Should a “leader” limit the amount of information (e.g. about root causes) given to the “followers” in order to maintain their position?How to be a young and effective team leader?Team Lead is not working and delegating all his work to me and getting false credit for itWhat differentiates a manager from a team leader?How can I be a leader if I might get myself replaced?How should a leader handle advice giving?How to handle team leader offering no help?Coworker put his name on my source codeHow to tell your boss his team lead choice is not the best for the project?How to make my deputy manager change his rude behaviour (and know his place anyway)?What if I'm a better developer than my Team Leader?
What is the tangent at a sharp point on a curve?
UK Tourist Visa- Enquiry
Can other pieces capture a threatening piece and prevent a checkmate?
pipe commands inside find -exec?
Improve appearance of matrices as arrow labels in tikz-cd
When did hardware antialiasing start being available?
Acquisition - what happens to stock?
Would mining huge amounts of resources on the Moon change its orbit?
Pre-Employment Background Check With Consent For Future Checks
Is xar preinstalled on macOS?
Inhabiting Mars versus going straight for a Dyson swarm
How to balance a monster modification (zombie)?
How can I create URL shortcuts/redirects for task/diff IDs in Phabricator?
TDE Master Key Rotation
Exposing a company lying about themselves in a tight-knitted industry: Is my career at risk on the long run?
Should I be concerned about student access to a test bank?
PTIJ: Which Dr. Seuss books should one obtain?
Does Shadow Sorcerer's Eyes of the Dark work on all magical darkness or just his/hers?
Can "few" be used as a subject? If so, what is the rule?
Difficulty understanding group delay concept
How do hiring committees for research positions view getting "scooped"?
Determine voltage drop over 10G resistors with cheap multimeter
How can Newt cast Accio on a Niffler when it is only supposed to work on inanimate objects?
Emojional cryptic crossword
Should a “leader” limit the amount of information (e.g. about root causes) given to the “followers” in order to maintain their position?
How to be a young and effective team leader?Team Lead is not working and delegating all his work to me and getting false credit for itWhat differentiates a manager from a team leader?How can I be a leader if I might get myself replaced?How should a leader handle advice giving?How to handle team leader offering no help?Coworker put his name on my source codeHow to tell your boss his team lead choice is not the best for the project?How to make my deputy manager change his rude behaviour (and know his place anyway)?What if I'm a better developer than my Team Leader?
I've a conundrum. I'm slowly getting the grasp of leadership but I'm finding it morally concerning. Let me explain ...
From what I understand, a leader by definition needs to have followers. But then again, wouldn't it be nicer if you could liberate your followers so that they don't need to follow anyone and instead can be their own leaders? But I realize that doing so would make the leader not have any followers and they they won't remain a leader anymore.
So, it seems ... it is sadly in the best interest of the leader to never liberate the follower, keep them from reaching their full potential so that they can remain a follower forever.
Is my understanding really true?
EDIT: I do actually have a real workplace problem. I've been told several times this -- "You will be recognized as a leader when you have people coming to you". I then think, why will they come to me. When I've something I can offer them. Great. That's fine by me. But then how do I keep them coming back. For that to happen it seems I need to offer a limited form of help where I solve their symptom but not the root cause. Because if I solve the root cause they won't come to me and I don't get points. I don't know why that would be good for the company and why my manager would want this from me. It all seems so backwards/wrong
ethics leadership
edited 5 mins ago
seventyeightist
1415
asked 1 hour ago
user855user855
1053
New contributor
user855 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
|
show 6 more comments
I've a conundrum. I'm slowly getting the grasp of leadership but I'm finding it morally concerning. Let me explain ...
From what I understand, a leader by definition needs to have followers. But then again, wouldn't it be nicer if you could liberate your followers so that they don't need to follow anyone and instead can be their own leaders? But I realize that doing so would make the leader not have any followers and they they won't remain a leader anymore.
So, it seems ... it is sadly in the best interest of the leader to never liberate the follower, keep them from reaching their full potential so that they can remain a follower forever.
Is my understanding really true?
EDIT: I do actually have a real workplace problem. I've been told several times this -- "You will be recognized as a leader when you have people coming to you". I then think, why will they come to me. When I've something I can offer them. Great. That's fine by me. But then how do I keep them coming back. For that to happen it seems I need to offer a limited form of help where I solve their symptom but not the root cause. Because if I solve the root cause they won't come to me and I don't get points. I don't know why that would be good for the company and why my manager would want this from me. It all seems so backwards/wrong
ethics leadership
edited 5 mins ago
seventyeightist
1415
asked 1 hour ago
user855user855
1053
New contributor
user855 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
6
"Is my understanding really true?" - no.
– Joe Strazzere
1 hour ago
Do you have a practical, applied question relevant to something happening in your workplace? As written, this question is incredibly broad and theoretical, which will make it a hard fit on the Q & A format of The Workplace.
– dwizum
1 hour ago
Maybe a better fit for philosophy.se ? (Not necessarily specific to workplaces either!) - if it's about the workplace and you can re-word the question into a bit more concrete Q&A are you asking something like: is it in the best interest of the 'manager' to keep a hierarchical command/control relationship with their reports rather than encouraging the reports to be 'leaders of themselves'? - Sadly IMO there are a lot of managers who do seem to think this way whether through lack of understanding of leadership, need to solidify their own position, etc...
– seventyeightist
1 hour ago
1
@user855 I understand what you are getting at and have felt the same way myself perhaps in the past! I think you are confusing "leadership" and something else I don't have a specific word for, but something like being the "go to" person, subject matter expert, or something like that. In general a "leader" would contribute something other than just "solving the root cause" but is also about setting direction, inspiring others, etc. Can you edit to give a more specific workplace example (even if you anonymise some of the details)? What's your position, are you the leader or the "people"?
– seventyeightist
1 hour ago
1
"But then how do I keep them coming back." - keep offering them something (new). Don't give them a crippled offering in order to keep them indebted to you.
– dwizum
59 mins ago
|
show 6 more comments
I've a conundrum. I'm slowly getting the grasp of leadership but I'm finding it morally concerning. Let me explain ...
From what I understand, a leader by definition needs to have followers. But then again, wouldn't it be nicer if you could liberate your followers so that they don't need to follow anyone and instead can be their own leaders? But I realize that doing so would make the leader not have any followers and they they won't remain a leader anymore.
So, it seems ... it is sadly in the best interest of the leader to never liberate the follower, keep them from reaching their full potential so that they can remain a follower forever.
Is my understanding really true?
EDIT: I do actually have a real workplace problem. I've been told several times this -- "You will be recognized as a leader when you have people coming to you". I then think, why will they come to me. When I've something I can offer them. Great. That's fine by me. But then how do I keep them coming back. For that to happen it seems I need to offer a limited form of help where I solve their symptom but not the root cause. Because if I solve the root cause they won't come to me and I don't get points. I don't know why that would be good for the company and why my manager would want this from me. It all seems so backwards/wrong
ethics leadership
edited 5 mins ago
seventyeightist
1415
asked 1 hour ago
user855user855
1053
New contributor
user855 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I've a conundrum. I'm slowly getting the grasp of leadership but I'm finding it morally concerning. Let me explain ...
From what I understand, a leader by definition needs to have followers. But then again, wouldn't it be nicer if you could liberate your followers so that they don't need to follow anyone and instead can be their own leaders? But I realize that doing so would make the leader not have any followers and they they won't remain a leader anymore.
So, it seems ... it is sadly in the best interest of the leader to never liberate the follower, keep them from reaching their full potential so that they can remain a follower forever.
Is my understanding really true?
EDIT: I do actually have a real workplace problem. I've been told several times this -- "You will be recognized as a leader when you have people coming to you". I then think, why will they come to me. When I've something I can offer them. Great. That's fine by me. But then how do I keep them coming back. For that to happen it seems I need to offer a limited form of help where I solve their symptom but not the root cause. Because if I solve the root cause they won't come to me and I don't get points. I don't know why that would be good for the company and why my manager would want this from me. It all seems so backwards/wrong
ethics leadership
ethics leadership
edited 5 mins ago
seventyeightist
1415
asked 1 hour ago
user855user855
1053
New contributor
user855 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 5 mins ago
seventyeightist
1415
asked 1 hour ago
user855user855
1053
New contributor
user855 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 5 mins ago
seventyeightist
1415
edited 5 mins ago
seventyeightist
1415
edited 5 mins ago
seventyeightist
1415
1415
asked 1 hour ago
user855user855
1053
New contributor
user855 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 1 hour ago
user855user855
1053
asked 1 hour ago
user855user855
1053
1053
New contributor
user855 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
user855 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
user855 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
6
"Is my understanding really true?" - no.
– Joe Strazzere
1 hour ago
Do you have a practical, applied question relevant to something happening in your workplace? As written, this question is incredibly broad and theoretical, which will make it a hard fit on the Q & A format of The Workplace.
– dwizum
1 hour ago
Maybe a better fit for philosophy.se ? (Not necessarily specific to workplaces either!) - if it's about the workplace and you can re-word the question into a bit more concrete Q&A are you asking something like: is it in the best interest of the 'manager' to keep a hierarchical command/control relationship with their reports rather than encouraging the reports to be 'leaders of themselves'? - Sadly IMO there are a lot of managers who do seem to think this way whether through lack of understanding of leadership, need to solidify their own position, etc...
– seventyeightist
1 hour ago
1
@user855 I understand what you are getting at and have felt the same way myself perhaps in the past! I think you are confusing "leadership" and something else I don't have a specific word for, but something like being the "go to" person, subject matter expert, or something like that. In general a "leader" would contribute something other than just "solving the root cause" but is also about setting direction, inspiring others, etc. Can you edit to give a more specific workplace example (even if you anonymise some of the details)? What's your position, are you the leader or the "people"?
– seventyeightist
1 hour ago
1
"But then how do I keep them coming back." - keep offering them something (new). Don't give them a crippled offering in order to keep them indebted to you.
– dwizum
59 mins ago
|
show 6 more comments
6
"Is my understanding really true?" - no.
– Joe Strazzere
1 hour ago
Do you have a practical, applied question relevant to something happening in your workplace? As written, this question is incredibly broad and theoretical, which will make it a hard fit on the Q & A format of The Workplace.
– dwizum
1 hour ago
Maybe a better fit for philosophy.se ? (Not necessarily specific to workplaces either!) - if it's about the workplace and you can re-word the question into a bit more concrete Q&A are you asking something like: is it in the best interest of the 'manager' to keep a hierarchical command/control relationship with their reports rather than encouraging the reports to be 'leaders of themselves'? - Sadly IMO there are a lot of managers who do seem to think this way whether through lack of understanding of leadership, need to solidify their own position, etc...
– seventyeightist
1 hour ago
1
@user855 I understand what you are getting at and have felt the same way myself perhaps in the past! I think you are confusing "leadership" and something else I don't have a specific word for, but something like being the "go to" person, subject matter expert, or something like that. In general a "leader" would contribute something other than just "solving the root cause" but is also about setting direction, inspiring others, etc. Can you edit to give a more specific workplace example (even if you anonymise some of the details)? What's your position, are you the leader or the "people"?
– seventyeightist
1 hour ago
1
"But then how do I keep them coming back." - keep offering them something (new). Don't give them a crippled offering in order to keep them indebted to you.
– dwizum
59 mins ago
6
6
"Is my understanding really true?" - no.
– Joe Strazzere
1 hour ago
"Is my understanding really true?" - no.
– Joe Strazzere
1 hour ago
Do you have a practical, applied question relevant to something happening in your workplace? As written, this question is incredibly broad and theoretical, which will make it a hard fit on the Q & A format of The Workplace.
– dwizum
1 hour ago
Do you have a practical, applied question relevant to something happening in your workplace? As written, this question is incredibly broad and theoretical, which will make it a hard fit on the Q & A format of The Workplace.
– dwizum
1 hour ago
Maybe a better fit for philosophy.se ? (Not necessarily specific to workplaces either!) - if it's about the workplace and you can re-word the question into a bit more concrete Q&A are you asking something like: is it in the best interest of the 'manager' to keep a hierarchical command/control relationship with their reports rather than encouraging the reports to be 'leaders of themselves'? - Sadly IMO there are a lot of managers who do seem to think this way whether through lack of understanding of leadership, need to solidify their own position, etc...
– seventyeightist
1 hour ago
Maybe a better fit for philosophy.se ? (Not necessarily specific to workplaces either!) - if it's about the workplace and you can re-word the question into a bit more concrete Q&A are you asking something like: is it in the best interest of the 'manager' to keep a hierarchical command/control relationship with their reports rather than encouraging the reports to be 'leaders of themselves'? - Sadly IMO there are a lot of managers who do seem to think this way whether through lack of understanding of leadership, need to solidify their own position, etc...
– seventyeightist
1 hour ago
1
1
@user855 I understand what you are getting at and have felt the same way myself perhaps in the past! I think you are confusing "leadership" and something else I don't have a specific word for, but something like being the "go to" person, subject matter expert, or something like that. In general a "leader" would contribute something other than just "solving the root cause" but is also about setting direction, inspiring others, etc. Can you edit to give a more specific workplace example (even if you anonymise some of the details)? What's your position, are you the leader or the "people"?
– seventyeightist
1 hour ago
@user855 I understand what you are getting at and have felt the same way myself perhaps in the past! I think you are confusing "leadership" and something else I don't have a specific word for, but something like being the "go to" person, subject matter expert, or something like that. In general a "leader" would contribute something other than just "solving the root cause" but is also about setting direction, inspiring others, etc. Can you edit to give a more specific workplace example (even if you anonymise some of the details)? What's your position, are you the leader or the "people"?
– seventyeightist
1 hour ago
1
1
"But then how do I keep them coming back." - keep offering them something (new). Don't give them a crippled offering in order to keep them indebted to you.
– dwizum
59 mins ago
"But then how do I keep them coming back." - keep offering them something (new). Don't give them a crippled offering in order to keep them indebted to you.
– dwizum
59 mins ago
|
show 6 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
It's a very abstract question as it stands, but I am attempting to answer it from the perspective of (what I believe the OP is actually asking based on the given information):
"as a 'leader', what can I offer (on an ongoing basis) to the people I lead, if I give them all the answers so that they can resolve it themselves in the future? How can I continue to be relevant as a leader if I 'give up the goods' right away?"
Leadership is more than "answering questions", even getting to the root cause of the questions! Of course a good leader is able to do that, probably due to having the knowledge and expertise, and certainly the (cliche alert) "big picture" awareness to get to the ultimate issue rather than just the 56th case of something slightly different but related, going wrong in the TTS system (or whatever your domain is).
Leadership is really about setting a direction, giving guidance on a strategic level, influencing people. If you have been given a "lead" role with any significant authority it's likely that this is the sort of thing the manager is expecting from you.
You may have been given this 'leadership' role based on your expert knowledge of "whatever the domain is", solving problems that come up and doing that quickly, etc. A lot of people are innate "leaders" like taking ownership of a situation, coming up with an approach "on the fly" to something they haven't come across before and then convincing other people to follow it. A lot of people, on the other hand, are not. You must know of the situation where people are very good at what they do so get promoted to 'leader' but haven't yet developed the "people" skills to go with that.
in some workplaces, people are promoted to 'leader' based on tech knowledge (or political factors) rather than actual ability to lead. (Is this your workplace?)
As a general principle, you don't have "leader" status just because you are the guy or girl who always knows what to do with The Machine when it has that obscure error message... 17 times a day (each time with a slightly different cause). You get recognised as a "leader" when you have this knowledge and experience and others have confidence in you that for any future issues (And they will happen!) that you can advise / get resources together / influence people to work together to solve that particular problem. And then move on to the next...
Unless your management are extremely short sighted and perceive "problem X" (your 'root cause') to be much bigger than it is -- they are looking to you to solve this, and future, problems with the people who are now as you put it "coming to you".
answered 38 mins ago
seventyeightistseventyeightist
1415
Also look up "impostor syndrome"...
– seventyeightist
20 mins ago
Please don't accept the answer too soon unless you feel it really does answer your question.... there are a lot of things that could be discussed/pored over with this one! - especially as I proposed an edit to the title which could open it up to more people.
– seventyeightist
9 mins ago
... edit to title has now been accepted. I was too slow to be able to edit my comment! :>
– seventyeightist
3 mins ago
add a comment |
To follow up on Joe's comment though I suspect this one might get closed.
A leader can be both a follower and a leader at the same time to different people for different purposes.
Everyone wins when as a leader you develop people to their full potential and it's not unusual to reverse roles several times in a long relationship. I can think of a dozen people who have both led and been led by me and I'm pretty sure it's fulfilling all round.
answered 1 hour ago
SophieSophie
1312
add a comment |
You edited your question to say,
EDIT: I do actually have a real workplace problem. I've been told several times this -- "You will be recognized as a leader when you have people coming to you". I then think, why will they come to me. When I've something I can offer them. Great. That's fine by me. But then how do I keep them coming back. For that to happen it seems I need to offer a limited form of help where I solve their symptom but not the root cause. Because if I solve the root cause they won't come to me and I don't get points. I don't know why that would be good for the company and why my manager would want this from me. It all seems so backwards/wrong
It strikes me that what you're describing here is more akin to indentured servitude rather than leadership. Describing leadership is well beyond the scope of a simple question and answer format, other than to say that you're right, this seems wrong - because it is wrong.
Leadership isn't the art of cultivating a dependent audience. It's the art of leading. If, in your environment, leading means "having something to offer people" as you've stated, then you'd want to continue to lead by continuing to offer things to people - not by offering them something that has a hook buried in it. In other words, have more than one original idea, versus trying to trick people into continuing to be interested in your first idea.
answered 54 mins ago
dwizumdwizum
17.6k93556
Thanks. I think I understand what you're saying a little bit, but where I am still stuck is this -- I think if a leader leads a person correctly, the natural and correct outcome has to be that the person eventually doesn't need leading. In other words I think -- If I lead a group of 5 people, eventually, if I am good leader I shouldn't be left with any person left to lead. Am I understanding this correctly?
– user855
38 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "423"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: false,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
user855 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f131896%2fshould-a-leader-limit-the-amount-of-information-e-g-about-root-causes-given%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(function ()
$("#show-editor-button input, #show-editor-button button").click(function ()
var showEditor = function()
$("#show-editor-button").hide();
$("#post-form").removeClass("dno");
StackExchange.editor.finallyInit();
;
var useFancy = $(this).data('confirm-use-fancy');
if(useFancy == 'True')
var popupTitle = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-title');
var popupBody = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-body');
var popupAccept = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-accept-button');
$(this).loadPopup(
url: '/post/self-answer-popup',
loaded: function(popup)
var pTitle = $(popup).find('h2');
var pBody = $(popup).find('.popup-body');
var pSubmit = $(popup).find('.popup-submit');
pTitle.text(popupTitle);
pBody.html(popupBody);
pSubmit.val(popupAccept).click(showEditor);
)
else
var confirmText = $(this).data('confirm-text');
if (confirmText ? confirm(confirmText) : true)
showEditor();
);
);
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It's a very abstract question as it stands, but I am attempting to answer it from the perspective of (what I believe the OP is actually asking based on the given information):
"as a 'leader', what can I offer (on an ongoing basis) to the people I lead, if I give them all the answers so that they can resolve it themselves in the future? How can I continue to be relevant as a leader if I 'give up the goods' right away?"
Leadership is more than "answering questions", even getting to the root cause of the questions! Of course a good leader is able to do that, probably due to having the knowledge and expertise, and certainly the (cliche alert) "big picture" awareness to get to the ultimate issue rather than just the 56th case of something slightly different but related, going wrong in the TTS system (or whatever your domain is).
Leadership is really about setting a direction, giving guidance on a strategic level, influencing people. If you have been given a "lead" role with any significant authority it's likely that this is the sort of thing the manager is expecting from you.
You may have been given this 'leadership' role based on your expert knowledge of "whatever the domain is", solving problems that come up and doing that quickly, etc. A lot of people are innate "leaders" like taking ownership of a situation, coming up with an approach "on the fly" to something they haven't come across before and then convincing other people to follow it. A lot of people, on the other hand, are not. You must know of the situation where people are very good at what they do so get promoted to 'leader' but haven't yet developed the "people" skills to go with that.
in some workplaces, people are promoted to 'leader' based on tech knowledge (or political factors) rather than actual ability to lead. (Is this your workplace?)
As a general principle, you don't have "leader" status just because you are the guy or girl who always knows what to do with The Machine when it has that obscure error message... 17 times a day (each time with a slightly different cause). You get recognised as a "leader" when you have this knowledge and experience and others have confidence in you that for any future issues (And they will happen!) that you can advise / get resources together / influence people to work together to solve that particular problem. And then move on to the next...
Unless your management are extremely short sighted and perceive "problem X" (your 'root cause') to be much bigger than it is -- they are looking to you to solve this, and future, problems with the people who are now as you put it "coming to you".
answered 38 mins ago
seventyeightistseventyeightist
1415
Also look up "impostor syndrome"...
– seventyeightist
20 mins ago
Please don't accept the answer too soon unless you feel it really does answer your question.... there are a lot of things that could be discussed/pored over with this one! - especially as I proposed an edit to the title which could open it up to more people.
– seventyeightist
9 mins ago
... edit to title has now been accepted. I was too slow to be able to edit my comment! :>
– seventyeightist
3 mins ago
add a comment |
It's a very abstract question as it stands, but I am attempting to answer it from the perspective of (what I believe the OP is actually asking based on the given information):
"as a 'leader', what can I offer (on an ongoing basis) to the people I lead, if I give them all the answers so that they can resolve it themselves in the future? How can I continue to be relevant as a leader if I 'give up the goods' right away?"
Leadership is more than "answering questions", even getting to the root cause of the questions! Of course a good leader is able to do that, probably due to having the knowledge and expertise, and certainly the (cliche alert) "big picture" awareness to get to the ultimate issue rather than just the 56th case of something slightly different but related, going wrong in the TTS system (or whatever your domain is).
Leadership is really about setting a direction, giving guidance on a strategic level, influencing people. If you have been given a "lead" role with any significant authority it's likely that this is the sort of thing the manager is expecting from you.
You may have been given this 'leadership' role based on your expert knowledge of "whatever the domain is", solving problems that come up and doing that quickly, etc. A lot of people are innate "leaders" like taking ownership of a situation, coming up with an approach "on the fly" to something they haven't come across before and then convincing other people to follow it. A lot of people, on the other hand, are not. You must know of the situation where people are very good at what they do so get promoted to 'leader' but haven't yet developed the "people" skills to go with that.
in some workplaces, people are promoted to 'leader' based on tech knowledge (or political factors) rather than actual ability to lead. (Is this your workplace?)
As a general principle, you don't have "leader" status just because you are the guy or girl who always knows what to do with The Machine when it has that obscure error message... 17 times a day (each time with a slightly different cause). You get recognised as a "leader" when you have this knowledge and experience and others have confidence in you that for any future issues (And they will happen!) that you can advise / get resources together / influence people to work together to solve that particular problem. And then move on to the next...
Unless your management are extremely short sighted and perceive "problem X" (your 'root cause') to be much bigger than it is -- they are looking to you to solve this, and future, problems with the people who are now as you put it "coming to you".
answered 38 mins ago
seventyeightistseventyeightist
1415
Also look up "impostor syndrome"...
– seventyeightist
20 mins ago
Please don't accept the answer too soon unless you feel it really does answer your question.... there are a lot of things that could be discussed/pored over with this one! - especially as I proposed an edit to the title which could open it up to more people.
– seventyeightist
9 mins ago
... edit to title has now been accepted. I was too slow to be able to edit my comment! :>
– seventyeightist
3 mins ago
add a comment |
It's a very abstract question as it stands, but I am attempting to answer it from the perspective of (what I believe the OP is actually asking based on the given information):
"as a 'leader', what can I offer (on an ongoing basis) to the people I lead, if I give them all the answers so that they can resolve it themselves in the future? How can I continue to be relevant as a leader if I 'give up the goods' right away?"
Leadership is more than "answering questions", even getting to the root cause of the questions! Of course a good leader is able to do that, probably due to having the knowledge and expertise, and certainly the (cliche alert) "big picture" awareness to get to the ultimate issue rather than just the 56th case of something slightly different but related, going wrong in the TTS system (or whatever your domain is).
Leadership is really about setting a direction, giving guidance on a strategic level, influencing people. If you have been given a "lead" role with any significant authority it's likely that this is the sort of thing the manager is expecting from you.
You may have been given this 'leadership' role based on your expert knowledge of "whatever the domain is", solving problems that come up and doing that quickly, etc. A lot of people are innate "leaders" like taking ownership of a situation, coming up with an approach "on the fly" to something they haven't come across before and then convincing other people to follow it. A lot of people, on the other hand, are not. You must know of the situation where people are very good at what they do so get promoted to 'leader' but haven't yet developed the "people" skills to go with that.
in some workplaces, people are promoted to 'leader' based on tech knowledge (or political factors) rather than actual ability to lead. (Is this your workplace?)
As a general principle, you don't have "leader" status just because you are the guy or girl who always knows what to do with The Machine when it has that obscure error message... 17 times a day (each time with a slightly different cause). You get recognised as a "leader" when you have this knowledge and experience and others have confidence in you that for any future issues (And they will happen!) that you can advise / get resources together / influence people to work together to solve that particular problem. And then move on to the next...
Unless your management are extremely short sighted and perceive "problem X" (your 'root cause') to be much bigger than it is -- they are looking to you to solve this, and future, problems with the people who are now as you put it "coming to you".
answered 38 mins ago
seventyeightistseventyeightist
1415
It's a very abstract question as it stands, but I am attempting to answer it from the perspective of (what I believe the OP is actually asking based on the given information):
"as a 'leader', what can I offer (on an ongoing basis) to the people I lead, if I give them all the answers so that they can resolve it themselves in the future? How can I continue to be relevant as a leader if I 'give up the goods' right away?"
Leadership is more than "answering questions", even getting to the root cause of the questions! Of course a good leader is able to do that, probably due to having the knowledge and expertise, and certainly the (cliche alert) "big picture" awareness to get to the ultimate issue rather than just the 56th case of something slightly different but related, going wrong in the TTS system (or whatever your domain is).
Leadership is really about setting a direction, giving guidance on a strategic level, influencing people. If you have been given a "lead" role with any significant authority it's likely that this is the sort of thing the manager is expecting from you.
You may have been given this 'leadership' role based on your expert knowledge of "whatever the domain is", solving problems that come up and doing that quickly, etc. A lot of people are innate "leaders" like taking ownership of a situation, coming up with an approach "on the fly" to something they haven't come across before and then convincing other people to follow it. A lot of people, on the other hand, are not. You must know of the situation where people are very good at what they do so get promoted to 'leader' but haven't yet developed the "people" skills to go with that.
in some workplaces, people are promoted to 'leader' based on tech knowledge (or political factors) rather than actual ability to lead. (Is this your workplace?)
As a general principle, you don't have "leader" status just because you are the guy or girl who always knows what to do with The Machine when it has that obscure error message... 17 times a day (each time with a slightly different cause). You get recognised as a "leader" when you have this knowledge and experience and others have confidence in you that for any future issues (And they will happen!) that you can advise / get resources together / influence people to work together to solve that particular problem. And then move on to the next...
Unless your management are extremely short sighted and perceive "problem X" (your 'root cause') to be much bigger than it is -- they are looking to you to solve this, and future, problems with the people who are now as you put it "coming to you".
answered 38 mins ago
seventyeightistseventyeightist
1415
answered 38 mins ago
seventyeightistseventyeightist
1415
answered 38 mins ago
seventyeightistseventyeightist
1415
answered 38 mins ago
seventyeightistseventyeightist
1415
1415
Also look up "impostor syndrome"...
– seventyeightist
20 mins ago
Please don't accept the answer too soon unless you feel it really does answer your question.... there are a lot of things that could be discussed/pored over with this one! - especially as I proposed an edit to the title which could open it up to more people.
– seventyeightist
9 mins ago
... edit to title has now been accepted. I was too slow to be able to edit my comment! :>
– seventyeightist
3 mins ago
add a comment |
Also look up "impostor syndrome"...
– seventyeightist
20 mins ago
Please don't accept the answer too soon unless you feel it really does answer your question.... there are a lot of things that could be discussed/pored over with this one! - especially as I proposed an edit to the title which could open it up to more people.
– seventyeightist
9 mins ago
... edit to title has now been accepted. I was too slow to be able to edit my comment! :>
– seventyeightist
3 mins ago
Also look up "impostor syndrome"...
– seventyeightist
20 mins ago
Also look up "impostor syndrome"...
– seventyeightist
20 mins ago
Please don't accept the answer too soon unless you feel it really does answer your question.... there are a lot of things that could be discussed/pored over with this one! - especially as I proposed an edit to the title which could open it up to more people.
– seventyeightist
9 mins ago
Please don't accept the answer too soon unless you feel it really does answer your question.... there are a lot of things that could be discussed/pored over with this one! - especially as I proposed an edit to the title which could open it up to more people.
– seventyeightist
9 mins ago
... edit to title has now been accepted. I was too slow to be able to edit my comment! :>
– seventyeightist
3 mins ago
... edit to title has now been accepted. I was too slow to be able to edit my comment! :>
– seventyeightist
3 mins ago
add a comment |
To follow up on Joe's comment though I suspect this one might get closed.
A leader can be both a follower and a leader at the same time to different people for different purposes.
Everyone wins when as a leader you develop people to their full potential and it's not unusual to reverse roles several times in a long relationship. I can think of a dozen people who have both led and been led by me and I'm pretty sure it's fulfilling all round.
answered 1 hour ago
SophieSophie
1312
add a comment |
To follow up on Joe's comment though I suspect this one might get closed.
A leader can be both a follower and a leader at the same time to different people for different purposes.
Everyone wins when as a leader you develop people to their full potential and it's not unusual to reverse roles several times in a long relationship. I can think of a dozen people who have both led and been led by me and I'm pretty sure it's fulfilling all round.
answered 1 hour ago
SophieSophie
1312
add a comment |
To follow up on Joe's comment though I suspect this one might get closed.
A leader can be both a follower and a leader at the same time to different people for different purposes.
Everyone wins when as a leader you develop people to their full potential and it's not unusual to reverse roles several times in a long relationship. I can think of a dozen people who have both led and been led by me and I'm pretty sure it's fulfilling all round.
answered 1 hour ago
SophieSophie
1312
To follow up on Joe's comment though I suspect this one might get closed.
A leader can be both a follower and a leader at the same time to different people for different purposes.
Everyone wins when as a leader you develop people to their full potential and it's not unusual to reverse roles several times in a long relationship. I can think of a dozen people who have both led and been led by me and I'm pretty sure it's fulfilling all round.
answered 1 hour ago
SophieSophie
1312
answered 1 hour ago
SophieSophie
1312
answered 1 hour ago
SophieSophie
1312
answered 1 hour ago
SophieSophie
1312
1312
add a comment |
add a comment |
You edited your question to say,
EDIT: I do actually have a real workplace problem. I've been told several times this -- "You will be recognized as a leader when you have people coming to you". I then think, why will they come to me. When I've something I can offer them. Great. That's fine by me. But then how do I keep them coming back. For that to happen it seems I need to offer a limited form of help where I solve their symptom but not the root cause. Because if I solve the root cause they won't come to me and I don't get points. I don't know why that would be good for the company and why my manager would want this from me. It all seems so backwards/wrong
It strikes me that what you're describing here is more akin to indentured servitude rather than leadership. Describing leadership is well beyond the scope of a simple question and answer format, other than to say that you're right, this seems wrong - because it is wrong.
Leadership isn't the art of cultivating a dependent audience. It's the art of leading. If, in your environment, leading means "having something to offer people" as you've stated, then you'd want to continue to lead by continuing to offer things to people - not by offering them something that has a hook buried in it. In other words, have more than one original idea, versus trying to trick people into continuing to be interested in your first idea.
answered 54 mins ago
dwizumdwizum
17.6k93556
Thanks. I think I understand what you're saying a little bit, but where I am still stuck is this -- I think if a leader leads a person correctly, the natural and correct outcome has to be that the person eventually doesn't need leading. In other words I think -- If I lead a group of 5 people, eventually, if I am good leader I shouldn't be left with any person left to lead. Am I understanding this correctly?
– user855
38 mins ago
add a comment |
You edited your question to say,
EDIT: I do actually have a real workplace problem. I've been told several times this -- "You will be recognized as a leader when you have people coming to you". I then think, why will they come to me. When I've something I can offer them. Great. That's fine by me. But then how do I keep them coming back. For that to happen it seems I need to offer a limited form of help where I solve their symptom but not the root cause. Because if I solve the root cause they won't come to me and I don't get points. I don't know why that would be good for the company and why my manager would want this from me. It all seems so backwards/wrong
It strikes me that what you're describing here is more akin to indentured servitude rather than leadership. Describing leadership is well beyond the scope of a simple question and answer format, other than to say that you're right, this seems wrong - because it is wrong.
Leadership isn't the art of cultivating a dependent audience. It's the art of leading. If, in your environment, leading means "having something to offer people" as you've stated, then you'd want to continue to lead by continuing to offer things to people - not by offering them something that has a hook buried in it. In other words, have more than one original idea, versus trying to trick people into continuing to be interested in your first idea.
answered 54 mins ago
dwizumdwizum
17.6k93556
Thanks. I think I understand what you're saying a little bit, but where I am still stuck is this -- I think if a leader leads a person correctly, the natural and correct outcome has to be that the person eventually doesn't need leading. In other words I think -- If I lead a group of 5 people, eventually, if I am good leader I shouldn't be left with any person left to lead. Am I understanding this correctly?
– user855
38 mins ago
add a comment |
You edited your question to say,
EDIT: I do actually have a real workplace problem. I've been told several times this -- "You will be recognized as a leader when you have people coming to you". I then think, why will they come to me. When I've something I can offer them. Great. That's fine by me. But then how do I keep them coming back. For that to happen it seems I need to offer a limited form of help where I solve their symptom but not the root cause. Because if I solve the root cause they won't come to me and I don't get points. I don't know why that would be good for the company and why my manager would want this from me. It all seems so backwards/wrong
It strikes me that what you're describing here is more akin to indentured servitude rather than leadership. Describing leadership is well beyond the scope of a simple question and answer format, other than to say that you're right, this seems wrong - because it is wrong.
Leadership isn't the art of cultivating a dependent audience. It's the art of leading. If, in your environment, leading means "having something to offer people" as you've stated, then you'd want to continue to lead by continuing to offer things to people - not by offering them something that has a hook buried in it. In other words, have more than one original idea, versus trying to trick people into continuing to be interested in your first idea.
answered 54 mins ago
dwizumdwizum
17.6k93556
You edited your question to say,
EDIT: I do actually have a real workplace problem. I've been told several times this -- "You will be recognized as a leader when you have people coming to you". I then think, why will they come to me. When I've something I can offer them. Great. That's fine by me. But then how do I keep them coming back. For that to happen it seems I need to offer a limited form of help where I solve their symptom but not the root cause. Because if I solve the root cause they won't come to me and I don't get points. I don't know why that would be good for the company and why my manager would want this from me. It all seems so backwards/wrong
It strikes me that what you're describing here is more akin to indentured servitude rather than leadership. Describing leadership is well beyond the scope of a simple question and answer format, other than to say that you're right, this seems wrong - because it is wrong.
Leadership isn't the art of cultivating a dependent audience. It's the art of leading. If, in your environment, leading means "having something to offer people" as you've stated, then you'd want to continue to lead by continuing to offer things to people - not by offering them something that has a hook buried in it. In other words, have more than one original idea, versus trying to trick people into continuing to be interested in your first idea.
answered 54 mins ago
dwizumdwizum
17.6k93556
answered 54 mins ago
dwizumdwizum
17.6k93556
answered 54 mins ago
dwizumdwizum
17.6k93556
answered 54 mins ago
dwizumdwizum
17.6k93556
17.6k93556
Thanks. I think I understand what you're saying a little bit, but where I am still stuck is this -- I think if a leader leads a person correctly, the natural and correct outcome has to be that the person eventually doesn't need leading. In other words I think -- If I lead a group of 5 people, eventually, if I am good leader I shouldn't be left with any person left to lead. Am I understanding this correctly?
– user855
38 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks. I think I understand what you're saying a little bit, but where I am still stuck is this -- I think if a leader leads a person correctly, the natural and correct outcome has to be that the person eventually doesn't need leading. In other words I think -- If I lead a group of 5 people, eventually, if I am good leader I shouldn't be left with any person left to lead. Am I understanding this correctly?
– user855
38 mins ago
Thanks. I think I understand what you're saying a little bit, but where I am still stuck is this -- I think if a leader leads a person correctly, the natural and correct outcome has to be that the person eventually doesn't need leading. In other words I think -- If I lead a group of 5 people, eventually, if I am good leader I shouldn't be left with any person left to lead. Am I understanding this correctly?
– user855
38 mins ago
Thanks. I think I understand what you're saying a little bit, but where I am still stuck is this -- I think if a leader leads a person correctly, the natural and correct outcome has to be that the person eventually doesn't need leading. In other words I think -- If I lead a group of 5 people, eventually, if I am good leader I shouldn't be left with any person left to lead. Am I understanding this correctly?
– user855
38 mins ago
add a comment |
user855 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user855 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user855 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user855 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to The Workplace Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f131896%2fshould-a-leader-limit-the-amount-of-information-e-g-about-root-causes-given%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
6
"Is my understanding really true?" - no.
– Joe Strazzere
1 hour ago
Do you have a practical, applied question relevant to something happening in your workplace? As written, this question is incredibly broad and theoretical, which will make it a hard fit on the Q & A format of The Workplace.
– dwizum
1 hour ago
Maybe a better fit for philosophy.se ? (Not necessarily specific to workplaces either!) - if it's about the workplace and you can re-word the question into a bit more concrete Q&A are you asking something like: is it in the best interest of the 'manager' to keep a hierarchical command/control relationship with their reports rather than encouraging the reports to be 'leaders of themselves'? - Sadly IMO there are a lot of managers who do seem to think this way whether through lack of understanding of leadership, need to solidify their own position, etc...
– seventyeightist
1 hour ago
1
@user855 I understand what you are getting at and have felt the same way myself perhaps in the past! I think you are confusing "leadership" and something else I don't have a specific word for, but something like being the "go to" person, subject matter expert, or something like that. In general a "leader" would contribute something other than just "solving the root cause" but is also about setting direction, inspiring others, etc. Can you edit to give a more specific workplace example (even if you anonymise some of the details)? What's your position, are you the leader or the "people"?
– seventyeightist
1 hour ago
1
"But then how do I keep them coming back." - keep offering them something (new). Don't give them a crippled offering in order to keep them indebted to you.
– dwizum
59 mins ago