Lead or be led?
My dad once asked me this question when i was very young.
I suppose most parents will want to be proud of their children. They want to show off their offspring in the best light. This is certainly true in chinese communities where a son going to Harvard is just like buying the first Mercedes, whether or not your business is a success. It is the glow they're after. (and by the way, it has to be a Merc for some quirky reason!)
So, do you want to lead or be led? Is this a choice of one or the other? is there no middle ground where you can choose not to lead or be led?
The "lead or be led" question has been popping up throughout my life, taking one form or another but always manage to make an appearance (can I use the word omnipresent here?). In school, possibly because I was braver then, and got some good grades, I landed myself in some sort of leadership positions. class monitor? head-prefect? i don't know how i got myself into these things, and i still don't! nevertheless, they did happen. And when i got to secondary school, the courage to speak up dwindled and so has my grades. Naturally (by society's measure!), the leadership positions became non-existent.
And I see this happening in work life again. Vocal people will tend to fill up the management positions. Also, the more certificates you have hanging on the wall, the more likely you'd be in a management role.
Because of the social value the current society places on management roles, we have come to regard being in management roles as a goal in itself, without realising what being in management roles actually mean. The most consistent job description I can come up with for a manager is... "tell your managees exactly what to do". Using a job description like that, it is no wonder that managers often feel to have god-like power, controlling the work life of their managees. And managees will often feel like a child, the "can't do this, can't do that" mentality.
Is there no system where the balance of power is shifted? Where the managees have the ability to fire the managers as much as the managers have the ability to fire them? A system like this should promote more respect among managers and managees. It'll treat everyone like adults. It'll remove (or at least reduce) all the childish spats that go on in the adult world.
So... lead or be led? I want to believe in a third way. I want to believe, instead of not lead and not be led, a more positive way is to lead AND be led, concurrently. Leaders should try to give up the "do this for me" attitude and promote a more "what happens if we do this" (note the 'me' and the 'we'). Others should take up more leadership roles. Afterall, you are the only true leader of yourself. Everyone else is a guide.
Technology has given the opportunity for leaders of the world (that's you and me!) a place where we can share our leadership qualities. I am able to blog this and let you know what i think. Others join in online forums and bring companies to keel. There's also Google who because of the leadership in all of us, able to provide a search engine that's useful to all of us (minus the recent China-Google censorship).
So, technology has given rise to a collective wisdom where everyone is a leader. Maybe we can learn from what technology has given us, and apply the same "system" in our work and daily lives. To lead or be led? You decide! To quote my favourite cartoon (at one point!), the power, is yours.
- "Do you want to be a leader or be led by other people?"
"I want to be neither. i don't want to lead or be led."
"This is the most difficult person to be..."
I suppose most parents will want to be proud of their children. They want to show off their offspring in the best light. This is certainly true in chinese communities where a son going to Harvard is just like buying the first Mercedes, whether or not your business is a success. It is the glow they're after. (and by the way, it has to be a Merc for some quirky reason!)
So, do you want to lead or be led? Is this a choice of one or the other? is there no middle ground where you can choose not to lead or be led?
The "lead or be led" question has been popping up throughout my life, taking one form or another but always manage to make an appearance (can I use the word omnipresent here?). In school, possibly because I was braver then, and got some good grades, I landed myself in some sort of leadership positions. class monitor? head-prefect? i don't know how i got myself into these things, and i still don't! nevertheless, they did happen. And when i got to secondary school, the courage to speak up dwindled and so has my grades. Naturally (by society's measure!), the leadership positions became non-existent.
And I see this happening in work life again. Vocal people will tend to fill up the management positions. Also, the more certificates you have hanging on the wall, the more likely you'd be in a management role.
Because of the social value the current society places on management roles, we have come to regard being in management roles as a goal in itself, without realising what being in management roles actually mean. The most consistent job description I can come up with for a manager is... "tell your managees exactly what to do". Using a job description like that, it is no wonder that managers often feel to have god-like power, controlling the work life of their managees. And managees will often feel like a child, the "can't do this, can't do that" mentality.
Is there no system where the balance of power is shifted? Where the managees have the ability to fire the managers as much as the managers have the ability to fire them? A system like this should promote more respect among managers and managees. It'll treat everyone like adults. It'll remove (or at least reduce) all the childish spats that go on in the adult world.
So... lead or be led? I want to believe in a third way. I want to believe, instead of not lead and not be led, a more positive way is to lead AND be led, concurrently. Leaders should try to give up the "do this for me" attitude and promote a more "what happens if we do this" (note the 'me' and the 'we'). Others should take up more leadership roles. Afterall, you are the only true leader of yourself. Everyone else is a guide.
Technology has given the opportunity for leaders of the world (that's you and me!) a place where we can share our leadership qualities. I am able to blog this and let you know what i think. Others join in online forums and bring companies to keel. There's also Google who because of the leadership in all of us, able to provide a search engine that's useful to all of us (minus the recent China-Google censorship).
So, technology has given rise to a collective wisdom where everyone is a leader. Maybe we can learn from what technology has given us, and apply the same "system" in our work and daily lives. To lead or be led? You decide! To quote my favourite cartoon (at one point!), the power, is yours.
posted by Shang Lee at 12:57 pm | Article's link
3 Comments:
Empowerment and leader-servant are probably what you're looking for. :0
i don't think we can find them in mainstream organisations. plus, it's just too socially "different"!
Hi Cissyn - it's true that technology levels the playing field but with people ruthlessly enforcing the ISA etc, you can be sure there won't be that many people willing to stick their necks out as cyber activists
Post a Comment
<< Home