My one question that arose in reading this article was not a disagreement with the points, but one of degree. Do leaders fall completely in the window or mirror category?
I'll use two examples of leaders I have seen in action. The first we can call The Dude. The Dude would like that. He didn't have much of a care in the world. Nothing rankled Dude. The Dude was the epitome of the mirrored leader. "We" always did a "great job." Duder rarely claimed credit for work done and heaped it on the staff. Except for when it came time to report to the powers that be. Then it was all the work done by others that went into The Dude's reports to his bosses. El Dudarino took first credit for projects, barely on the radar, or he had no hand in producing. And no one's name was ever mentioned for recognition.
A second leader I can use for example we'll call TopCat. TopCat's office windows were always open, even if the door wasn't. TopCat wanted you to stack the pennies when you did the money at night instead of just throwing them in the drawer. The Cat reviewed EVERYTHING and would drop passive-aggressive hints about things if you didn't do something their way. "I noticed you aren't using my (fill in the blank), did you draw that up or did I not send a copy to you?" was a favorite line. Yet, TopCat was fond (albeit infrequent) in praising emails about how good a job the crew had done. "I know I can always count you to get the job done." was a favorite line. I understood the sentiment but there were one too many "I's" in that sentence.
What are we to make of these two examples of window and mirror leaders? Were their brief hints of the opposite style of leadership worth recategorization?
I would argue judgment based on the bulk of their actions. The collective works. "Best Of" records have "B" sides after all. You know that hit you forget about, the "Oh yeah! That's them." The Dude really did look in the mirror every morning, despite claiming victories he shouldn't have. And TopCat washed those windows by the books every day. You can see the evidence in their staff. For the most part, people liked The Dude. When they showed up for work on time, or at all, they worked hard. And their efforts showed. Even if the lowest member of the team knew who helped keep the wheels spinning. On the other hand, TopCat's team nearly mutinied. No one cared what happened and the bare minimum was maxed out. People roasted or froze parked by the door rather than come in early and you could sail to the next continent from the breeze at quitting time.
At the end of the day, both TopCat and the Dude ran their organizations, though, both could have been much better. Dude could have ignored himself in the mirror a little more and noticed his employees constantly late. Cat could have recognized the potential stored up waiting. Basic functions were met by their being the leaders they were. Like the rest of us, they're humans stuck in long-standing habits. Notes of thanks don't erase passive-aggressive stupidity any more than credit hogging negates the sense of team well crafted. When dealing with leaders or being a leader, it is all about the whole picture. That leadership style you show over time. Not just the brief hints, slip-ups, or flashes of genius.
Click HERE for the original article
Comments
Post a Comment