I've reached the point in this series where the concepts I want to explain elude being put to words for me. This is an indication that I don't have a full grasp of the concepts yet, and while they are very important, explaining them poorly will do little to no good. A rambling and potentially incoherent diatribe would likely be the result, so I am going to end it now, mull on things a bit longer, and possibly pick this up another time. This blog will continue, but it will move on to other subjects of interest, and this section of the series on leadership will be done. For now.
So, a few random thoughts, and a ball of twine to tie up what's been said thus far.
One more cliché: To lead, one must first learn to follow. Decades ago, I thought I understood this. Then, as time passed, I thought it was less wisdom than it initially seemed. Now, I realize, I was closer to the truth in my youth, though I understood it not.
One of the traits of a good follower is that he or she takes the duties assigned by the leader seriously. The goals of the group do rise above the goals of the individual, at least part of the time, and a sense of personal responsibility for tasks assigned and undertaken drives the follower to complete them, and do them well.
These traits are a bare minimum requirement for a good leader, since these are precisely the traits a leader wants to inspire in the crew. So it all really starts with acting responsibly. Keeping track of tasks. Keeping track of deadlines. Solid work ethic. Getting it done.
The followers see, and emulate. Not universally true, of course; but the tendency is real. You do your stuff, they are motivated to do theirs. More directly, however, if you don't do your stuff, the only thing motivating them to get their stuff done is their own personal set of motivations. That's exactly what leadership *isn't*.
All these things really come under the heading of "Integrity".
Integrity, as it happens, is often misunderstood. Anyone who knows me knows I am an honest person. I mean what I say when I say it. My motives are clean, and generally transparent. As far as I can tell, anyone who says otherwise doesn't know me. Hence, "Integrity" is a word that gets associated with me in a lot of places.
But it's inaccurate.
I have come to discover that Integrity is a trait assigned to people you can trust. And since my motives are always clean, people trust me. But if I say I will get you that report by next Wednesday, I daresay the odds of you getting that report by next Wednesday, if you're honest about it, are pretty slim. I cannot be trusted to meet a deadline; almost all the legal trouble I have ever been in had to do with paperwork and deadlines. I daresay all the trouble I was in with the one organization where I got fired as a leader was all about paperwork and deadlines.
So, in reality, I really don't have any integrity; or, at least, it would be inaccurate to claim it without qualifying the statement in some way.
Trusting my motives; fine. Trusting that I am telling you the truth when I give my word; again, fine. Trusting that I will follow through on that word...sad to say, I come up awfully short there. Always have.
Integrity is a key factor in respect -- and so those who only focused on my intentions were pretty loyal followers, even while I was screwing up. But when it came to actually doing the work, I must have been a phenomenal disappointment to almost everyone I've ever encountered.
That was a pretty sombering realization. And it took the crumbling of arguably the most important organization I was ever in charge of for the lesson to hit home. The organization had been on the rocks a number of times, but had always previously recovered.
And then it died on my watch.
So while this discussion of leadership is not complete, not far-reaching, not even necessarily completely accurate -- it is based on some pretty hard lessons I've had to learn, and which I am still enduring.
If anyone out there benefits from my meager words, the Universe will be a better place for it. And if everything I've rambled on for six sessions now seem trite and obvious to you, then all I can say is I'm trying to catch up to the rest of the class.
The dictionary entry for "lead" listed two defintions pertinent to this discussion. The first was "to guide on a way especially by going in advance" and the second was "to direct on a course or in a direction".
I noted early on that the order of these were important; I presume by now you have sussed my meaning. While directing a group on a course or in a direction is leadership of a sort, it is more about leading the way than pointing it out. The latter tends to happen naturally once the former has been well established.
Leadership is getting work done through others, notably by inspiring them to want to do the work, notably by showing enthusiasm and dedication -- and then demanding the same of them -- but all this is predicated on the single principle that in order to lead others, you must first be able to lead yourself. Do what you say you're going to do. Do it when you say you're going to do it. Be visible. Be enthused. Enflame yourself with the project, the group, the people. Take an earnest interest in all of this. Live it. Breathe it. DO IT.
Until you can lead yourself, it is a fool's errand to think to lead others.
I am a Fool.