"A good leader should not guide his/her followers, but should inspire them". Do you agree?

[Sushan]

This topic is related to the philosophical book of the month of May, Fear Not Dream Big & Execute byJeff Meyer


"Even looking at our expert leader, Jesus, whose Word is life, we can see this lesson lived out. Jesus is not merely an itinerant preacher who directs our steps. He is a soul-stirrer who invites us to walk with Him. If our master, Jesus, leads us by walking with us and stirring us to discover, then these earthly leaders must learn to come alongside and help others discover their own best answers."
(Chapter 2, Page 9)

Most often we compare how a boss will treat his subordinates and how a leader will treat his followers. Upto now I had the idea that a leader should guide his/her followers. But this author has given leadership a new meaning claiming that it is not the leader's job to show the path and guide his/her followers towards a specific goal, but to inspire them to find their own answers and be their own guidance.

Do you agree with this 'job description' of a leader? If a leader is guiding his/her followers, will it make he/she a 'not so good' leader?

[LuckyR]

It depends on the context. Specifically, if one is leading teammates engaged in simple tasks, micromanaging exactly what they should do will lead to efficient success. OTOH, when leading professionals performing complex tasks, emotional support to assist the team to come up with there own best tactics, is superior strategy.

[Sculptor1]

A general needs to do both.

[psyreporter]

It is a modern trend, but is it best for (long term) efficiency for progress of 'humanity'?

The primary argument in favor of efficiency is that providing autonomy to people will provide them with a sense of purpose, which in turn, provides motivation for higher performance, provides better health and provides improved happiness.

It is interesting to note that purpose is a primary factor for efficiency. When people feel that they serve a greater purpose, they are capable of higher performance. This could be evidence that people in general must be fundamentally 'good'.

The question would essentially be whether the concept 'meritocracy' is valid.

For centuries, the promise of the “American Dream” has been that as long as someone buckles down and works hard, she can achieve her goals. In other words, we’ve perpetuated the meritocratic notion that the more effort one puts in and the more ability one possesses, the more success one can attain.
https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/merits-meritocracy

Meritocratic Equality of Opportunity builds on Formal Equality of Opportunity’s opposition to formal and arbitrary discrimination. Meritocracy requires that positions and goods be distributed solely in accordance with individual merit.
https://edeq.stanford.edu/sections/meritocracy

Should a leader unlock 'the best' in people by inspiring them to move mountains?

I personally would be in favor of such an intention, due to the simple consideration that in order to serve the purpose of life, a base level of respect for 'others' is essential because it is not possible to determine the value of another in relation to the purpose of life beforehand. Therefor, from a leader's perspective, to serve the purpose of life optimally would be to unlock or enable people's talents and performance, i.e. to 'inspire' them.

[Sushan]

It depends on the context. Specifically, if one is leading teammates engaged in simple tasks, micromanaging exactly what they should do will lead to efficient success. OTOH, when leading professionals performing complex tasks, emotional support to assist the team to come up with there own best tactics, is superior strategy.

Whether with experts or a set of simple members a leader have to achieve a specific goal. So the direction and the way to achieve that should be decided by the leader and then he has to guide the team members. That guiding have to be tailor-made for different team mates depending on their strengths and weaknesses. Still the guidance part should remain as per my view.

[LuckyR]

It depends on the context. Specifically, if one is leading teammates engaged in simple tasks, micromanaging exactly what they should do will lead to efficient success. OTOH, when leading professionals performing complex tasks, emotional support to assist the team to come up with there own best tactics, is superior strategy.

Whether with experts or a set of simple members a leader have to achieve a specific goal. So the direction and the way to achieve that should be decided by the leader and then he has to guide the team members. That guiding have to be tailor-made for different team mates depending on their strengths and weaknesses. Still the guidance part should remain as per my view.

Your suggestions are why companies fail and people generally hate their bosses (because of the boss's incompetence).

[Sushan]

It depends on the context. Specifically, if one is leading teammates engaged in simple tasks, micromanaging exactly what they should do will lead to efficient success. OTOH, when leading professionals performing complex tasks, emotional support to assist the team to come up with there own best tactics, is superior strategy.

Whether with experts or a set of simple members a leader have to achieve a specific goal. So the direction and the way to achieve that should be decided by the leader and then he has to guide the team members. That guiding have to be tailor-made for different team mates depending on their strengths and weaknesses. Still the guidance part should remain as per my view.

Your suggestions are why companies fail and people generally hate their bosses (because of the boss's incompetence).

There is no argument regarding how a leader should act if he/she is incompetent. He/she should not have been the leader in the first place.

But if the competency part was okay, then the leader can guide his/her team towards a specific goal. If a leader let his/her team members to come out with their own creative plans and ideas, then who will remain to execute them? Won't there be much chance to such an attempt to be end in chaos?

[Sushan]

A general needs to do both.

A general, or a leader should have various qualities. And the ability to inspire his followers as well as the ability to guide them should include in the list.

But, even among leaders there are good ones and bad ones. If we keep aside any other variables and consider only these two, guidance and inspiration, having which of these two 'in a large amount' will make the leader good or bad?

[Sculptor1]

A general needs to do both.

A general, or a leader should have various qualities. And the ability to inspire his followers as well as the ability to guide them should include in the list.

But, even among leaders there are good ones and bad ones. If we keep aside any other variables and consider only these two, guidance and inspiration, having which of these two 'in a large amount' will make the leader good or bad?

Neither quality would fulfil that need.

[Sushan]

A general needs to do both.

A general, or a leader should have various qualities. And the ability to inspire his followers as well as the ability to guide them should include in the list.

But, even among leaders there are good ones and bad ones. If we keep aside any other variables and consider only these two, guidance and inspiration, having which of these two 'in a large amount' will make the leader good or bad?

Neither quality would fulfil that need.

I am sorry but I didn't get your point. Could you please elaborate it a bit. Were you meaning that either having the ability to guide or the ability to inspire won't make a good leader? If so, what will make a good leader?

[LuckyR]

It depends on the context. Specifically, if one is leading teammates engaged in simple tasks, micromanaging exactly what they should do will lead to efficient success. OTOH, when leading professionals performing complex tasks, emotional support to assist the team to come up with there own best tactics, is superior strategy.

Whether with experts or a set of simple members a leader have to achieve a specific goal. So the direction and the way to achieve that should be decided by the leader and then he has to guide the team members. That guiding have to be tailor-made for different team mates depending on their strengths and weaknesses. Still the guidance part should remain as per my view.

Your suggestions are why companies fail and people generally hate their bosses (because of the boss's incompetence).

There is no argument regarding how a leader should act if he/she is incompetent. He/she should not have been the leader in the first place.

But if the competency part was okay, then the leader can guide his/her team towards a specific goal. If a leader let his/her team members to come out with their own creative plans and ideas, then who will remain to execute them? Won't there be much chance to such an attempt to be end in chaos?

Who is better suited to come up with an effective plan, those who actually do the work and have a practical understanding of it, or a guy who doesn't do the actual work, but goes to meetings and entertains clients all day?

As I mentioned before, your commentary fits performing simple tasks, so simple even a boss would know what to do. This doesn't work well with professionals.

[Sushan]

It is a modern trend, but is it best for (long term) efficiency for progress of 'humanity'?

The primary argument in favor of efficiency is that providing autonomy to people will provide them with a sense of purpose, which in turn, provides motivation for higher performance, provides better health and provides improved happiness.

It is interesting to note that purpose is a primary factor for efficiency. When people feel that they serve a greater purpose, they are capable of higher performance. This could be evidence that people in general must be fundamentally 'good'.

The question would essentially be whether the concept 'meritocracy' is valid.

For centuries, the promise of the “American Dream” has been that as long as someone buckles down and works hard, she can achieve her goals. In other words, we’ve perpetuated the meritocratic notion that the more effort one puts in and the more ability one possesses, the more success one can attain.
https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/merits-meritocracy

Meritocratic Equality of Opportunity builds on Formal Equality of Opportunity’s opposition to formal and arbitrary discrimination. Meritocracy requires that positions and goods be distributed solely in accordance with individual merit.
https://edeq.stanford.edu/sections/meritocracy

Should a leader unlock 'the best' in people by inspiring them to move mountains?

I personally would be in favor of such an intention, due to the simple consideration that in order to serve the purpose of life, a base level of respect for 'others' is essential because it is not possible to determine the value of another in relation to the purpose of life beforehand. Therefor, from a leader's perspective, to serve the purpose of life optimally would be to unlock or enable people's talents and performance, i.e. to 'inspire' them.

A good explanation. I agree. A leader can inspire his followers and that will take their full potential out. And for the long run that will be quite important.

But when pursuing short term goals, I don't think that the leader can wait to bring the potential out from his followers. So in such a situation a leader has to identify his team and ide them accordingly.

[Sushan]

Whether with experts or a set of simple members a leader have to achieve a specific goal. So the direction and the way to achieve that should be decided by the leader and then he has to guide the team members. That guiding have to be tailor-made for different team mates depending on their strengths and weaknesses. Still the guidance part should remain as per my view.

Your suggestions are why companies fail and people generally hate their bosses (because of the boss's incompetence).

There is no argument regarding how a leader should act if he/she is incompetent. He/she should not have been the leader in the first place.

But if the competency part was okay, then the leader can guide his/her team towards a specific goal. If a leader let his/her team members to come out with their own creative plans and ideas, then who will remain to execute them? Won't there be much chance to such an attempt to be end in chaos?

Who is better suited to come up with an effective plan, those who actually do the work and have a practical understanding of it, or a guy who doesn't do the actual work, but goes to meetings and entertains clients all day?

As I mentioned before, your commentary fits performing simple tasks, so simple even a boss would know what to do. This doesn't work well with professionals.

A leader cannot be a person who has no idea about the task. A politician can be such a person, and usually ppoliticians fail when they try to do things by their own.

Whether it is a simple task or whether you are working for a huge goal with a set of professionals, you have to guide your team. That does not mean that you have to be a dictator. You can always listen to them and take their ideas. But the final decision and the plan should be yours and otherwise it will lead only to chaos.

'Too many cooks will spoil the soup'

[Sculptor1]

A general needs to do both.

A general, or a leader should have various qualities. And the ability to inspire his followers as well as the ability to guide them should include in the list.

But, even among leaders there are good ones and bad ones. If we keep aside any other variables and consider only these two, guidance and inspiration, having which of these two 'in a large amount' will make the leader good or bad?

Neither quality would fulfil that need.

I am sorry but I didn't get your point. Could you please elaborate it a bit. Were you meaning that either having the ability to guide or the ability to inspire won't make a good leader? If so, what will make a good leader?

A leader can be highly inspirational, though useless as a leader.
And a leader can be a great guide, but also useless as a leader.

Leadership also requires the ability to listen and delegate, intelligence, vision, charisma, and care for the followers. There is no point leading your followers to their deaths even if they find it inspirational.

[LuckyR]

Your suggestions are why companies fail and people generally hate their bosses (because of the boss's incompetence).

There is no argument regarding how a leader should act if he/she is incompetent. He/she should not have been the leader in the first place.

But if the competency part was okay, then the leader can guide his/her team towards a specific goal. If a leader let his/her team members to come out with their own creative plans and ideas, then who will remain to execute them? Won't there be much chance to such an attempt to be end in chaos?

Who is better suited to come up with an effective plan, those who actually do the work and have a practical understanding of it, or a guy who doesn't do the actual work, but goes to meetings and entertains clients all day?

As I mentioned before, your commentary fits performing simple tasks, so simple even a boss would know what to do. This doesn't work well with professionals.

A leader cannot be a person who has no idea about the task. A politician can be such a person, and usually ppoliticians fail when they try to do things by their own.

Whether it is a simple task or whether you are working for a huge goal with a set of professionals, you have to guide your team. That does not mean that you have to be a dictator. You can always listen to them and take their ideas. But the final decision and the plan should be yours and otherwise it will lead only to chaos.

'Too many cooks will spoil the soup'

You mean "should not" (and I agree with you), yet bosses commonly don't know a lot about the work.

Chaos? What's the difference between a group of professionals coming up with plans A, B and C, discussing it and choosing B. Or a boss listening to their discussion and choosing B? It has nothiing to do with cooks and soup. At the professional levels bosses and leaders are more cheerleaders to keep the troops motivated than a source of expertise.