There has been plenty of talk about leadership and the training of leaders for a long time. It has often seemed odd to me that some discussions talk about leadership as though it is something that everyone naturally aspires to. As far as I am concerned, Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" is a good take on the burdens and stress of being a leader.
On the other hand, it also seems odd that groups can mill and grumble but without a leader that serves as a center, group response may not occur. Our experienced emergency medical technician instructor in a recent CPR class said that if we have to give someone artificial respiration, we should get right to work but should point to a likely looking person and say,"You! Call 911! Now!" He said that if you say "Somebody call 911!", people can wait around for somebody else to make such a call. You'd almost think that an emergency would tend to spark multiple calls instead of none but I guess that is not usually what happens.
There is always the possibility that leadership transforms into control and even tyranny but democratic procedures and the natural feistiness of many adults will quickly result in challenges, complaints and gripes in many, maybe too many, cases. I don't know much about Lord Acton or his famous saying that all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If we are honest and accurate, nobody has all that much power, although the power to kill or arrange for death is an important one that people can and do have. I have a suspicion that if we include all human parents there are or have been in say the last 10000 years, far more power holders have abdicated at some point than have clung inappropriately to power. Whether that applies to retired officers, chairs and politicians, I don't know but I imagine many were not corrupted.
A major feature of being a leader seems to me to be facing contradictions and opposite opinions, most about what courses of action will best lead to a goal. Of course, in a modern democracy, no one openly states that his main goal is the destruction or damage of a particular person, class, institution or practice but I imagine that is the goal of some. I am a student of human decision making and I realize that for many, it is difficult to realize that nobody can see very far down the road to the future. So, when a mayor or governor or president or chair or CEO decides we will take path X instead of Y, it is never totally possible to know after the fact that Y would have been completely better. It is pretty certain there was no way for anyone at all to know about the negatives of X before trying that path. Besides, in only a short time, other variables, not known or considered relevant can intervene or combine in ways impossible to foresee and evaluate.
A link that may be of interest: Psych Today on leadership
Teachers lead but aim for development of students while business, political, and military and sports leaders are aiming for group success and have a clearer way of knowing if there was success or failure, at least over the following decade.
On the other hand, it also seems odd that groups can mill and grumble but without a leader that serves as a center, group response may not occur. Our experienced emergency medical technician instructor in a recent CPR class said that if we have to give someone artificial respiration, we should get right to work but should point to a likely looking person and say,"You! Call 911! Now!" He said that if you say "Somebody call 911!", people can wait around for somebody else to make such a call. You'd almost think that an emergency would tend to spark multiple calls instead of none but I guess that is not usually what happens.
There is always the possibility that leadership transforms into control and even tyranny but democratic procedures and the natural feistiness of many adults will quickly result in challenges, complaints and gripes in many, maybe too many, cases. I don't know much about Lord Acton or his famous saying that all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If we are honest and accurate, nobody has all that much power, although the power to kill or arrange for death is an important one that people can and do have. I have a suspicion that if we include all human parents there are or have been in say the last 10000 years, far more power holders have abdicated at some point than have clung inappropriately to power. Whether that applies to retired officers, chairs and politicians, I don't know but I imagine many were not corrupted.
A major feature of being a leader seems to me to be facing contradictions and opposite opinions, most about what courses of action will best lead to a goal. Of course, in a modern democracy, no one openly states that his main goal is the destruction or damage of a particular person, class, institution or practice but I imagine that is the goal of some. I am a student of human decision making and I realize that for many, it is difficult to realize that nobody can see very far down the road to the future. So, when a mayor or governor or president or chair or CEO decides we will take path X instead of Y, it is never totally possible to know after the fact that Y would have been completely better. It is pretty certain there was no way for anyone at all to know about the negatives of X before trying that path. Besides, in only a short time, other variables, not known or considered relevant can intervene or combine in ways impossible to foresee and evaluate.
A link that may be of interest: Psych Today on leadership
Teachers lead but aim for development of students while business, political, and military and sports leaders are aiming for group success and have a clearer way of knowing if there was success or failure, at least over the following decade.
--
Bill
Main blog: Fear, Fun and Filoz
Main web site: Kirbyvariety
