Leader Qualities

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by lixluke, Apr 22, 2008.

  1. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    What are qualities that make a good leader?

    I think if a person tends to rise to a leadership position, it doesnt necessarily make him a qualified leader. Take Bush for example. Sure he became president. That doesn't make him a qualified leader.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    According to Myers-Briggs Type Indicator theory a leader has the following characeristics:
    - Extroverted (outgoing and personal)
    - Intuitive (at ease in a world that is not black and white)
    - Thinker (very rational decision making, not based on emotions)
    - Makes Decisions Quickly/Easily versus prolonged study

    And I would have to agree, I think these are all vital traits of a good leader.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Leaders tend to have 3+ pairs of sneakers.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. USS Exeter unamerican american Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,482
    Good leaders are the totalitarian despots. They keep people in check.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    At the end of the day any Company or Country doesn't have a single Leader but a group of Representatives that are the heads of various components of the whole. Failure in communication between these people and themselves or who these people represent, creates a failure in the whole leadership system.

    This is why leadership is about hierarchy and why some poor leaders can be carried by "other departments". However at the end of the day it's in the best interests of a country or a company to audit the leaders they have and identify if they are doing their jobs and are physically and mentally up to the job.

    Of course the problem here is if someone sits on the pinnacle of the corporate hierarchy, they think there is no one to look up to and only people to look down on and this unfortunately is the root of classic corporate failures. Obviously with the introduction of share holders into corporate financing, it's meant that a Boss of company still has people to look up to, the people that financially backed them to begin with.

    With country leaders this financial backing is suppose to be replaced by the people those politicians represent, however as soon as they walk towards the path of being one of the "elitists" they lose their connection with the "common" man.

    There have been many stories in the past of kings dressing in rags and walking amongst their people so as to gain an idea as to what the common man feels about not just the king but the policies to the land. Unfortunately politicians don't take much into consideration in regards to the common man, since the common man isn't the major voting number topologically. (For the most part thats the middle age housewife with a 2.4 child household, with various turns in elections to attempt to gain both pensioner and first time voters to their parties side.)

    Lets put it like this, I see hundreds of things daily that could be done to fix the country I'm in, however I'm a single 30 year old Male. To the politician I don't have any legacies of repeated voting (no kids), I haven't a partner to convince in the way of voting and technically I won't vote for any of them because they are an old fashion biased system that's obsolete by technology. So because they don't gain a vote or votes, they don't care... even if what I said aided hundreds of thousands of people in their day to day lives.

    Again the only reason those types of people are in our government is a mixture of a corruption from the fact they gained their position by a particular power circle you don't just enter by chance and because the common man is just too apathetic to actually fix the things that are broke, no matter how many times people complain.
     
  9. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Leadership is a quality an individual may possess. One can categorize the exercise of leadership as either actual or potential:

    actual - giving guidance or direction, for example: a teacher being a leader to a student, as in the phrase "the emperor has provided satisfactory leadership".
    potential - the capacity or ability to lead, as in the phrase "she could have exercised effective leadership"; or in the concept "born to lead".
    Leadership can have a formal aspect (as in most political or business leadership) or an informal one (as in most friendships). Speaking of "leadership" (the abstract term) rather than of "leading" (the action) usually implies that the entities doing the leading have some "leadership skills" or competencies.

    Different Types of leadership styles:

    The laissez-faire “leave it be” leadership (Lewin, Liippit, & White, 1939) is the leadership style that gives no continuous feedback or supervision because the employees are highly experienced and needs little supervision to obtain the expected outcome. On the other hand, this type of style is also associated to leaders that don’t lead at all, failing in supervising its team members, resulting in lack of control and higher costs, bad service or failure to meet deadlines.

    The bureaucratic leader (Weber, 2002) is very structured and follows the procedures as they had been established. This type of leadership has no space to explore new ways to solve problems and is usually slow paced to ensure approval of the ladders stated by the company. Leaders ensure that all the steps had been followed prior sending it to the next level of authority. Universities, hospitals, banks and government usually requires this type of leader in its organizations to ensure quality, increase security and decrease corruption. Leaders that try to speed up the process will only lead to frustration and anxiety.

    The charismatic leader (Weber, 2002) leads by infusing energy and eagerness into to their team members. This type of leader has to be committed to the organization for the long run. Otherwise, charismatic leaders are a risk for the company when they decide to resign for other opportunities because his/her staff only saw the success of the division or project thanks to the leader and not the team. It takes time and hard work to gain the employees confidence back with other type of leadership. In the case of autocratic leadership (Lewin, Liippit, & White, 1939) we could say that is when the it has been given the power to take decisions based solely on his person, having total authority to its. This leadership style is good for employees that needs close supervision to perform certain tasks. Creative employees and team players resent this type of leadership, not been able to enhance processes or decision making, resulting in job dissatisfaction.

    The democratic leader (Lewin, Liippit, & White, 1939) means that even though you want to hear your teams ideas, the leader will study those ideas and will take the final decision. Team players contributes to the final decision thus increasing employee satisfaction and ownership, feeling their input was considered when the final decision was taken. When changes arises, this type of leadership help the team assimilate the changes better and rapidly than other styles, knowing they were consulted and contributed to the decision making process, minimizing resistance and intolerance. It’s important to highlight that this type of style is not recommended when decisions are needed in a short period of time or at the moment.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership
     
  10. lucifers angel same shit, differant day!! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,590
    he must have a good hair style!!
     
  11. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    1. Ethics.
    2. Intelligence.
    3. Energy.

    Ethics is number 1 because...if someone has 2 and 3 in abundance, but without a conscience, he will be the most destructive person in the company.
     
  12. Ghost_007 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,170

    I would add:

    Smart as hell, eloquent, comely and physically fit.
     
  13. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    Lots of people with no ethics or intelligence become leaders. Terrible leaders. For some reason, they have the energy or whatever it takes to become the leader, and yet have no idea how to use their authority in a manner serves the best interest of a group.
    It reminds me of artists with no talent that become famous stars. Like Paris Hilton. She sucks at everything. Shes not even that pretty.

    Some leaders have a great ability/skill when it comes to gaining power and leadership position. Even without luck or corruption. Yet just because you have a talent for gaining the position doesn't mean you are the best qualified for the position.
     

Share This Page