What do you think? Are they smarter? Do they have more determination? Are they "destined" to be leaders? Is it all just coincidence? And which posters do you think are leader types in real life? And which are followers? (Please do not say anything derogatory.)
Nothing to do with drugs or destiny. You become a leader through example. Ordinary people become exhaulted by extraordinary action.
Natural leaders take charge to get things done. They combine action and planning instead of seperating them. They involve and motivate people. They seek challenge and overcome it. Dadakota is a leader.
The two characteristics that I have noticed in the professional world that defines leaders are 1) excellent decision-making ability and 2) confidence. A lot of secondary qualities fall out of these two such as motivating people (as was said before) and distinguishing themselves from the pack. I've heard the expression a good leader is "sometimes wrong, but never in doubt."
Why haven't I heard of this "The Leader"? He's as rich and wicked as I, but he seems to enjoy tax exempt status.
A successful leader has ... natural instincts for disobedience, control, inconsideracy, ambition, greed/selfishness, hunger, strength, drive, and determination. these features are evident in leaders of coporations as well as leaders of street gangs and criminals. The difference, however, is... Environment: a leader who has the instincts listed above will grow up in an environment which will be appropriate for him/her to learn how to hone and control those instincts in ways which will benefit them most. This person will then learn how to use those instincts to control people, build plans, drive people, achieve goals, bend rules. Street gang leaders learn this self-discipline one way, and white collar criminals learn theirs another. Each will develop leadership skills in different ways, but in ways that are appropriate for their environment. -- droxford
Wow. There's a lot of truth in that. (It also explains politicians.) From what little I know about seeing leaders, "alpha" males/females, etc. up close and personal, they are charismatic. They are not afraid to use it. While most of us would feel bad about controlling someone else, they seek it and go out of their way to achieve it. They will do anything it takes to reach an individual who is not under their complete control yet. If that fails, they will want to make sure that person is not a threat (is ignored, neutralized, or gotten out of the way somehow). The leader makes sure to never show weakness or personal feelings. It's not an option. That surface appearance is important at all times. Pure ambition is an important part of the equation, and they're not afraid to lie. (Not saying all leaders are this bad in terms of character, but usually there is some truth to this.) It all seems so obvious now... took me a while to figure it out when I was younger though...
I hope this isn't meant to somehow legitimize criminals. A leader is a leader, however, and I do see some parallels between criminal leaders and leaders in general, especially around marshalling resources and gaining people's trust.
Leadership is an interesting thing. I have always been a leader in certain context. on any sports team I have been the leader. There have been way too many different sports, and different teams for this to be a fluke. how do I lead. well by example. I am usually one of the better teamates on the team, but I always put forth more effort than anyone else. I also active and vocally ask others how do do something etter or how i can inprove a certain skill. so by my actions, i enerjise the team and make it ok to ask for help. before long the team has gelled and improved through shared tactics/experience. also encouraging other players during practice helps a hell of a lot. Even if i am not the fastest, there is someone slower or in worse shape. when you work with that person to improve the better peple also help, and you eventually strengthen the weakest link In all other activities i lead through something that is a gift. Charm. I carm my way though alot of things, but most important, i use absolute authority. and absolute confidence. I may be saying the earth is square, but you will belive me because I deliver it with conviction and charm takes care of the rest. I won a student body legislature election as president of the legislature in a vote. The final tally was something like 84-1-2 three candidates, and one of the other candidates voted for me. its all bout the speach, and the delivery. body language will often reveal the leader in any situation. when I founded the debate team at SUNY Stonybrook we had to elect officers. the other candidates withdrew from president after my speach. why, because i used my confidence to rattle them, and i spoke as the end all be all authority on debate. its kind of brow beating. its definately something that can be tied to criminal types. i was a pretty good thug too as a kid this planet is filled with sheep. all you ned to do is identify those thinking they are sheopards, and convince them that they are your sheep. and the whole herd will be yours. no one likes making decisions. no one but the leader I love making decisions, and quickly. its just the way some people are wired.
I think a large part of it is something Isabel mentioned, charisma. I disagree with Isabel, however, about people who are charismatic leaders needing to be control freaks, neutralizing opposition and being afraid to show personal feelings or weakness. I've known natural leaders I can only describe as charismatic who could just turn it on if the occasion demanded. Perhaps they showed the other side of themselves to me and not so much to others, but I don't think so. I don't think charismatic leadership and cooperation, sensitivity and caring about others are mutually exclusive. Just my 2 cents. I've certainly run across the sort Isabel describes, however, all to often.
As with everything, it is a question of incentive. Some people are better at recognizing the incentive of being a leader, and therefore they take it upon themselves. Once that is done, there is the question of likeability. If people don't like you, they won't follow you. Next is the question of competence, you don't have to always be right to be a leader, but you do have to be competent enough to know when you are wrong and either take advice or change the course of action.
You're right; all leaders are not the "evil" type. (Voice of Reason described being a leader above, and he's never sounded like a control freak. I think he just naturally "has it".) If you've got it, you can use it to do great things. But droxford's post reminded me of the charismatic, unscrupulous type of leader, which you see in politics, entertainment, and such these days. Plus, sometimes, closer to home. Some of these closer-to-home situations have given me a lot of insight into human psychology...
No kidding. I've experienced plenty of that myself. Personal relationships are a different proposition altogether, aren't they. I've learned to recognize when it's going on. I "lead" myself out of those situations quickly, if I can. Life is too short. I'm assuming I'm understanding you here. Of course, if it's a work situation, that can be difficult. Some of the worst "leaders" love to lord it over those unlucky enough to be in their "kingdom". I welcome someone who can get a bunch of people together on the spur of the moment and badger and charm them to go to the lake or a festival or have a party where they all end up having a great time. I've had close friends over the years who had that ability. It's often not recognized as leadership at the time by those envolved, but it is.
Thank you Pasox2, I am honored. I always thought that to be a leader you needed one thing only.......FOLLOWERS !! OH and what pasox2 said is right on the money. A good leader leads by example and values input from the people he/she is leading. You can not be a leader without them. DD
I wanted to add something I lost sight of in my other post. it is often hard to communicate properly when working and being all amped up. alot of you have descrived leaders as dictators. dictators on a small level, and even on a large levelare not really leaders. they are more bullys. you do not have to be a leader to controll peple. By definition they are leading people, and are therefore a leader, but I suspect they are more of a controller. Controlling people who do not really have the chance to follow whom ever they see fit to lead them. its a might makes right scenerio. I am the toughest SOB on the street, so you do what i say... ok. I have a gun, so do what i say...ok. I have the bigger army, so do what i say...ok. Power makes you able to create followers, but they are not following because there is natural leadership. they are following for fear. Adolf Hitler started off using his natural leadership abilities to rally a people and polarize the working class. in the end he ruled by controlling fear. but the fear was in his conquered nations. in Germany he was still leading a people towards a percived destiny. as long as people have faith in the leader to better get them toward a goal. wether that goal is just percived, or actualy tangable. peope will wollow. it is when a leader loses his peoples confidence that he loses his role. a new leader will emerge and either change the goal, or change the attitude of those involved to belive in what they are working towards again.
