Discussion
I would choose Tom (assuming I have to choose one of them) but I would send him of a leadership training course. In my experience the best leaders don't know everything but they know who to listen to. The leader has to win hearts and minds and Tom has a head start at that.
Examples -
Richard Branson probably can't fly a 747 but he employs people who can
An Army General probably can't build a floating bridge for tanks but who has people in his "team" who can.
If you know the skill set of your team and listen to their ideas then you are sorted. You can train someone to be an engineer, you can't really train them to win hearts and minds.
Examples -
Richard Branson probably can't fly a 747 but he employs people who can
An Army General probably can't build a floating bridge for tanks but who has people in his "team" who can.
If you know the skill set of your team and listen to their ideas then you are sorted. You can train someone to be an engineer, you can't really train them to win hearts and minds.
Tom is the natural leader, but Fred will be the better choice.
Give Fred the authority to dictate when he knows best, and the job will get done properly. People may not agree with him but the results will speak for themselves.
If Tom is given the authority the sheep will follow, and Fred will probably stop contributing. Tom will f
k up regularly.
Give Fred the authority to dictate when he knows best, and the job will get done properly. People may not agree with him but the results will speak for themselves.
If Tom is given the authority the sheep will follow, and Fred will probably stop contributing. Tom will f
k up regularly.Stevenj214 said:
V8mate said:
98elise said:
Tom is the natural leader, but Fred will be the better choice.
You're assuming that Fred is always right and Tom is always wrong though.Dr Jekyll said:
So assume it's a general trend rather than just one situation.
Was going to add that it's a ridiculous assumption but then I realised that I'm always right and my bosses are always wrong
Group dynamics are interesting, and quite often a 'leader' will emerge based simply on who talks the most, and most loudly. If you have a mix of extroverts and introverts, the introverts can end up being overwhelmed. Others in the group will simply make a judgement call on who they perceive to be the leader and will tend towards following them, at least initially.
You could maybe try something along the following lines:
- in a group discussion, give everyone in the meeting an opportunity to be heard. Go round the room one by one and give them the space to say their piece.
- Nobody else is allowed to comment or ask questions while they're talking
- and when that person is done, ask them if that's it or if they have anything else to add. Let them think - don't rush straight to the next person - because quite often you'll get the "and another thing...." follow up from them
- once everyone has had their say, *then* people can ask particular questions they might have, or make comments.
- every now and then, stop and go through the same process to make sure everyone is happy with where the discussions have ended up - you could even ask them that specific question as you go round the room one by one again.
First time I encountered this approach I was sceptical, but it does work. One big proviso is that people must feel as though they can say what they mean, without fear of consequences, and that there is someone in the room to step in if people interupt and ask questions.
You should find that the outcome of discussions like this is rather different and that the people who emerge as leaders may not always be the 'Toms' of this world.
You could maybe try something along the following lines:
- in a group discussion, give everyone in the meeting an opportunity to be heard. Go round the room one by one and give them the space to say their piece.
- Nobody else is allowed to comment or ask questions while they're talking
- and when that person is done, ask them if that's it or if they have anything else to add. Let them think - don't rush straight to the next person - because quite often you'll get the "and another thing...." follow up from them
- once everyone has had their say, *then* people can ask particular questions they might have, or make comments.
- every now and then, stop and go through the same process to make sure everyone is happy with where the discussions have ended up - you could even ask them that specific question as you go round the room one by one again.
First time I encountered this approach I was sceptical, but it does work. One big proviso is that people must feel as though they can say what they mean, without fear of consequences, and that there is someone in the room to step in if people interupt and ask questions.
You should find that the outcome of discussions like this is rather different and that the people who emerge as leaders may not always be the 'Toms' of this world.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff