Something of a syllogism on the relational power of leader-follower-leader. This comes from my second-hand interaction with “The E-Myth” as well as my own self-observations.
Let me know if you agree or not, am I missing parts, etc.
If leading means the leader stops “doing” in order to lead
- and -
Doers don’t know the leader [e.g. Doer is new, organization is too large, leading takes too much time]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then Doers will foster contempt towards the leader
Doer-contempt fosters a decrease in productivity
- and -
Decrease in productivity fosters contempt in the leader
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then how does a leader lead without fostering contempt throughout the circle of people involved?
I know there are things that Doers can do, the question focuses on the role, power, and potential of the Leader for two reasons. First, it’s faster to fix one point (leader) than many points (doer) and I really like efficiency. Second, my sphere of contact tends to be with leader-types.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
The leader-poison of Contempt
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Could it have something to do with service versus leadership? Often times leaders cast their own vision, for which the doers then become a means to his or her own end. This creates resentment among the doers. The servants, see their task as empowering people to do their task or realize their own vision. The servant then becomes a doer, and the people feel supported. What do you think?
What is E-Myth?
Post a Comment