A reader commented on my last piece about character asking a number of probing questions. Pretty much any one of the questions could make not just a good blog entry but a good book and in fact many of them have. I thought I would take my own crack at these without resorting to references to other peoples work (although their influence will no doubt be felt).
Define the term “Leader”
A leader is someone whose vision, ideas, character and/or position cause others to emulate, work or act in accordance to the leader’s direction or philosophy.
Define the term “Leadership”
Leadership is the expression of vision, ideas and character that causes others to emulate, work or act in accordance to a person’s direction or philosophy voluntarily and without coercion. By “without coercion” I mean that compensation, position, title, etc. are not a factor. Note that this means that one can be a leader without showing leadership as well as the converse.
Define the term “Character”
I use character to mean the morals, ethics and judgment one shows in making ones decisions and taking actions. Character is observable over long periods of time in ones day-to-day activities and more acutely when one is under pressure or duress or when decisions or actions involve complex interplay between individuals. Character has both a relative and an absolute aspect. In a relative sense, ones character can be described by the kinds of choices s/he makes. Character might also be measured in an absolute sense against some common human or societal ideal. When I speak of character here on this blog, I generally am thinking of this absolute measure.
Are there differences in the character of a good leader and a good follower?
No, I think character is orthogonal to whether one is a leader or follower.
Do you consider Bill Clinton as a good leader?
Now I think you might be testing me for consistency. This is pretty complicated but in general I would say yes. You asked me to consider his well publicised affairs in my answer so I will, and in context. In spite of these lapses of character, Clinton ended his presidency with very high approval ratings. People still wanted to follow not because of partisanship (I believe) as we see now but because they still saw something they liked. Obviously there were those who disagreed, but they were in the minority.
Are there two kind of people in this world namely Leaders and Followers? Aren’t Leaders also the followers in some way?
In a mega-sense, yes I suppose most leaders follow someone. The Dalai Lama follows Buddha doesn’t he? I think you have to put context around it to make leadership relevant. In my BPO company, all of us are potential followers, we’re looking for someone to lead us (I believe this is a very strong, instinctual motivation by the way). Some of us have the ability and desire to lead. Some of us are in “leadership roles”. The job of those of us in leadership roles is to identify and help those with leadership ability emerge. If we do that effectively, the leaders, the followers and the company will all benefit.