What is most important in a leader? is it their ability to simply set and accomplish goals, or does it extend farther than that? I would say that the main role a leader plays, at least in a work environment, is making sure that everyone is accomplishing the goals that were set out for them.
There are five major leadership traits; intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability (Northouse, 2013). These traits essentially describe everything an ideal leader would be. That leader would be intelligent and capable of communicating and accomplishing goals in an effective way. They would have integrity, meaning that they are honest and can be trusted. They must be determined to accomplish goals and be efficient in their responsibilities. They would ideally be self-confident, since it would make leading a group of people easier compared to someone with low self-confidence. And most importantly, a leader should be comfortable in any social situations which may arise. It’s important for a leader to make connections and to maintain relationships with coworkers and others.
Not all of these traits are necessary for a leader, however. I’m sure everyone has had a boss or coach or any other form of person in a position of power who didn’t have one or more of these traits. I once had a boss who, in my opinion, was entirely inept at his job as a supervisor of employees. He was unable to accomplish any work related goals on time and was constantly reprimanded. He had poor social skills and often upset and offended employees and customers alike. He had no integrity and no respect for any fellow humans that I ever witnessed. And last of all, he didn’t have the work smarts to actually accomplish his job in an efficient manner. Despite all of this, that man was my boss for almost a year and has been a boss (and still is) for over a decade.
My previous example raises an important question. Is it more important for a leader to lead those who follow or to be able to accomplish a task. These often go hand in hand, but plenty of situations can and do arise where the majority of work done is by followers, rather than the leader. The most important responsibility of the leader is to guarantee his followers are working toward their common goal. You could relate this to a boss who run runs a tight ship in his office and makes sure his employees are working efficiently. However, this same boss does little to no work of his own outside of his position of power over his employees. Is this man a successful leader? In terms of his ability to influence others, yes. But in terms of his ability to accomplish work? That could be argued.
So overall, I think it’s important to distinguish between the power of being a leader compared to the ability to get things done. There are plenty of inept bosses who are completely outdone by their employees every day, yet they remain in a position of power while the employee remains in a lesser position. Maybe the employee has terrible management skills and would make an even worse boss, regardless of how well they do their job. All in all, you could say that it’s really just dependent on each individual situation.
Works Cited
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership – Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Patti Jean Keith says
Haha – I think I worked for your boss’s twin sister! She was deficient in all five major leadership traits (Northouse, 2013). Most significant, I think, was her complete lack of self-confidence. The fascinating thing was that she believed she was self-assured, that she had great people skills, and that she was the epitome of integrity. She earned no one’s respect or trust, except her own I guess. People followed her orders because they had to, but undermined her authority whenever possible. Mostly, people laughed behind her back.
We worked together for 33 years, and for many of them she was my direct supervisor. Our relationship could best be described as “frenemies.” We were on polar ends of the empathy scale, and didn’t make sense to each other in any way. Still, I held some affection for her. It saddened me to see someone, so clearly uncomfortable in her own skin, try to be an effective leader.
All she had was position power, which to me is worthless. So, how did the story end? The administration of the agency changed. The new “leaders” were authoritarian bullies and cleaned house rather quickly. People with decades of service were terminated when they refused to adopt a dictatorial mentality. I was one of them. When told to find a reason to “eliminate” me, my “frenemy” obeyed. She was unable (not the same as unwilling) to put herself at risk in order to do the right thing. She didn’t have the self-confidence. In reward for her loyalty to the regime she has moved up in the organizational hierarchy, and has more power than ever. Sadly, she is nothing more than a puppet and will only use that power destructively.
I have no regrets. There was no longer a place for me in that organization. I was born without the grudge-carrying gene, so I have forgiven the players and remembered the lessons I learned along the way. I am sad, but not angry; it was all for the best. They will continue to capitalize on their assigned power, while I will continue to follow the path to true leadership. Let’s just hope I get to the end before it’s time to retire!
Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Willie Edward Mathis says
I think we have all either worked for or seen managers who fit the description that you gave. With these types of individuals, you can’t help but to wonder how they got in their position. As a manager, I have learned that your human assets are hard to come by and if you have someone who can “hit the numbers” but are poor in the social aspect of their job (or other aspects) it is your job to ensure they are aware of that, create a development plan, and manage both the good and the bad of the person. I can only imagine that this is the scenario the person you are describing is in.