What Does It Take To Be A Leader?
#31
Posted 07 July 2006 - 05:43 AM
http://www.last.fm/user/DeathDude/Upcoming Concerts will be attending, 5/10/08: Dream Theater, 5/12/08: Gigantour, 5/16/08: Nightwish, 5/27/08: Rush, 6/5/08 and 6/6/08: Iron Maiden, 7/27/08: Judas Priest,
#32
Posted 07 July 2006 - 01:35 PM
Blood-Pigggy, on Jul 6 2006, 05:10 PM, said:
Not necessarily true. In high school, I never WANTED to be assigned lead roles in our musicals, because I have tremendous stage fright, and don't like performing unless I'm doing so with a group, or alone. I never even tried out, but our musical directors would contact me about parts they wanted me to play, and I'd end up taking the role.
I wouldn't argue that this makes me a good leader, so I'm not sure which side of the argument this falls on (and in fact, I would probably argue that I'm not, because I'm not very confident, and I tend to just want to make people happy). I'm just one of those people who will do things if asked, and I view them more as duties than as accomplishments.
I'm just saying that just because people don't necessarily want to do things doesn't mean they don't end up doing them.
doodoodoo!!!
#33
Posted 07 July 2006 - 02:05 PM
#34
Posted 12 July 2006 - 09:43 PM
Juni Ori, on Jul 7 2006, 03:05 PM, said:
You're a sniper?
Juni for leader, he can pick off any problems with the twitch of a finger. That's a damn good quality right there.
#35
Posted 13 July 2006 - 01:28 PM
#37
Posted 13 July 2006 - 02:38 PM
#38
Posted 13 July 2006 - 08:29 PM
Meep?
#39
Posted 14 July 2006 - 07:52 PM
Juni Ori, on Jul 6 2006, 10:45 AM, said:
Fruit Pie Jones, on Jul 6 2006, 05:55 AM, said:
And your arguments only prove my point anyway. The best way to upbring children is by being a strong and positive role model. Leading them has nothing to do with it. If you lead them, they'll never be able to have independent thoughts, or they'd simply rebel at a point in time.
I think Tom's example of the Norvegian royal family is almost excellent, with one simple flaw... Do they really lead the people? Doesn't the elected members of the parlament do that?
#41
Posted 16 July 2006 - 05:07 AM
On this point, anyway:
Sebastianos said:
I don't mean to take that out of context, but it's the part I agree the most with. The rest, I'm not sure I could agree, exactly.
But this is an interesting point - I think it would be difficult to "lead" your children, or anyone you are close to. The reason being that leadership (or some types, I think - such as political leadership), I think, requires a certain image of perfection, and that is only possible when people don't really know you.
I mean, nobody is perfect, and flaws are just that more obvious when you're close up. The best you really can do in that situation is be a strong and positive role model, and do your best to foster the same ideals in your children without attempting to force anything on them.
But where I disagree with Seb is that I think that what he is describing (the strong, positive role model) is just another kind of leadership, rather than being completely separate from "leader" roles - it's non-interfering, and leading by example rather than imposition, as it were.
doodoodoo!!!
#42
Posted 21 July 2006 - 12:14 AM
taikara, on Jul 16 2006, 05:07 AM, said:
A leader needs someone to follow.
Now leaders too can be and usually are role models to at least a part of the population. If they're a positive or negative role model - that depends. But a leader has certain powers that allow him to influence the people into doing what he says - not by teaching by example.
A role model doesn't need anyone (sounds strange right).
The thing is, that if you're a role model, you should really be that kind of a person. If you're only pretending to have some vertuous because you'd like to teach them to a child - then you're not a role model, then you're an upbringer, who's trying to do something and is walking on thin ice any sign of you not believing in the stuff you teach - and you're out of there.
#43
Posted 21 July 2006 - 03:09 AM
And I still don't agree. You make little sense on at least half of that point, and you're twisting definitions of words to suit your argument.
Let's try this:
Role model.
You would think that if a certain behavior can be deemed imitatable (positive or negative), there would need to be someone other than the originator of that behavior to imitate it. Imitation of behavior, in any form, definitely requires more than one person - and one person will be the "leader" who originates the behavior, while the other person will be the "follower" who imitates the behavior.
Children are natural imitators, and do mimic behaviors they see. Role models can be positive or negative (which is why I qualified the term with the words "strong, positive"), and it doesn't matter if they're "faking" it, it only matters that the behavior is imitated (and just to be clear, "faked" behavior is often imitated as well - children can learn to "fake" virtues just as much as they can learn to actually be virtuous). Parents really are role models by default - whether they're good ones or bad ones is up to them.
And because imitation (necessary to achieving role model status) requires one person to "lead" the behavior and another person to "follow" the behavior, your own definition of leadership would qualify role models as just another type of leader... if you were going by the actual definition, anyway. Maybe you should find a more appropriate term to use for whatever it is you're describing.
doodoodoo!!!