Leaders seen by psychologist
Continuing with themes of leadership, everyone knows that companies sometimes try to find among its employees to those with qualities of “leader” with knowledge that these people are the most qualified to lead a team. Are there such employees in all organizations? How do I find?
This is a comment I heard a psychologist talking about leaders. Psychology professionals who study leadership profiles concluded that when we join a group of strangers together and isolate the group, after some time one of them emerges as a leader (or more than one). According to psychologists, it is impossible for all individuals in a group behave in a “flat” and that none of them, sooner or later, take a leading role.
If this approach is true, we might conclude that companies should devote more time to observe the interactions between employees who share space to discover who among them is boss who has “wood” leader. It’s about discovering these informal leaders of both spoken in the business literature, people who have great preaching among his colleagues and are able to mobilize in the sense that they are interested. Usually do so in the right direction (convening informal meetings outside normal working hours to take a few wines, with couples making dinner …) although it may appear in this style leaders to use their “power” emotional and affect their ability to act against the organization, creating a bad atmosphere.
It is interesting to note that sometimes the organizations proposed for promotion to people who achieved merits in a very specific field (sales, for example) and make it as a reward and recognition for their achievements. Do not stop to think if that person cherishes the skills needed to lead a team, which of course are quite different from those needed to sell a product. Assume that a person who was able to sell can get others to do the same, simple as the argument goes.
While this is the case, these leaders ‘potential’ in all the groups we are still hiding “in the weeds” and have the opportunity to showcase their skills for the benefit of the company. Moreover, not the first time one of these people, burned by the ignorance that devote their heads, heads a movement against the organization “contaminating” supporters of ill feelings toward those who paid the payroll.
The reflection I want to make is this: why do not we look at these people with leadership qualities that actually appear in all groups, as the psychologists say? The evidence seems to show that to be a leader must have an innate part, but also have to add another part of learning. That portion of innate qualities are crucial for a good performance of the leadership, and it does not seem sensible to despise those who cherish these virtues, do not promote someone else who does, and then complain about the mediocre performance as such exerts latter.
The huge problem is to acknowledge the work of those other employees who strive and achieve good results, but they lack the necessary skills to perform effectively the role of leader. Any solution will have to arbitrate, but does not seem consistent promoted into a position for not meeting the required skills. To do so are the career plans that do not always have to be linked to promotion and that a delegation may raise different functions.
In conclusion, the lack of common sense sometimes generates harmful situations. Let’s recap what was said:
1. Know who is “leading timber” within our company.
2. Ascend people to reward them, regardless of their qualifications for the new post.
3. Burn those who did have training, denying them one by one the opportunity to develop.
4. Above we complained about the mediocrity of the leaders and even asked us if we are “facing a crisis of leadership” (there is a debate in these terms linkedin).
5. And worse, sometimes these leaders get “informal” so much preaching amongst their colleagues are made against the organization and contaminate us all his followers.