Today I recognized that a good leader is someone that stands for the strengths of her people. When a collective is under attack, she is a shield to protect her people and also a spear to advance the vision forward.
In movies we often see two scenarios: 1) the leader is surrounded by her soldiers as a wall of protection; or 2) the leader is the one that is the first to rush into battle. In the first scenario, the concept is to "protect the leader so that she may survive"; in the second scenario the concept is to "lead the people in the way forward risking her own mind and body." The former method makes sense from a rational standpoint: if the leader is destroyed early on, then there is nobody to lead.
In a sense, the latter method posits a continuous emergence of new leaders such that when the leader at the front is possibly wiped out, that among those that follow there shall be new leaders that naturally emerge to push the front forward even when the original leader is gone. As a child I grew up primarily watching movies where leaders behave in a Type 2 fashion. It's amazing how the kind of movies you watch as a child influence really do influence your adult life behavior :-)
In summary, a Type 2 leader is inevitably the most unprotected person on the planet and is arguably not as smart as a Type 1 leader that is oppositely the most protected person around. A Type 2 leader leads with passion -- which to her followers can be quite a thrill; a Type 1 leader leads with their mind -- which makes much more sense but doesn't make as good of a movie. A Type 2 leader is confident in herself, and not concerned for her well-being. By nature of her passion, she is dangerous to her team as she inspires them to follow her into battle; a Type 1 leader thinks her position out carefully, and is willing to see the team around her take successive hits as team members are moved around strategically by the leader to score the all important winning of the war.
Hmmm. I thought about this once, haven't I? Ah yes, two years ago now. Here it is. It was then that I began to believe that the Type 1 approach was important to consider. Strange how two years later I am re-engaged by the excitement of a Type 2 approach. It must be my Netflix queue. I believe that my only recourse is to Do Both.. Darn. It's never simple, is it?
Posted by maeda at November 1, 2007 12:53 AM