What is the key characteristic of leadership?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocSw1m30UBI

This video was played for us by our Wing Commander at the Commander's Call this morning. This is Mr. Colin Powell, a retired Army General.

I have to say, this is important for us to be aware of at any level here. From our organizational leaders, the Council, the Knights Advisory, and the Knights, to even our Apprentices who are our practicing Knights, and all the way down to our Guests. This is also pertinent to our spiritual leaders here.

Trust. In my own experience, this is the number one thing that will make or break a leader, which makes or breaks a team.

One example I have, happened a few years ago. This individual was in charge of my Flight. He was charismatic and had a magnetic personality. But along the way I realized that he didn't listen to me and didn't trust my expertize in my field. I lost trust in him and I spent more time looking up regs and talking with others for support and advice to protect myself than I did actually doing my job. I knew he wouldn't protect me, so I had to stand up for myself. I fought him for every scrap of thing I needed for myself and my job. And it was all wearing me down to the point I walked into Mental Health for help. Was not fun for anybody.

Another leader that HAD earned my trust, I'd do anything for. I'd go out of my way, work late, work outside my career field and experience, freely offer suggestions and ideas, and do anything I could to support him. I'd do this all freely. With joy and pride. He was the kind of leader who could say "We're digging to hell, let's go" and I would grab the nearest shovel and follow him.

In the military we have a nice clear-cut rank structure of who should be in charge, and who isn't. But we still end up with low-ranking leaders, and high-ranking turkeys.

What's your experience in leaders and trust? How do you feel this applies to your life currently? How do you think it'd apply to your position at the Temple? How does it affect how you view the ranking folks here?

My experience has been that no one else is going to care about my best interests (or even my basic well being usually) as well as i will (or at all) and that if i want to get somewhere that doesnt suck then I have to figure that out consciously, and lead myself there. I always need others to help me along the way, but i have to say that my experience with people has been that we're all much better to and for each other with just a little bit of distance between us. Sounds kind of bleak, maybe, ymmv.

Also, i guess trust in leadership is usually founded on both loyalty and competence. Competence not to screw everything up or get everyone killed and loyalty to not feed anyone to the lions. And I dont think there is a single key characteristic of leadership really. I think theres a list of core attributes that all have to be present to some degree.
For one, a leader needs to have as clear an idea of where the team is supposed to be going as is possible.
And good leaders have the ability to recognize individuals strengths and weaknesses and put the right people in the right places, then get out of their way.
Good topic.

Great vid, thanks! Don't have much to comment, as I haven't had much success with leaders, and so I tend to do things myself mostly. Perhaps I'd comment that fairness might be integral to the ongoing state of trust, that distribution of powers try to serve beyond the comfort zone to allow trust to grow where it does not already exist, but also to reinforce it as trust where it already exists to stop it becoming taken for granted and abused. Plus obviously getting ones hands dirty by leading from the front is a requirement also. Though trust goes both ways, and I guess in the military the rigid organizational structure does shape an artificial imbalance there, with unnique upsides and downsides.

@obi

And what if your leaders care about your best interests but the mission is more important? Military leaders are forced to send men to their deaths every day because the importance of the mission is greater than the importance of the man. So what would it take for you to believe in a leader to the point that you would follow him to your death? I know that 90% of the people on this earth have never had to face this choice and they get to make arm chair decisions but just for one moment put yourself there. What are you willing to die for under leadership?

Military leaders are forced to send men to their deaths every day because the importance of the mission is greater than the importance of the man. So what would it take for you to believe in a leader to the point that you would follow him to your death? I know that 90% of the people on this earth have never had to face this choice and they get to make arm chair decisions but just for one moment put yourself there. What are you willing to die for?

The ability to determine the value of a mission and the value of the person and weigh those up, and then give the order "Go do this, despite the risks" is incredibly difficult to build, and it can be a hard decision to make.


In reality, Military commanders are simply taught "soldiers are worth less than any mission, no matter how stupid the mission"

If the mission is sweeping a compound at midnight, and the soldier has a family, and tasks tomorrow that they shouldn't be fatigued for, etc etc - a good leader will make a decision that takes everything into account.
And the Soldier should be able to trust that if they are being kept up at midnight to sweep the compound, there is some bloody good reason for it.

A bad leader (say, a military-trained leader) will say "Well, if I can let a soldier die to protect a hospital, I can dick around a soldier and put lives at risk tomorrow for a frivolous bullshit task"


It's important to remember, I'm Australian.
I have no great love of the Military, in all the exciting wars we were used fairly expendably, and our greatest heroes are basically "diggers" - Low ranking aussie lads who did their jobs - not for their commanders, or the mission, or the queen, or the flag - but for their mates and the bloke standing next to them.

According to some bloke who wrote an article for some newspaper:

Australians were innocent and fit; stoical and laconic; irreverent in the face of hidebound authority; naturally egalitarian and disdainful of British class differences. Above all, in times of trouble, they stood by their mates.

Australian "Leaders" who go off and study British or American or Japanese styles of management sometimes find themselves at the wrong end Tall Poppy Syndrome.

I think someone already mentioned trust - You betray that, you treat someone as a stepping stone for yourself, or dodge responsibility (or blame) whilst heaping it on those you are responsible for - You ain't a leader, and you won't be invited to the pub any time soon.

Leadership is not about a popularity contest though... or about being invited to the pub. It's about balancing the welfare of your men against the accomishment of the mission.
A commander will be faced with the objective of sweeping the compound every day and have at their disposal 10 soldiers that all have families and duties the next day. Does the commamder protect all of them or complete the mission in his charge? In that case the mission comes first and each of those men should be not only be able but also willing to complete it at their own peril. This is usually irrelevant of whether that commander is a dick or not, it's because the commander's a good leader that is executing a mission the troop believes in, in a lawful manner. Leadership is not a popularity contest in the individual leader. It's about respect for the authority they represent even if that respect takes them to their death.

A commander will be faced with the objective

Stop here.

What is the mission?
What is the mission trying to achieve?
Does the mission need to completed?
Where does it fall in the list of priorities compared to other missions?
What are the outcomes of not completing this mission?
If I do complete this mission, what resources will I have left for other missions?


Notwithstanding whether you give a toss about the Welfare of your workers, if you can't even do those first steps, you can't even be a Manager, much less a Leader (or ever win a RTS game)



Back to welfare - The tolerance of your workforce is a resource as any other, and if you keep making crap decisions for crap missions, you'll lose their interest (and unlike vespene gas, it's pretty hard to just mine more)

In your example - I guess you keep recruiters in businesses finding more meat for the grinder.

If I was our hypothetical commander's commander and I found out all my workers were
A. Tired.
B. Single because their partners left them

I would ask
"Oh Minion, why are all my workers tired and despressed?"

and our Leader would say "Well, oh mine glorious overlord, I really have no idea, but would you look at that shine on the compound, just as you requested!"

I would reply "You, former-employee, are a twat, as a Leader of these people it was your duty to inform me we did not have the manhours or that this task was exacting too higher toll.
Yes you fulfilled the mission I gave you, but you have failed your team, and by extension, all future missions they may have completed"


As a leader you basically have every day to build trust and stand up for your team, so that on the day you need them, *really* need them, for an *actual good reason* to do something extra, you can (in a manner of speaking) lean on that trust-debt.

If you spend every day pushing them as far as they'll tolerate, on the day you need them, you'll be left standing alone, and with only yourself to blame.


How much you pay them, or any oaths they swore will be as shadows and dust.




Past that and onto the next bit:

Leadership is not about a popularity contest though... or about being invited to the pub. It's about balancing the welfare of your men against the accomlishment of the mission.

I believe my point was that the welfare of your mates is the highest priority.
If you can't stand and act for your mates - any other mission, no matter how well advertised or lauded in poetry is irrelevant.

In the Australian Football League (big deal to people into AFL I suppose), there is an award known as the Brownlow Medal.

It is the highest possible award that can be given (within the scope of the AFL) that a player can receive.

It doesn't go to who scored to most goals, or made the most tackles - it goes to the Fairest and Best player.

Now not withstanding whether or not the voting or criterion are actually of any use - the intent of the award is to recognise the player who most embodies our beliefs in fair play and treating your mates well.

They are the qualities we equally admire in our leaders.


If you find sufficient leadership in simply being told to do something - then go wash my car.

*breathes*

Okay, this is not in any way an attack, you'll just have to take my word for it as far as that goes.


If you've got autism, it's possible you will never understand how mateship is more important than rules, it's possible all your relationships are based on a system of rules developed to survive, rather than a belief that loyalty and love for your mates is the highest possible goal.


So here's the rub - What is leadership?
Leadership is understanding the values of the people you lead, and catering to them
If they need acceptance, leadership is giving them that
if they need trust, leadership is giving them that
if they need rules, leadership is giving them that
if they need posters and propaganda and easy to adopt "ideals" or catechisms? then leadership is giving them that.


Being a Leader is like being a Salesman - find out what the mark needs, and provide it.

Leadership is not management. Management is not leadership. The military tries to teach leadership, but usually results in good managers. Good leaders can manage, but it is not a requirement for being a good leader.

In my 30 years in the military, I can count on one hand the number of leaders that I would truly trust and follow. I always strive to be the best leader I can be. A leader must be the example that others will follow. Never tell your people to do something that you yourself are not willing to do. Trust is essential. A lot of shift in mindset happened in the last 10 years in the US military. We started promoting "Yes Leaders".

I had a Commander that asked me for my advice on a decision he had to make. After I told him what I thought, he went and did the opposite of what I wanted. He said me wanted me to simply agree with his choices, to "shut up and color". I told him that it was not my role as the senior enlisted to do that, I was to advice him to the best of my knowledge, to tell him what he NEEDED to hear and not what he WANTED to hear.

Why do I mention this? Leaders have to have courage, and face adversity, to speak up when it is needed, to stand against reckless, or poor decisions. Not always easy to do. However, your people will recognize that you have their best interests at heart. You can stand against a direction, but if the powers that be decide to move in that direction, you tried. You did your best to provide some rudder correction to get the ship going in the best direction for the people AND the mission. A leader always considers both the people and the mission. I talked about risk assessment in another post. Weighing the risks and hazards of a mission is essential to ensure that your people come home.

My team was my essential personnel. In the field, these are your buddies. These are the people you must rely on. The leader of the group, which I often was blessed with gaining such trust. Allowed me to accomplish my missions, AND bring all of my team mates home. There are times when a leader tells you to do something, and you trust they know what they are talking about and you execute it without thought or care for self. There is no time to debate the order, question things, until the adrenaline is gone, we are back on the transport heading back to base.

You do not get a team to do this, unless they have trust. Up and down the chain of command. If I gave an order, I trusted that member of my team to carry that duty out. To make it happen. In turn, the Team trusted that I had their best interests at all times and I was giving direction to the best of my ability.

There are far more bad examples than good examples of leaders out there. In all walks of life. I urge everyone to see the traits of bad leaders, and ensure you do not fall into using those traits. When you see positive traits, good leadership qualities, adopt them into your lifestyle. Become the example of good leadership that you want to see.

Being a truly good leader, you must know what your people need. Not always what they want. Many times I had to give some tough love, but in the end that Sailor or Marine, thanked me for guiding them in the correct direction. I always tried to provide guidance, to bring the people below me, to a position where they took control, they became the leaders. A good leader is also a good follower.

I often use the description of a leader as someone who can get you to do things you would not normally want to do. True leadership will motivate and inspire us to do the impossible without regard for self.

Unfortunately, as I said at the beginning of this missive, I can count on one hand the number of leaders that inspired me, guided me, desire to emulate their leadership styles. In a culture that is designed to create leaders, where there are so many people in leadership positions, it is rather sad that I could find less than five that I truly felt were Good Leaders.

JamesSand wrote:
I believe my point was that the welfare of your mates is the highest priority.

LOL that was a lot of words to just say this. However I still disagree. What your talking about is balancing the mission against the resources to complete that mission and that's not what I'm talking about. Ive never said anything about management of resources. What I said was how far are you willing to go when the mission DOES outweigh the mates. And yes there are times when this happens.