Leadership is made just too complex. perhaps intentionally, so that successful people can make money out of the common truths. Thats the way of the rich. If you cannot convince them, confuse them. Now since they cannot get a patent over leadership and all that make it so, they unleashed propaganda around how complex and how beyond reach of the mortals leadership really is. It, then, helps them to sell their snake oil.
I had read a study (the source of which is beyond recollection) in anthropology that men, by their very nature, are inclined to work under leaders. Thus, when a diverse group of people, unknown to each other, were left alone on an island, very soon a leader emerged among them. The same methodology is adopted by employers and business schools to figure out leaders from a group.
I have to agree that this works, but there is are questions too which cast a doubt on its efficacy. Can a leader identify a leader? If yes, does he do that by comparing against a list of attributes? Ain't these attributes the same as those fable tellers write in their books? Humans have another innate quality. They try to look for patterns even where there are none and having found some in a particular set, make generalizations based on that about the whole set. I have heard that the book "black swan" deals with this tendency in a great detail. The fact of nature remains though that any complex enough process is random and no matter what generalizations you come up with there are going to be outliers. I am not going to go further describing the problems with this process because I have learnt in life that seldom produces results.
I am going to approach the question "Who is a leader" as a scientist would. Lets try to define the problem first. We have a group of individuals. We need to pick a person among them who can "lead" them to a non-trivial "objective". It is assumed that the group is not large enough for the emergence of a another leader or sub-leader. The "led" have an option to co-operate with the group. It cannot be enforced (Its slavery otherwise and we are not talking about leader then but a master).
Lets define the "objective". Objective is a non-trivial task which requires co-operation of more than at least half the group.
The "led" have their own diverse objectives which may or may not align with the final objective the group has to achieve. These objectives may change by the time group achieve its objective and therefore they may change their decision to co-operate. There is another variable of the led: Respect. There is a different threshold of respect each person, being led, needs from the leader. In case, a person being led, realizes that his objective is not aligned with that of the group or his respect threshold has been breached, he may leave the group.
Leading a group means that the "led" place their trust in the leader that in the pursuit of the objective of the group, their own diverse objectives will be met and their respect threshold will be met.
Now lets define a leader as a result of the discussion above. A leader is a person who is able to convince at least the number of people required to achieve the task to co-operate. There is only one way to do this. By making the "led" believe that their objectives will be met. Inspiration, lies, temptation all wear off. The best a leader can do is to make the objective of the "led" to be like him. This is a lasting bond and the "led" then will reach a state of loyalty. Loyalty is a state where the respect threshold of the "led" goes to a minimum. The objective of the led too become aligned to the leader. People talk about "lead by example", inspiration, motivation, "larger than life objective" to let the "led" reach a state of loyalty. This is the state of lowest cost and highest return.
The objectives of the led (or their loyalty) are not under a leader's control, but he needs to make sure that the respect threshold of the led is always met.
Effort is defined as the amount of work the group must do per unit time to achieve the objective. Threshold of the effort required by the group to reach an objective is set by the leader. On an average, the led will work only as hard as they "perceive" the leader works. The perception may or may not be true. Thus, the leader should create a perception of hard work.
The leader should be prepared for the risk that the number of "led" could go below the minimum required, even after observing the above due to change in objectives. He should have reserves to maintain the number. This is especially true when the leader realizes that the gap between the group's objective and personal objectives is widening.
Did you get the fake here? I am a fable teller myself and the above is my story. A generalization for which there are bound to be outliers. I just hope am rich too some day ;)
I had read a study (the source of which is beyond recollection) in anthropology that men, by their very nature, are inclined to work under leaders. Thus, when a diverse group of people, unknown to each other, were left alone on an island, very soon a leader emerged among them. The same methodology is adopted by employers and business schools to figure out leaders from a group.
I have to agree that this works, but there is are questions too which cast a doubt on its efficacy. Can a leader identify a leader? If yes, does he do that by comparing against a list of attributes? Ain't these attributes the same as those fable tellers write in their books? Humans have another innate quality. They try to look for patterns even where there are none and having found some in a particular set, make generalizations based on that about the whole set. I have heard that the book "black swan" deals with this tendency in a great detail. The fact of nature remains though that any complex enough process is random and no matter what generalizations you come up with there are going to be outliers. I am not going to go further describing the problems with this process because I have learnt in life that seldom produces results.
I am going to approach the question "Who is a leader" as a scientist would. Lets try to define the problem first. We have a group of individuals. We need to pick a person among them who can "lead" them to a non-trivial "objective". It is assumed that the group is not large enough for the emergence of a another leader or sub-leader. The "led" have an option to co-operate with the group. It cannot be enforced (Its slavery otherwise and we are not talking about leader then but a master).
Lets define the "objective". Objective is a non-trivial task which requires co-operation of more than at least half the group.
The "led" have their own diverse objectives which may or may not align with the final objective the group has to achieve. These objectives may change by the time group achieve its objective and therefore they may change their decision to co-operate. There is another variable of the led: Respect. There is a different threshold of respect each person, being led, needs from the leader. In case, a person being led, realizes that his objective is not aligned with that of the group or his respect threshold has been breached, he may leave the group.
Leading a group means that the "led" place their trust in the leader that in the pursuit of the objective of the group, their own diverse objectives will be met and their respect threshold will be met.
Now lets define a leader as a result of the discussion above. A leader is a person who is able to convince at least the number of people required to achieve the task to co-operate. There is only one way to do this. By making the "led" believe that their objectives will be met. Inspiration, lies, temptation all wear off. The best a leader can do is to make the objective of the "led" to be like him. This is a lasting bond and the "led" then will reach a state of loyalty. Loyalty is a state where the respect threshold of the "led" goes to a minimum. The objective of the led too become aligned to the leader. People talk about "lead by example", inspiration, motivation, "larger than life objective" to let the "led" reach a state of loyalty. This is the state of lowest cost and highest return.
The objectives of the led (or their loyalty) are not under a leader's control, but he needs to make sure that the respect threshold of the led is always met.
Effort is defined as the amount of work the group must do per unit time to achieve the objective. Threshold of the effort required by the group to reach an objective is set by the leader. On an average, the led will work only as hard as they "perceive" the leader works. The perception may or may not be true. Thus, the leader should create a perception of hard work.
The leader should be prepared for the risk that the number of "led" could go below the minimum required, even after observing the above due to change in objectives. He should have reserves to maintain the number. This is especially true when the leader realizes that the gap between the group's objective and personal objectives is widening.
Did you get the fake here? I am a fable teller myself and the above is my story. A generalization for which there are bound to be outliers. I just hope am rich too some day ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment