I developed an interest in “leadership” from an early age. The mundane reasons for this interest aren’t important. It is even possible that “leaders” are/were a pre-requirement for the whole “human civilization” thing – i.e. we are all “leaders” in one form or another if we are “involved with other people.” SO an interest in “leadership” is also natural.
There are certainly a lot of books written every year that claim to teach the “secrets” of leadership. There is (probably) something useful in all of these “leadership” books BUT there is no “secret leadership formula” that works all of the time for every situation. However, there are “principles of leadership.”
As a “first concept” I’ll point out Amos 3:3 – “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” The point being that if “two people” becomes our smallest unit of “civilization” then “leadership” is happening in some form.
This micro-civilization “leadership” probably consists of discussions between the two people on what to do, where to go, when to do whatever. It is unlikely that they will naturally agree on everything, if they can’t resolve those disagreements (one way or another) then they won’t be “together” anymore and they will go separate ways.
leadership
Of course we run into the problem that there are different flavors of “leadership” because there are different types of “power.”
Another “first concept” is that “yelling” is not leadership. Yelling is just yelling – and while it might be a tool occasionally used by a leader – “constant yelling” is an obvious sign of BAD leadership to the point that it might just be “bullying behavior”/coercion and NOT “leadership” at all
i.e. “coercive” leadership ends up being self-destructive to the organization because it drives good people away and you end up with a group of “followers” waiting to be told what to do whatever.
e.g. when a two year old throws a temper tantrum – no one mistakes it for “leadership.” Same concept applies if someone in a position of power throws a temper tantrum 😉
(but there is a difference between “getting angry” and “temper tantrum” – if the situation arises then “anger” might be appropriate but never to the point where self-control is lost)
Generals
In English the word “general” refers to a common characteristic of a group. It doesn’t appear as a noun until the middle of the 16th century – so eventually we get the idea of the “person at the top of the chain of command” being a “General officer”
Whatever you want to call it – in “old days long ago” – the General was on the field fighting/leading the troops.
Alexander
If we give “Alexander the Great” the title of “general” – then he is the classic example of “leading by personal charisma/bravery/ability.” He was the “first over the wall” type of general – that led by inspiring his armies with a “vision of conquest.”
The problem becomes that ultimately Alexander the Great was a failure. Oh, he conquered a lot of land and left his name on cities, but again, in the long run he failed at leading his troops. After fighting for 10+ years Alexander wanted to keep going, while his tired troops wanted to go home. Alexander would die on the trip home, and his empire would be spit between his generals.
SO why did Alexander the Great (eventually) fail as a leader? Well, he was leading for HIS glory. Sure the fact that he – and his generals – were able to keep his army together for 10 years and conquer most of the “known world” rightfully earns him a place in history, BUT at an “organizational leadership” level he was a failure.
Cincinnatus
Arguably the best type of leader is in the position because they are the “right person” at the “right time” NOT because they have spent their lifetime pursuing personal advancement/glory.
The concept becomes “servant leadership” – which became a “management buzzword” in the 20th century, but is found throughout history.
Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus comes to mind – you know, the (implied) down on his luck “citizen farmer” of Ancient Rome when it was still a “new republic” (500ish BC) – twice given supreme power (and the offer of being made “dictator for life”) he also gave up that power as soon as possible.
Also illustrated by the story of Cincinnatus is the “burden or command” IF a leader is truly trying to “do what is right for the people.”
Of course Cincinnatus’ example was much more often ignored that honored by later Roman leaders – which eventually led to the end of the “republic” and the birth of “empire” – but that sounds like the plot for a series of movies 😉
HOWEVER – Cincinnatus still serves as an example of great leadership. Yes, he had problems with his sons, but that is another story …
Moses
According to “tradition” Moses was a general in the Egyptian army. The first 40 years of Moses’ life are not described (except that he was raised as the son of the Daughter of Pharaoh) – then he kills a man in Exodus 2:12 and goes on the run to the land of Midian.
There is a lot of potential “reading into the story” here. I suppose Cecil B DeMille’s 1956 version is plausible – the love story between Moses and Nefretiri feels like the “Hollywood movie” addition, and of course Charlton Heston as Moses is a simplification (Aaron probably did most of the “talking”).
ANYWAY – the point is that (after 40 years of tending sheep in Midian) Moses didn’t WANT the job of leading the tribes of Israel out of Egypt – which is what made him perfect for the job.
Feel free to do your own study of Exodus – for my point today, Moses became a “servant leader” after 40 years of tending sheep. The mission wasn’t about him, it was about, well, “the mission.”
Just for fun – I’ll point at Numbers 12:3 and also mention that the first five books of the “Old Testament” are often referred to as the “Books of Moses” but that doesn’t mean Moses “wrote” them – i.e. it isn’t Moses calling himself “humble” but probably Joshua …
Politicians
From a practical standpoint – both Cincinnatus and Moses were facing “leadership situations” that involved a lot of responsibility but NOT a lot of “real privilege.” As they approached the job it was as a responsibility/burden not as a “privilege.”
Old Cincinnatus simply resigned rather than try to rule. Moses didn’t have that option 😉 – so we get the story of the “people” blaming him for everything wrong and rebelling against his leadership multiple times (and as the leader Moses was also held to a higher standard – but that is another story).
In the last 25 years of the 20th century the “management buzzwords” tried to differentiate between “managers” and “leaders.” Which is always a little unfair – but the idea is that “managers” are somehow not “leaders” if all they do is pass along information/follow orders.
In practice “good management” is “leadership.” However, if an individual is blindly following orders (with no concept of “intent of the command”) then that probably isn’t “leadership.”
Sure, saying “corporate says to do it this way” is probably the actual answer for a lot of “brand management” type of issues – which is also probably why being “middle management” can be frustrating.
I’m fond of saying that a major function of “senior leaders” is developing “junior leaders” – so the “leadership malfunction” might be further up the chain of command if “front line managers” are floundering.
With that said – “politicians” tend to be despised because they are in positions of power and routinely take credit for anything good that happens and then try to blame someone else for anything bad that happens.
If an individual rises above the ranks of “smarmy politicians” and actually displays “leadership” then history might consider them a “statesmen” – but the wanna be “Alexanders” always outnumber the “Cincinnati” (btw: the plural of “Cincinnatus” is “Cincinnati” which is how that nice little city in southwestern Ohio got its name) and of course a “Moses” requires divine intervention 😉
Management Books
“Books on leadership/management” tend to fall into two categories: the better ones are “memoirs/biography” while the “not so good” are self-congratulatory/”aren’t I wonderful” books published for a quick buck.
I’ve read a lot of these books over the years – and the “actionable advice” usually boils down to some form of the “golden rule” (“do unto others as you would have them do to you”) or the categorical imperative.
Personally I like this quote from a Hopalong Cassidy movie:
You can’t go to far wrong looking out for the other guy.
Hopalong Cassidy
George Washington summed up “good manners” as (something like) “always keep the comfort of other people in mind.” SO “good leadership” equals “good manners” equals “lead the way you would like to be led”
Of course the problem becomes that you can never make EVERYONE happy – e.g. displaying “good manners” is obviously going to be easier than “leadership” of a large group of individuals. BUT trying to “lead” from a position of bitterness/spite/coercion will never work in the “long term.”
If you are trying to provoke a revolt – then “ignoring the concerns of the masses” and trying to coerce compliance to unpopular policies will probably work …
e.g. “most adults” can understand not getting everything they want immediately – but they want to feel “heard” and “valued.” …