General/soldier, leader/follower, shepherd/sheep, whatever words you prefer to define these roles.
I’ve been around long enough to know for certain a few things about myself and one of those things is that I am not a general, I am a soldier.
I have in some of my jobs had to be in a position of authority and while I am fully capable of doing a good job of it, I am not completely comfortable in that role. It is not in my inherent nature to plan and delegate; what I am built for, what I do best is take orders and perform specified tasks and I am very, very good at it. I accept and thrive in this role; it’s what I am, it’s what I am good at.
I was in positions of leadership since I was 20 years old and new in the military. That went on for 40 years (in and out of the military) until I retired. People seem to defer to me and trust my judgement. I’m good at making smart decisions based on relevant information, and keeping projects on track. Understanding human nature also plays a large part in being an effective leader.
I hate being where the buck stops, but I like being the right-hand (wo)man. I can have little or a lot of authority, but I like standing behind someone who has some kind of vision and helping make it happen.
Haven’t most generals in history been soldiers? I’d be more comfortable giving orders to people had I once been in their place and similarly I’d be more comfortable taking orders from people with experience in my position. To what extent are we indeed composed by nature to assume one role or the other?
Starting life as a young soldier, I hated being bossed about by stupid generals, so I fought my way to the top. Once i got there, I realized what a mugs game it was working twice as hard, so now I’m a mercenary ad much happier.
I’m also in the middle - not for reasons of confidence or of wanting to avoid “ultimate responsibility”, but for reasons of scope. I lack the patience for truly macroscopic visionary planning and execution. In essence I don’t want to be a general OR a foot soldier, I want to be the squad leader of an elite task force who’s consulted for strategic decisions, but then let loose to Make That Part Happen as opposed to being the guy who has to track and direct N different teams with different goals to make sure the Big Picture is fitting together right.
I’m more of a technician. Conflicting requirements and doubled chains of command look to me like a setup, and I like having one person to go to for clarification. That said, I like it when my job warrants a high level of situational authority; I like being in charge during a crisis, and I don’t mind digging in my heels when things aren’t going to work.
The one time that I recall being insubordinate was when my boss asked me to do something that would have been inefficient and had been explicitely banned by his boss (though in true Radar O’Reilly/passive agressive fashion, bigger fires flared up and I couldn’t get to the job before the shift meeting.)
I would never have known this about myself if it were not for online gaming, would never have guessed it, but I’m naturally a general. I started out a fighter, and I’m definitely a mediocre fighter, but I’m naturally skilled at planning strategies, and during battles I tend to look at what the enemy is doing and what we are doing and tell people what strategy to take. Maybe more of a field commander type than a general.
I much prefer to be a soldier when there’s a general in the vicinity, but I find myself stepping up to be the general when I’m surrounded by other soldiers.
I’ve always seen myself as a second in command. I am not a very creative person; I don’t have visions and good ideas. If I’m given an idea, however, I can execute it very well, either by myself or leading a team to do so.
I tend to lead, but I’m smart enough to know when to follow orders as well. That I learned through years of experience, sometimes it’s better to follow even when you know you’re being lead up the wrong path