Natural and artifical Leadership

[TZK]

It seems that in the beginning there was really only one type of Leadership. Certain people have a clear network of understanding regarding their surroundings. People who were exposed to traumatic events from early on, or were isolated, and fundamentally believe that understanding and fixing real world problems is more important than getting respect from others.

Most people on the other hand are just concerned with living their immediate lives, as well as moving and persuading other people.

Those people that have this clear network of understanding, sometimes witness events that harm people that they uniquely understand the cause of. Knowing what is wrong and what causes it, their basic human compassion takes over and drives them to influence other people to stop the problem.

Especially in the most dire of circumstances, this natural leadership inadvertently draws respect and admiration from the people it helps.

As a result, people who do not naturally have this network of understanding are driven to try and emulate this leadership status to try and gain this level of respect. If they did so perfectly, it would be a good thing as it would just mean there were more knowledgeable leaders.

However in practice these "artificial" or "rockstar" leaders do not have the knowledge to effectively influence situations in a good way.

Problems with artificial leadership

Note that because the drive of a natural leader is to resolve immediate issues and help the situation, they have no problem with deferring to others when doing so will not cause problems because the person they defer to is knowledgeable.

On the other hand, a "rockstar" leader wishes to hold on to that spotlight as long as possible. Resources are wasted and problems are caused satisfying their ego.

This also means that natural leaders will be open to suggestions and constructive criticism, because they are tools that can be used to solve real world problems which is the natural leaders sole motivation.

On the other hand "rockstar" leaders are typically intolerant of these things because they are afraid it will cause them to appear un-knowledgeable and cause them to lose their respect.

Natural leaders only attempt to persuade others using logical arguments. They have no interest in causing people to believe something that isn't true and doesn't allow them to solve a real world problem.

"rockstar" leaders will use any tool that allows them to persuade people, without regard to whether or not their arguments are sound. This causes chaos and confusion in the long run, because it prevents people from identifying when they are wrong.

By now I think you get the idea.

How to tell the difference

A natural leader asks for more responsibility because they know they can help make things better. A "rockstar" attempts to sell their leadership skills.

As sad as it is, the "rockstar" frame of mind seems to have taken over the private sector. Thus the types of behaviors associated with it are sometimes empowered as "things you have to do to survive". Don't give in! The more you understand the situation, the beter you can defeat this type of thinking without stooping to it's level.

[glassjaws]

Originally Posted by TZK

It seems that in the beginning there was really only one type of Leadership. Certain people have a clear network of understanding regarding their surroundings. People who were exposed to traumatic events from early on, or were isolated, and fundamentally believe that understanding and fixing real world problems is more important than getting respect from others.

Most people on the other hand are just concerned with living their immediate lives, as well as moving and persuading other people.

Those people that have this clear network of understanding, sometimes witness events that harm people that they uniquely understand the cause of. Knowing what is wrong and what causes it, their basic human compassion takes over and drives them to influence other people to stop the problem.

Especially in the most dire of circumstances, this natural leadership inadvertently draws respect and admiration from the people it helps.

As a result, people who do not naturally have this network of understanding are driven to try and emulate this leadership status to try and gain this level of respect. If they did so perfectly, it would be a good thing as it would just mean there were more knowledgeable leaders.

However in practice these "artificial" or "rockstar" leaders do not have the knowledge to effectively influence situations in a good way.

Problems with artificial leadership

Note that because the drive of a natural leader is to resolve immediate issues and help the situation, they have no problem with deferring to others when doing so will not cause problems because the person they defer to is knowledgeable.

On the other hand, a "rockstar" leader wishes to hold on to that spotlight as long as possible. Resources are wasted and problems are caused satisfying their ego.

This also means that natural leaders will be open to suggestions and constructive criticism, because they are tools that can be used to solve real world problems which is the natural leaders sole motivation.

On the other hand "rockstar" leaders are typically intolerant of these things because they are afraid it will cause them to appear un-knowledgeable and cause them to lose their respect.

Natural leaders only attempt to persuade others using logical arguments. They have no interest in causing people to believe something that isn't true and doesn't allow them to solve a real world problem.

"rockstar" leaders will use any tool that allows them to persuade people, without regard to whether or not their arguments are sound. This causes chaos and confusion in the long run, because it prevents people from identifying when they are wrong.

By now I think you get the idea.

How to tell the difference

A natural leader asks for more responsibility because they know they can help make things better. A "rockstar" attempts to sell their leadership skills.

As sad as it is, the "rockstar" frame of mind seems to have taken over the private sector. Thus the types of behaviors associated with it are sometimes empowered as "things you have to do to survive". Don't give in! The more you understand the situation, the beter you can defeat this type of thinking without stooping to it's level.

For posterity.

Originally Posted by TZK

Those people that have this clear network of understanding, sometimes witness events that harm people that they uniquely understand the cause of.

According to the SOA's Image of the Actuary campaign, those people are probably actuaries.

[Inconceivable]

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by TZK

It seems that in the beginning there was really only one type of Leadership.

In the beginning of what?

[glassjaws]

Originally Posted by Entropy

In the beginning of what?

The OP?

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by Entropy

In the beginning of what?

Originally Posted by glassjaws

The OP?

So, starting this morning?

[Jack]

Originally Posted by Entropy

In the beginning of what?

I'm not capable of knowing, I'm not a systems thinker.

[TZK]

Originally Posted by Entropy

In the beginning of what?

The beginning of social interaction. Where did leadership come from? Leadership was originally a service, not a privilege.

It didn't have anything to do with many of the things leadership is associated with today, because they are circular in nature. You hear a good leader does this, a good leader does that at seminars designed to teach you leadership skills.

You have to be a leader before you can be a good leader, and the only thing that can make you a leader is unique knowledge.

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by TZK

The beginning of social interaction. Where did leadership come from? Leadership was originally a service, not a privilege.

I doubt it. How could you possibly know/prove this?

Originally Posted by TZK

It didn't have anything to do with many of the things leadership is associated with today, because they are circular in nature. You hear a good leader does this, a good leader does that at seminars designed to teach you leadership skills.

You have to be a leader before you can be a good leader, and the only thing that can make you a leader is unique knowledge.

Again, WTH does the bolded even mean?