them to be the best because the leader knows the best. They can spot it in a crowd. You're only as strong as your weakest link, and a poor leader lets the rest of the parts rust, jam, and break, leaving the whole in poor state.
There are many styles of leadership, but one thing remains consistent across the board, and it's that leadership is organized partnership.
With that said, I agree with Aziza in saying that leadership is temporary as all things in life (and unlife). It's the nature of things. Leadership is a state of being, a role, an act, and responsibility, and a person passes through these things as they do all states, roles, acts, and responsibilities in their existence.
Really, who wants to do the same thing forever? I'd imagine it'd get boring after a century or two.
So, the final responsibility of a leader is to pass the role on to the next leader who exhibits all of the above qualities and can handle the responsibility that comes with it.
At least that's my perspective as a (former) CEO.
