the thing about being a leader is...

Several events in the past few weeks have made thinking about leaders, leaderships and its relationship with members of an organization. Below are some of my observations:

I believe that it is crucial for any organization to have a strong and decisive leader. But one must remember that being a strong leader does not necessarily translate into being autocratic; it just mean that one have to have a certain degree of authority over the other members in the organization.

One must be able to mobilize the entire organization to work towards a singular aim, one must be able to convince the rest of the them that it is of utmost importance that all of them should work together to realize a particular goal.

And one can achieve all that without resorting to dictatorial tactics - one just have to be firm and readily engage the members of the organization. Indeed, one must be well-versed in the arts of persuasion so much so that it seemed effortless.

I think this is especially true when the people you are leading have more or less equal intellectual standing as compared to yourself. Indeed, they are not mindless automatons - each of them have the ability to think for themselves, to evaluate your decisions and actions and draw conclusions about their feasibility and practicalities.

I think that's the main problem with some of the leaders today - they underestimates the intellectual capacity of the people they are leading thinking that the masses could be easily hoodwinked by their eloquent recitations and grandiose plans.

It may be so back in the feudal ages but the current circumstances are different as people have greater access to information and the increasing proliferation of varied viewpoints.

Therefore, a leader must be aware of the different perceptions people have towards his leadership - from glowing praises to damning criticisms. Of course, one also needs to know how to distinguish between the comments worth looking into and those which are not.

However, I think it is a lot more important for a leader to be open and welcoming to other people's opinions about him rather than busily deciding whether a particular opinion should be taken seriously or not.

In short, as a leader, everybody's opinions matters and requires equal amounts of your unwavering attention.

But then again, it all goes back to the question of how 'in touch' the leader is to his or her charges. Certain leaders believe that they can lead an organization from him desk, giving out orders to his staff regularly without actually engaging them.

Certain leaders prefers to relegate all his duties to his staff allowing them to decide on every small matter which arises in the organization.

I once read a quotation which goes something like 'An empire can be conquered but not governed from a horseback'; the same applies to governing an organization.

To arrogantly call the shots will not guarantee your popularity among your charges but to simply try to leave all the decision-making process to the rest of your committee will only downgrade your importance in the organization. The former will be labeled autocratic while the latter will be called weak.

I guess to which side one is more inclined to go to depends partly on the kind of people you choose to surround yourself with.

Some leaders are paralyzed exactly because of the people they are surrounded with; even if you have noble intentions or plans, if you cannot get it past through your advisors, your plans will be crippled. You cannot initiate any changes and maintain the momentum to sustain them; they are trapped and helpless.

If nearly half of your advisors are your close buddies, chances are that you too will be ultimately cut-off from the demands and realities of the external segment of the organization.

You will not be able to effectively detect any problems, complications or dissatisfactions in your organization because your attention to the organization as a whole will be gradually shifted to the small circle advisors or friends which you normally keep in contact with. Any decisions you make will only take into account the repercussions it will have on your select group of friends.

Ultimately, your sensitivities to the finer needs of the members of the organization will be numbed. I guess that's what you get when you allow nepotism and cronyism to creep into your organization.

But the scenario outlined above are simplistic at best; the patterns in leadership are not always so mechanistic. They are 'hidden hands' at work in any organization or political structure; external factors which are beyond your control.

However, to attribute your inability to act due to external, uncontrollable factors is a lame attempt to shift the blame to others. As a leader, you are given the power and authority to run the organization in the best way you see fit; good leaders often knows how to utilize these powers granted to them to plan and craft their organizations.

You cannot be as helpless as you claimed to be because you are the top leader - and with it comes some form of authority and means to get yourself out of it.

I have to admit that it is not always easy to be a good and competent leader. One will always be subjected to intense scrutiny, people will always read into your decisions, your words and your gestures. Indeed, It felt as if one is living in a glass house.

When you think about it, it is kinda cruel for people to try and measure a leader with respect to a certain standard because each leader is different in a sense that each of them have their own unique 'leadership styles'. But what do they exactly mean by that?

I believe that there are set of common qualities which all leaders should posses, by which we could fairly judge one's competence as a leader - something fundamental shared by all leaders at all levels.

Therefore, to suggest for instance, that a leader should be excused for his lack of sensitivity towards the needs of his charges by calling that his 'leadership style' is an irresponsible misuse of the phrase.

Besides, most people does not make any distinction between the two; for them, incompetence is still incompetence whatever you call it - a leadership style or quality. Whatever one chooses to call it, one thing for sure is that incompetence and insensitivity in leaders are not easily forgiven by the masses.

And the scrutiny begins from the moment you take up the leadership position.

Therefore, one should always be on the guard because in such things, perception is sometimes more substantial, more lasting and more fatal than reality.