Leadership

Great Debates
1

One of the things on my mind in the last week have been questions of good leadership. I think it’s an important topic, and the quality of leadership has an enormous impact on any group.

The groups of which I am a member seem, on the whole, well run. I am grateful for their existence, and I have respect for the effort and difficulty which their administrators face. I intend my comments to edify, not to criticize.

I offer my own views on the responsibilities of leadership. I speak with all humility, speaking not ex cathedra, but drawing on my own experience as a leader hopefully to the benefit of all.

When one finds oneself in a position of leadership, especially over a group consisting of intelligent, willful and cantankerous people, certain responsibilities ensue.

It is for good reason that the captain does not fraternize with the crew. Familiarity does breed contempt; It is difficult to maintain authority when you have represented yourself as a peer, and vice versa. A good leader must hold himself apart to maintain his authority. It is only as Shakespeare’s king, disguised as an ordinary man, that he may properly venture forth and converse as a peer.

Any leader should exercise his authority sparingly but decisively. It also behooves an authority to pretend not to hear the ordinary griping that goes on; he has his officers to handle mundane conflicts. Colonel Potter said it best: “When they make you a Colonel, they take the bone out of your head that makes you explain orders.” Any good leader should follow that advice. Don’t waste your time on warnings or hints; either make a decision and enforce it, or don’t even deign to notice the issue.

The responsibilities of leadership are difficult; the restrictions on one’s conduct even more so. It matters little that one did not choose the responsiblities, or that one feels unsuited for the demands and restrictions. A leader fails to observe them at the peril of both himself and those to whom he has responsibility.

2

Um . . . yes. I agree.

And I’m really glad to see you still posting.

(Should I add something? Oh . . . okay. ahem)

I know myself well enough not to even think of taking a standard position of leadership. I am too concerned with how everyone is feeling and if everyone is happy. So, just make me the adjutant lieutenant in charge of morale, thanks.

3

I think different sorts of leaders work for different situations and people. Most of the bosses I have had you might consider overly familiar; we go out for beer and chat occasionally. However, even when we do that I am aware that this is The Boss, which I think is the important thing. The fact that we grabbed a beer yesterday night does not make me feel that I can refuse his orders. What exactly do you consider “holding oneself apart”? I think it also depends on how “high” you are above those you lead; I think a sergeant can be a little less aloof with his men than a general would be.

Mmmm…so do you think that if, say, you’re not supposed to show up at work late, and a ten-year employee violates it, you fire him/her? I think sometimes warnings are appropriate; it depends on the level of discipline you require. In the army, it is far more important that people follow the rules exactly, or people can end up dead. However, plenty of people (myself included) would not wish to work for someone who ran the place with such an iron hand. I prefer a little freedom and friendliness from my leaders, although I agree that there can be trouble if they become regarded as a true “peer”.

[Moderator Note: if this debate becomes (or was intended to be) a discussion of this particular message board’s leadership, I will move it to the Pit–the designated place for comments about the admins/mods/board. That’s not a slam on your OP or motives, SingleDad; that’s just where that sort of thread is supposed to go.]

Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that She is pink; logically, we know She is invisible because we can’t see Her.

4

I understand. The primary reason I posted here is that I sincerely wished this to become a discussion on the abstract qualities of leadership, and not a thread of criticism. I urge anyone responding to this thread to maintain the abstract tone, and most emphatically not allow this thread to degenerate to a gripe session.

I’m making the case that a leader should hold himself apart to some degree. To what degree depends on the natural cooperation of the group. When the natural cooperation is high, the leader can allow himself more participation.

Agreed. For instance, at work, my Team Leader is pretty much “one of the guys.” He really has mostly administrative duties; any authority he has comes from respect for his knowlege and position, not from his titular authority.

The VP, a personal friend of mine from a previous company, does not hang out with us so much. He’s a good leader. He listens well, he makes sure that everyone’s opinion is noted, but no one feels they can sway his opinion by appealing to him personally.

There is also significant contention at my place of business. We are considering massive structural changes to our products, and naturally there is significant disagreement over the direction those changes should take.

The senior executives (VP and CTO) are making extreme pains to make it clear that the decisions will be made according to the dictates of reason; they are avoiding the perception that some people are part of their “in-group” and thus have privileged access. I think that as we decide on a direction, people who may not entirely agree will feel reassured that the decision was not made for personal reasons, and hopefully with continue to contribute.

Obviously a difficult situation. But I think the fundamental principles I outlined earlier apply. Most probably the senior executive should ignore such behavior; a closer supervisor might make an inquiry. If the situation is clearly disruptive, the closer supervisor might give a warning.

But a senior executive should either not notice the behavior at all, or should be very decisive about it. A public warning from someone senior would be rightly seen as a humiliation; morale would certainly suffer. If the senior must notice the problem (because it has become so obvious and severe), they should make decisive action, probably sacking the guy.

It’s not a matter of how tightly one enforces discipline. It’s a matter of the tone and attention of the leadership. Regardless of the flexibility and “friendliness,” when authority must be exercised, the leadership should exercise it decisively. In a flexible/friendly atmosphere, authority need not be exercised at all: a wide range of behavior is tolerated and perhaps encouraged.

In fact in the more flexible of authority-organized groups, it behooves the leadership to observe its forms. When the fewments hit the windmill, and authority must be exercised, a leader can find that he has undermined his ability to manage the situation, and disaster and chaos can ensue.

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

5

FWIW: Sitting here with Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations.

On leaders, and leadership:

Plato, the old cynic:

**

Havelock Ellis, with today’s calendar deep thought:

**

James Madison in the Federalist Papers:

** Whoa, I hear that! (Hint: read it out loud, and then the clauses make sense. People don’t write like that anymore ::: sigh :: :slight_smile:

Rudyard Kipling, just for fun:

**

JFK, weighing in with a sound bite:

**

Walter Lippmann, a man who saw an unusually large number of leaders come and go during his lifetime:

**

And we can’t leave without hearing from Harry S. Truman…

**

…who also gets the last word:

**

“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!” - the White Queen

6

True enough. However, I do not think that a very small number of less-cooperative sorts must needs make the leader become “aloof”. If one or two people in my workplace were less-cooperative, I would not think that all the leaders must then distance themselves. Assuming that the vast majority prefer to be cooperative and enjoy the less aloof leadership, then the benefits/harm of those few dissidents must be evaluated. While the dissidents cannot be allowed special treatment, if they do more good than harm for the group, firing them may not be necessary. If they are vocal and numerous enough to harm the group more than they contribute, then they should be fired. This is solely a decision of the leader him/herself.

I agree that this is a good thing. However, it is entirely possible that there is someone who is so in love with their idea that s/he feels that the decision must have been made on personal grounds (since anyone with half a brain could see that his/her option A is the only thing to do, yadda yadda yadda), and will complain vocally. The vast majority may think the decision was fair and based on reason, but this person would not agree, and would have a personal stake in the issue. In this case, a less aloof leader would have a couple options: ignore it, try to explain (briefly) why Option B was chosen and ignore further comment or fire/censure the complainer. Which option is best depends on the dynamics of the group.

I think we agree that a degree of “separateness” is good in a leader, and also that if the leader is obviously personally biased it will cause dissent. However, even an unbiased leader is not wholly free from such a charge; people are funny sometimes, and may see things that aren’t there. The degree of separateness best suited to the situation depends on the group and the group’s goal. Personally, I prefer a very friendly and casual relationship with my closer supervisior, and a cordial but not overly familiar relationship with my senior supervisior. It does not cause problems for me, since I tend to respect authority, and few I have worked for have been inclined to favoritism.

There are also dangers in aloofness. If carried to extremes, it becomes uncaringness and can harm the worker’s loyalty. When I worked for a large law firm, I had little loyalty to the upper echelons who never interacted with me except on an official level, and left as soon as a good opportunity presented itself. In my current situation, I work hard and stay at my job (although I could get another with better pay) because I believe my superiors care about me and I care about them. I certainly would not feel that way if they were very distant.

I suppose I will have to go with a resounding “it depends”. I think we agree on the qualities of leadership, but given my personality and experiences, I tend to come down on the side of a more casual, friendly relationship with my superiors. I can see that in certain situations this might not be the best sort of leader, though. Many people do seem to prefer a casual relationship with their boss; this only becomes a detriment if uncooperative sorts are numerous and the cooperative workers are adversely affected. If the cooperative workers are not bothered by the uncooperative ones, and the uncooperative ones contribute significantly, a less-aloof leader may function well; the cooperative workers may prefer the friendliness and accept the occasional complaint from dissidents as the price they pay for a casual atmosphere.

Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that She is pink; logically, we know She is invisible because we can’t see Her.

7

One problem with some leaders is that you give them a little power, and WHAM! Next thing you know, they’ve been corrupted and use their power to unfairly weild their authority with inconsistant enforcement (“I don’t like this person, so I will ride his ass”), or simply become an arrogant person whose head can’t fit into an average sized room. They quickly become NOTHING like the person who deserved that authority to begin with. Then, what is to be done? Especially in situations where the people who have to deal with this person in a position of power, or their decisions affect you personally, and you have no say as to removing them?

Yer pal,
Satan

http://www.raleighmusic.com/board/Images/devil.gif

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One week, one day, 22 hours, 2 minutes and 48 seconds.
356 cigarettes not smoked, saving $44.59.
Life saved: 1 day, 5 hours, 40 minutes.

8

Unlike the opposite, which belongs in the “Ask the Gay Guy” thread. <rimshot>

9

Well, the way I see it, you have a few choices. If this is an involuntary association (like a job), you can either deal with it, go to THAT person’s superior and bitch to them, or find a new job.

The choices are easier for an voluntary association. Either deal with it or leave.

Saint Eutychus H.M.S.H.
" ‘He is a prince’ , the minstrels sing.
Among men, yes. Among fools he is a king."
Disney Shorts
The Eutychus Papers

10

“The Volleyball Game”

(A work of fiction–all resemblance to any persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.)

Once upon a time there was a large corporation whose employees got together for a pickup volleyball game during the lunch hour. (It was the kind of big company that had showers and a gym, so they could shower before going back to work.) There weren’t any regular teams; whoever showed up, played.

One player, known as Spike, was notorious both for her desire to spike the ball, and for her complete inability to do so. The other players had long since grown used to this quirk, and whenever Spike whomped the ball straight into the net, they would all simply roll their eyes and shout, “Retard!” at her in exasperation, and continue with the game.

One day the Boss decided he would like to play volleyball with his employees. This was fine with them; he wasn’t such a bad guy. However, the first time Spike whomped the ball into the net, when the Boss happily shouted, “Retard!” along with everyone else, Spike rounded on him furiously.

“How dare you call me a retard!” she screamed. “This is harassment!” Immediately several of her closest friends gathered around her and began to excoriate the Boss for harassing Spike. Just as quickly, others spoke up in defense of the Boss. The rest of the players stood around in bafflement, wondering what they should do.

Needless to say, the volleyball game was over, and the Boss never tried to play with them again.

Moral: When playing a friendly game of volleyball, it’s not how you hit the ball–it’s what you say while you’re doing it.

“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!” - the White Queen

11

I cannot agree that leaders need to hold themselves apart as a blanket statement. I do a lot of theatre–it is a cooperative venture. Directors who “draw a line” not only have less enjoyment, but their shows tend to not be as good, in my experience. I’m trusting this person to not let me look like an idiot; I have to have personal connection with them.

As a coach of speech and debate, especially in my early years, I was more like a big brother to my team than SingleDad’s model of a leader. We won a lot, and much more than most teams that had leaders who set themselves apart. My boss, BTW, was called “Mom” by some of the team.

If leaders don’t explain the why of their orders, they shouldn’t expect the orders to be understood or followed. The military is not really very applicable to civilian applications.

In general, we would do better in most situations with less centralized leadership and allow intelligent adults to be working alongside each other. Leaders, in my opinion, tend to be those with some vision who can share it with others (what Borman might call a fantasy-chain). Tin pot dictators are autocrats, not leaders.

Bucky