Leadership: Ask Me Anything

Don't you feel as if quality leadership would insure that it could be removed in case they became corrupt down the line?

steamboat28 wrote: Where is the line between leading from the front and leading from the back (delegation)? How much balance should we have on that line?

This is a toughie for me. I don't like delegating because I'm afraid of asking other people to work however, I can't do everything in the shop, and that's not my job anyways. Most of my job is about taking care of my troops. "Take care of your people, and they'll take care of the mission" is something I say a lot. Usually grumbling because it's not being even remotely done.

I've had to learn to delegate tasks mostly because I was unfit for them to start with. I was in a job I didn't know a lick about. BUT I took every effort to ask questions, learn, and listen when my other tasks didn't take me away. I'd be out shadowing or helping with prepping shelters for launch, pestering the airmen about how things work, taking out the trash and help cleaning bathrooms. So I'd delegate a task ("I need someone to prep this shelter"), but I'd also at other times say "Let's go clean the bathroom". They knew I was still learning and seemed to appreciate me tagging along with them to learn. When I'd ask them what they needed help on with cleaning they'd tell me "We got it", so I started just jumping in haha. They were really shy with me scrubbing toilets with them for the first few times .

I also do my best to do the jobs that I really don't want to do myself. I hate asking other people to do things like that.

I think that the occasional working along side them, making sure to act as their advocate when needed, and taking care of them is enough to show that you're leading from the front instead of just delegating tasks.

Could I try this one, Kit ?

Delegating isn't so much a matter of making people do stuff. When the leadership is good, the leader can't possibly do everything (as Kit said before, the "leader" is often someone who is not officially "in charge"), but since the team, the company or the group all work for the same "why" (not "what") then the work gets undertaken. 'What' we do changes with/over time ; the "why" we do what we do, the 'meaning' that keeps us doing it, lets us love it, that stays constant. And it is the "why" that brings on the "how" to accomplish "what" we need to get done.

This is also how come we have to choose wisely who we work with. Any effective group has to be made up of people who have the same "why" -- even if they bicker sometimes over the "how". Furthermore, the leader is often one who embodies the "why" and s/he needs to be surrounded by people who can turn that "why" into a "how".The work gets distributed, no one is beleaguered by senseless 'chores' and the whole group gets pulling in the same direction. And in this way, one can work marvels.

It is very much the spirit of Tao 17 :

17

Great rising and falling - People only know it exists. Next they see and praise. Soon they fear. Finally they despise.
Without fundamental trust There is no trust at all. Be careful in valuing words.
When the work is done, Everyone says We just acted naturally.

How and what do you incorporate in your leadership style that you've learned here?

Adder wrote: Do you think training of a leaders subordinates is part of the leadership duty, or better handled by a trainer.... and if so how would you define the relationship between the trainer training and the leadership leading (in regards to clarity for the subordinate and utility for the leader)?

I often get those lines blurred in my head, as unless the leader is a teacher then teaching as a standalone effort can fall outside of the function of that leader and their team's purpose. Assumptions being subordinates should be trained ideally up to the point where they can stand in as leader if needed and eventually replace them.

A leader is responsible for the development of their people. If they can teach, they teach. If not, they provide the training in making classes or resources available.

I gotta add to that though, that I really find I respect anyone who takes the time to teach me themselves. There's really nothing more valuable in subordinates' eyes than personal time. So added benefit if a leader is competent in a subject But you don't even need a class to teach anything. You can teach by your actions, or even if you pause to answer a question. Then if the answer is "I don't know," follow it with "let's find out!"

Snowy Aftermath wrote: Don't you feel as if quality leadership would insure that it could be removed in case they became corrupt down the line?

I'll use the term "team" for the group of people this leadership is leading.

It depends on the size and length of time this team will be together. The more people you have on the team, and the longer the team will be together, the higher chance you'll see leadership leaving and being replaced, or those who stop being efficient for many reasons. It's not necessary for a small team, or a team that will only be together for a year or less, but large teams and/or teams that stay together for a long time would very much benefit from checks and balances, including removal.