Natalie Schneider Leadership

Archive for October, 2011

Is there such a thing as a natural born leader? That’s debatable. He/she is a “born leader”. Haven’t we all heard this statement made at various times? In the realm of royalty this appears to be the theory. In the realm of reality does this hold true or are leaders developed?

A new parent or grandparent gazing at their newborn family member is sure to see greatness. The truth be told there is no agenda or plan attached. We are born with character traits and potential into which skills, experience and environment play crucial elements. After all Mozart, Monet, Elvis, Picasso and Hemingway were not born musicians and artists but with the creative potential to develop into the exceptional artists they became.

Some people have the intelligence and personality to be a good or great leader but lack the ability and/or drive to capitalize on their aptitude. History shows us that even though some are born into leadership roles this does not always make for good leaders.

Leadership is a process of influencing others. Charisma is often described as the ability to charm of influence people and is key to leadership. It is a trait. With charisma you have the ability to attract attention and inspire confidence. You either have it or you don’t. It is not available at the convenience store. It must be combined with other traits and abilities to make a good leader.

Genetics plays a part .You may not be born to be a leader any more than to be a farmer, doctor or astronaut. Most people are not cut out to be leaders. They dislike speaking out, making changes, or conflict, all obstacles that leaders must meet.

Can leadership be taught?

West Point is a prime example of a leadership-training institute. West Point does not turn young men and women into leaders. West Point turns out leaders after providing them with the tools to develop the leader within. It doesn’t happen overnight, but it happens. Students who go to West Point see the potential officer inside themselves already. Those who go into training for high-end careers already have the traits of a leader: drive, ambition, a willingness to sacrifice for goals.

Universities teach leadership, private industry buys leadership programs, public schools teach and provide leadership opportunities to our youth. A lot of time, talent and money is spent on teaching leadership. Society has invested heavily in leadership training. It may not be possible to teach people to become great leaders but you can give them the tools to improve the leadership skills they possess. It is up to the individual to add the necessary ingredients such as determination, communication, influence and vision to lead effectively.

It well may be that a blending of hardwired character traits you are born with and develop along with skills and experience combine to create successful leaders.

However, leaders do come forth naturally. Watch the children on a playground. One will come forward with the idea of what game to play or activity to do and the others will follow. Life requires leadership, someone must make the decisions and others in turn will follow. If not we would all be standing one by one in solitude and our very existence would be lost.

Also known as democratic leadership, participative leadership is the most common form of leadership practiced in the corporate world and political scene. The participative leadership model favours decision making by a group. In this model, the leader consults his team and seeks their opinion, making the decision subsequently. Compared to the autocratic leadership model, this model allows the views of the team members to be heard and encourages team members to participate, hence its name. It is worthy to note that in this style of leadership, the decision is still made by the leader, only that it is based on opinions and perspectives from the team as a whole.

Participative leadership is successful as a leadership style that allows an all rounded decision to be made. It allows a team to make a decision on the matter together. Often, a leader would seek the opinion of the team and possibly encourage discussion and debate to stimulate the thinking process of the team. This way, the every member of the team would feel that his views are being heard, and even if their views are not accepted, they know that it was for a reason and not merely overlooked or brushed away. This, according to Patrick Lecioni in his book, Five Dysfunctions of a Team, is critical in achieving buy-in, failure of which would result in a team to be dysfunctional.

The mode of decision making of a participative leader is known as the consult-and-decide method. In his book, The First 90 Days, Michael Watkins explained that the consult-and-decide method essentially has the brainstorming done by the group, and the decision to be made by the leader. This is as opposed to both the seeking out of ideas and the decision to be done by the leader. The team also has a part in directing the decision by participating in the discussions.

However, participative leadership may fail should the team be relatively inexperienced. For instance, should a team deciding on the appearance of a physical product sold be a company consists mostly of fresh members, the quality of discussions and debate with relation to the final decision would be superficial and possibly even irrelevant, hence making the decision of how the product should be will not be well thought out. Evidently, a precondition for effective participative leadership is to have a team that is sufficiently experienced and competent at their job.

Participative leadership is particularly popular in the corporate world as the decisions made often has consequences in multiple levels and would require the inputs and expertise of various professionals. In addition, the pace of events often does not allow a free rein style of leadership where the leader allows the team to reach a consensus with a luxury of time.

Have you begun to realize how truly important your personal leadership development is in regards to your entire life? You may be realizing that being a great leader is not just about leading others; it is also about leading yourself. In fact, all of the great leaders in history were people who were devoted to mastering their own life. So what is the key difference between failure and success when it comes to effective personal leadership development? If this is a question you have pondered, then you owe it to yourself to learn this key principle of leadership development

Defining Failure

First, let’s look at the concepts of failure and success: most of the time we look at them as opposites. We believe that our leadership development will either drive us to success or that lack of it will doom us to failure. This kind of thinking is the reason why most people never get what they really want out of life. Failure and success are not opposites; in fact they are so closely related that you almost cannot separate them. The reason for this is because they are components of the same process.

That process is the cultivation of persistence, and it is this process which is the ultimate pathway to success. What do you think of when you think of persistence? Does it not bring up images of someone fighting on the face of opposition and failure and defeat until they get what they are after? And once they get what they are after, are they going to keep it if they let go at the first sign of failure or defeat? Well, not if they are devoted to true personal leadership development and to success.

We have all heard of the famous story of Thomas Edison and the light bulb. However, take any person who has achieved success and has managed to keep it and to enjoy it and look at their life. As you do this, you will discover that every one of them had to fight past failure and cultivate persistence in order to win. This is the ultimate key to true personal leadership development and the pathway to lasting success. You see, those who win success without first having to pay the price of failure, almost never hold onto what they have.

Failure and Character

This is because they see less personal sacrifice and therefore they take the success they ‘win’ for granted. You see, while it takes talent to achieve success you must have character in order to keep it and to enjoy it without destroying yourself. When it comes to leadership development this will make the difference between the building of a true leader and winner and the making of a quitter or a ‘has been.’ Failure is the grinding stone which sharpens the blade of persistence.

So here is the question which you have to begin with: “Am I using failure towards my own personal leadership development or to my own personal defeat?” The honest answer to this is the key difference between success and failure.