Good thoughts. In what situations do you assume leadership? How fast do you give up your attempt to lead if it seems you have no supporters? Would you follow someone just because everyone else decides too?
This whole dynamic is curious.
"When in charge, take charge" I suppose works well enough for appointed 'leaders'. Some people earn a followership through mandate - they have employees, or a constituency, or children. Their followers will look to them first for vision and direction (primarily out of convenience, until they've earned full voluntary support). These people's primary job is to lead, direct, motivate behavior and activity, produce. They are in the role to provide vision and direction where none exist (or is limited). But I don't suppose that's the interesting answer. The real question is how did these people attain a position of 'leadership' in the first place? (I guess I know how parents get their followers). At some point they ought to have had a vision and strategy of their own, and that enough people believed in that idea, such that they were able to advance into a position of authority. I really believe that this is how the best leaders gain a following.
"All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo.
So to answer the 1st question - I assume leadership in those situations where I feel I have the most input, the best ideas, the most precise executable strategy, and valuable experience. (In all honesty, I'll almost always throw a few ideas at any problem, but I know my limitations and also ask tons of questions). Aside - I believe George Washington was extremely reluctant to be the first president. He didn't want the job, but his leadership ability and fortitude were apparent during the Revolutionary War. I guess the point is you don't have to want to assume leadership to be good at it.
#B - If I have no followers, I'm not really a leader. I may be a visionary, or a logician, or a manager, but something is obstructing my leadership ability. Maybe my communication skills are deplorable, or I have the charisma and interpersonal acumen of an injured wolverine. Or, maybe my ideas are just not as good as I believe them to be. Some hurdles can be overcome, others not. I don't think I would ever stop contributing either vision or direction, or even voting on potential courses of action. At the end of the day we want what's best for the group/organization/society. I'll gladly warm the bench as long as we win the game.
Lastly, I don't think I would follow someone just because everyone else is. I would only follow someone if I believed in their vision for what the endstate should look like. On the other hand, I have been guilty of following people whose time has probably passed. This is why I don't mind term limits. If you follow someone through very uncertain terrain and emerge victorious, it is easy to become enamored with the person (people) who led you through it. "I'd follow this person anywhere through anything." I'm sure Adolf Hitler had that kind of electricity with the German people at some point. (godwin, I know). I'd hope we have more caution than that when deciding whom to follow. That's not to say every leader will eventually turn into Hitler, but even if you have the 'world's best boss' their vision may start to fade, or even worse, become fully realized - so now what?
Hugo said nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come, but I think ideas have an expiration date as well. Going back to effective leadership being circumstantial, I believe different people bring different talents to bear on different circumstances. One has to see through the charisma of the visionary in order to evaluate the merits of the vision itself. Will this idea work in these circumstances? Does it solve a problem(s)? Will we all be better off after it's conclusion? Generally, I find that people know how to evaluate ideas and leaders, but I think they become lazy - "I don't want to evaluate another idea or another person. I've already vetted this guy's ideas, I'll just stick with him" - or complacent - "who cares about the shortest, most efficient, cost effective way to get there, as long as we get there."
I agree it's a curious dynamic.
aa
