Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Leaders to Avoid ... or Maybe Not
"Nest Featherers", "Main Chancers", "Ego Builders" and the list continues with another 6 categories of the so called "Leaders to Avoid". The question that comes to my mind is - So what if the leader of a collective movement belongs to one of these categories - as long as he performs whatever task he has to and his actions are beneficial to the members? One very important aspect of leadership, which is so often neglected and probably more important than any in the above list, is the ability to ensure stability. The collective/organization should be able to carry on with a smooth functioning even after the leader has left the scene.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The problem with this type of leaders is that sooner or later they would invariably hijack the collective movement. This is so as their aims would be different from that of the collective. Also leadership in a collective movement involves its leaders to act as a trustee for all the members, ensuring that they get the best. Further he needs to maintain integrity to develop a following among the members. Leaders belonging to the so called “Leaders to Avoid” group exhibit none of these and thus are unsuited as leaders.
sarathi- The discussion over "Leaders to Avoid" was not about if these leaders were good or bad. It is w.r.t their motives. The leaders should strive to build institutions in which people are dispensable. Norms are programmed into the institution so that it survives test of time.If a leader is staunch authoritarian but he is striving hard for the future survival and development of organization then he is doing a commendable job. Moreover the percentage of selfless leaders are few in numbers, everyone has a motive and goal behind his work.
What Hari's written is exactly what I thought about in class when the lecture on 'Leaders to Avoid' was taking place. At the end of the day, people need a leader who is effective and not necessarily a role model in all sense of the word. Probably what Indian Railways needed at that point of time was a Lalu Prasad Yadav who most people might not call a 'Role Model', but did immensely well to turn around the railways...
Lalu's stint in the railways was successful because he made the improvement of the railways his sole criteria i.e. his aim was same as that of the railways. As the CM of Bihar he had started off as a leader who had the best interest of the state in his mind .However somewhere down the line he had become a “Leader to Avoid”, which led to his downfall. Thus we see that his effectiveness was a function of his concern for the railways and the integrity with which he served; two parameters not shared by a “Leader to Avoid”.
As long as the leader does things that are beneficial to the people he/she will continue to be the leader. But if this person belongs to the category of leaders to be avoided then what i feel is that there would be displeasure among the people but it wont come out.people know that they won't get the benefits that they used to get if they stand against this person who would be a very influential person in the area. This is a matter that is shown in many movies where the people blindly follow the influential person whom they consider as their leader though they are not happy with him/her. This would continue as long as another leader emerges among the people who could make the people aware of the need for change and to react. but still i feel that there is rare chance to find a leader who could be considered as a role model.
Post a Comment