The argument is leadership is seldom an innate skill. To be sure there is a case for personal charisma or even the ability to inspire those around you, but true leadership, the kind that rallies nations, is a refined, learned skill. Military intuitions, like West Point, have long believed that leaders are trained, not born. Leading men and women into battle or into the boardroom, the skills are essentially the same. It is no coincidence: a disproportionate amount of military-trained individuals find themselves in leadership positions in the corporate sphere.
Humans have historically been concerned with their personal security and survival. Now, they spend an inordinate amount of time in the employment of organizations, typically corporations. Yet, humans are still driven to affiliate themselves with one another to protect their security and belongings. Indeed, even within the corporate structure people are compelled to protect one another from being fired or protecting the "herd." Amidst all this they are constantly looking leaders to help them, and they are seldom to found among their supervisors.
It has been argued that leaders emerge from informal structures, not from rigid institutions. So, despite the military's emphasis on leadership, true leaders of men and women are unofficially and seemingly randomly appointed. The theory as to why one person is held up as a leader and another is not is still subject to much speculation. They are never appointed or respected because of their position within the organization; they emerge by means of influence. This influence is the ability to gain cooperation from others by means of persuasion alone, seldom from the threat of force.
A theorist, Abraham Zaleznik, identified substantive differences between leadership and management. According to Zaleznik, leaders are inspired visionaries, concerned with substance. On the other hand, managers are planners who are concerned with process. Another leadership theorist, Warren Bennis, further explained the difference between managers and leaders.
Bennis alleged that managers administer, while leaders innovate. Managers ask how and when, while leaders ask what and why. Managers imitate, while leaders originate. Furthermore, he argued managers emulate the classic good soldier, whereas leaders are their own person, preoccupied with originality. Indeed, it seems leadership, though a skill that can be learned is a way of living. Leadership programs can teach you how to lead, but it seems a leader simply knows how to lead.
Humans have historically been concerned with their personal security and survival. Now, they spend an inordinate amount of time in the employment of organizations, typically corporations. Yet, humans are still driven to affiliate themselves with one another to protect their security and belongings. Indeed, even within the corporate structure people are compelled to protect one another from being fired or protecting the "herd." Amidst all this they are constantly looking leaders to help them, and they are seldom to found among their supervisors.
It has been argued that leaders emerge from informal structures, not from rigid institutions. So, despite the military's emphasis on leadership, true leaders of men and women are unofficially and seemingly randomly appointed. The theory as to why one person is held up as a leader and another is not is still subject to much speculation. They are never appointed or respected because of their position within the organization; they emerge by means of influence. This influence is the ability to gain cooperation from others by means of persuasion alone, seldom from the threat of force.
A theorist, Abraham Zaleznik, identified substantive differences between leadership and management. According to Zaleznik, leaders are inspired visionaries, concerned with substance. On the other hand, managers are planners who are concerned with process. Another leadership theorist, Warren Bennis, further explained the difference between managers and leaders.
Bennis alleged that managers administer, while leaders innovate. Managers ask how and when, while leaders ask what and why. Managers imitate, while leaders originate. Furthermore, he argued managers emulate the classic good soldier, whereas leaders are their own person, preoccupied with originality. Indeed, it seems leadership, though a skill that can be learned is a way of living. Leadership programs can teach you how to lead, but it seems a leader simply knows how to lead.
About the Author:
If you are interested in a viable leadership program, it would behoove you to do a fair bit of research. Although leadership seems to be a predominantly innate quality, a leadership program could help you single out your strengths and weaknesses.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment