Leadership Models

[RainbowUnicorn]

https://www.inc.com/sally-hogshead/are-y...-will.html

Here's a quick checklist to determine whether you might be the problem in your workplace:

1. You dominate the discussion, speaking in absolute terms as if there's no alternative possibility.
   
2. In your hands, decisions become facts. Team members feel bullied into accepting a decision.
   
3. Rather than building consensus, you order your subordinates (that's how you see them when it gets ugly) to do as they're told.
   
4. People feel belittled by your comments, and avoid asking for your feedback.
   

while i am not going to take this article apart for specific considerations, it did occur to me the nature of leadership should be quite different depending on the nature of the function.

a Scientific Leader Vs a Door to Door Vacuum cleaner sales team Leader

an Insurance Contact Centre Manager Vs a Emergency Services Critical Response Manager...

stock exchange floor general manager Vs City Utilities general manager...

etc...

i find myself asking the question about homogeneous cult of personality politics dictating public perception models of management templates....

---

4. Acknowledge your team (rather than seeking acknowledgement).

Show others that you've noticed their hard work. Recognize and reward what others have done right.  Commend them on the quality of their work.

this tends to pander more toward a sales team ideation template. however, the narative is consistant.
those Leaders who Lord their position tend to be the type that burn their own team to hide their innability to build & manage a team that is above their personal capability.

it is not secret that the gold standard class of Leader is one who employs those who are better skilled than they are to achieve a greater sum total result by the team.
however, because Leadership models are often soaked with Mysoginistic Ego Culture
would the world be more peaveful with women leaders
the Leader is incapable of managing a team of highly skilled varying personalaties without forcing the team to worship the Leader.
The Leaders Ego is most Times the undoing of the Best possible team.

[C C]

https://www.inc.com/sally-hogshead/are-y...-will.html

Here's a quick checklist to determine whether you might be the problem in your workplace:

1. You dominate the discussion, speaking in absolute terms as if there's no alternative possibility.
   
2. In your hands, decisions become facts. Team members feel bullied into accepting a decision.
   
3. Rather than building consensus, you order your subordinates (that's how you see them when it gets ugly) to do as they're told.
   
4. People feel belittled by your comments, and avoid asking for your feedback.
   

A leader is "A person who rules, guides or inspires others".

The "guiding / inspiring" aspect sounds loose enough for the success / failure of such to be attributable to the quality of behavior, skill-set, charisma, and etiquette of the leader.

But when a "leader" is simply enforcing or reigning in people to the established manual, rules, protocol, work procedures, and standards for how a company, enterprise, institution, discipline, project endeavor, journey, etc operates / proceeds... Then that hardly qualifies as a detracting personality characteristic of the manager (or the latter being the source of any unpopular _X_). It is just his/her hired, selected or elected duty of maintaining the pre-existing code, organization, functioning, and direction of the ensemble. (Exception may be in knowingly accepting a contingent higher echelon position to begin with that mandated a priori being a king-jerk, or in entering / volunteering / being employed by a social entity or undertaking with a bad reputation.)

Again, where a boss / director does become culpable for items like tyranny, ignoring input from others, unrest, apathy, goal confusion, or bullying / lack of civility in administrative interactions with subordinates is what the general prescript allows in terms of options and individual flexibility, judgment and changes... With regard to that level of very specific matters subsumed under its overarching reach. Or when negative consequences merely result from the leader itself failing to adhere to the constraints of those regulatory preconditions.

- - -

[RainbowUnicorn]

https://www.inc.com/sally-hogshead/are-y...-will.html

Here's a quick checklist to determine whether you might be the problem in your workplace:

1. You dominate the discussion, speaking in absolute terms as if there's no alternative possibility.
   
2. In your hands, decisions become facts. Team members feel bullied into accepting a decision.
   
3. Rather than building consensus, you order your subordinates (that's how you see them when it gets ugly) to do as they're told.
   
4. People feel belittled by your comments, and avoid asking for your feedback.
   

A leader is "A person who rules, guides or inspires others".

The "guiding / inspiring" aspect sounds loose enough for the success / failure of such to be attributable to the quality of behavior, skill-set, charisma, and etiquette of the leader.

But when a "leader" is simply enforcing or reigning in people to the established manual, rules, protocol, work procedures, and standards for how a company, enterprise, institution, discipline, project endeavor, journey, etc operates / proceeds... Then that hardly qualifies as a detracting personality characteristic of the manager (or the latter being the source of any unpopular _X_). It is just his/her hired, selected or elected duty of maintaining the pre-existing code, organization, functioning, and direction of the ensemble. (Exception may be in knowingly accepting a contingent higher echelon position to begin with that mandated a priori being a king-jerk, or in entering / volunteering / being employed by a social entity or undertaking with a bad reputation.)

Again, where a boss / director does become culpable for items like tyranny, ignoring input from others, unrest, apathy, goal confusion, or bullying / lack of civility in administrative interactions with subordinates is what the general prescript allows in terms of options and individual flexibility, judgment and changes... With regard to that level of very specific matters subsumed under its overarching reach. Or when negative consequences merely result from the leader itself failing to adhere to the constraints of those regulatory preconditions.    

- - -

i find the inferential nuisance of the 4 points to be stereo typically synthesized to illicit a cartoon like dissasociative from the essence of what is deemed manipulative constructs around avoidance of good leadership.
... fyi

A leader is "A person who rules, guides or inspires others".

i dissagree.

Authority with no power is still authority
power with no authority is still powerful
giving authority to that which has power does not validate the authrotiy it has been given.
giving power to authority does not make the authority powerful.

a leader may only lead by doing.

if i inspire a leader do we suddenly swap roles ?
is the leader now incapable of leading with that inspiration and only copying it as a subordinate power entity ?

to me a leader is a person who sits above the normal boundarys of power & authority & may move among all parts of power systems.
they do not exhibit some "Alpha male" concept like a celebrity on a cat walk (i think that is Ego projection the entire "Alpha personality" trend).