You’ve likely been exposed to a variety of leadership theories.
One of the oldest is the trait theory of leadership—the theory that proposes that leaders are born,
not made, and that they share common traits.
Whether you accept this theory or not, there is some support that people look for certain
communication styles in their leaders.
The question is: How do people become leaders?
That’s what this video will focus on: First, how not to become a leader, or traits
that are likely to disqualify you from consideration, And then,
The process by which leaders emerge, or are selected.
We’ll start by flipping the traits leadership theory over and discuss the characteristics
of non-leaders, or how to NOT become a leader.
Think of these as traits that may cause others to question if they want you as a leader,
so Disqualifying traits.
Beyond the basics, like intellectual challenges, incoherency, significant language barriers
and so on, the first general trait that will likely disqualify you is to imply that you
are apathetic: You just don’t care or can’t be bothered.
That can take many forms: Obviously, if you can’t make the meetings,
no one wants you to be the leader.
It almost doesn’t matter if you miss the meetings because you are so busy or you miss
them because you don’t seem to care.
Either way, if you can’t make the meetings, that’s an obvious disqualification.
But, if you miss other important meetings, we may be concerned about your ability to
make our meetings.
If you make the meetings, but are constantly late, it’s hard for us to see how you can
lead us.
We might interpret being late as evidence that you don’t prioritize the group or the
group’s purpose.
And, if you were the group leader, we would be wasting time waiting for you..
Let’s say you do make the meetings, but you don’t really know about the problem
or why the group is meeting or doing what it is doing.
That may be okay for the first meeting, but if you continually don’t have much to add
and you don’t seem to care about the issue—we would take that as a sign of apathy and lack
of interest—another mark against your bid for leadership.
Now let’s turn to your communication style, starting with how effective of a listener
you are.
If you are a poor listener, you won’t get necessary information—and people won’t
be likely to offer you information.
It’s hard to lead when you don’t have the information you need.
If you attempt to dominate the discussion—for example, you don’t allow others to speak
or you interrupt or talk over some one, people often grow to resent you.
Also, you won’t get alternative views and ideas, dooming your ability to lead effectively.
Even if you don’t dominate the discussion, if you are rigid and inflexible when expressing
your viewpoints, it reduces participation from others—again, contributing to resentment
and information gathering.
And how you treat others matters as well.
If you appear disrespectful, bully others, or use offensive and abusive language, you
will likely alienate many of the members—even those who aren’t the direct victims of your
attacks.
For this last one, of course, it depends.
The environment may be one where using offensive language is the norm and expected.
But, at the very least, you need to know how to adapt your language choices to each situation.
Face it, who wants someone with this communication style to represent their group to others?
So, why?, you’re probably asking, do some dominant, rigid, inflexible, disrespectful,
bullying, and cursing individuals still become leaders?
That leads us to the next concept: How leaders emerge, or get appointed, in a group.
Some suggest that leaders are selected by two-phase process of elimination.
You can see how this process works formally, as in the selection of employees, political
candidates, and so on.
But it also applies in less formal groups—people may “bid” to become leaders or the group
may gently encourage them to become leaders—and, sometimes, not so gently.
The first phase involves eliminating those who are obviously unqualified: Those who are
unintelligent or lack necessary skills, aren’t available, can’t do the work, or uninformed—or
decline to try.
Some are screened out on paper, like when reviewing job applications, while others are
screened out in interviews, in meetings, or just through observation.
Whoever is left moves onto phase 2.
Now the choice becomes more difficult, with attention paid to communication styles.
Those who have irritating communication styles are the next to be eliminated.
And remember what we talked about on how not to be a leader: dominate the discussion, bossy,
poor listeners.
They end up being dismissed as leaders.
In this phase, we also look to see what type of leader the group needs: if the group thinks
they need an authoritarian type of leader, those who have a democratic style end up being
eliminated.
Whoever remains after this process becomes the group’s leader—assuming there is one
clear choice.
But what if more than one person survives this elimination process?
The group looks more closely at what they need.
If the group feels threatened, for example, the group will often choose someone who was
successful in providing a solution to a crisis—either for the organization or for some other organization
or group.
Another determining factor is the influence of “lieutenants.”
Okay, not a lieutenant like in the military.
A lieutenant is someone who advocates for a candidate.
If only one member gains the support of a lieutenant, that person will probably become
the leader.
If there are multiple supporters advocating for different candidates, the result may be
a power struggle in the group.
Processing Time: What traits might you have that may disqualify
you from being considered for a position as a leader?
Are there things you can do to change or minimize the effects of those traits?
Assuming, of course, that you want to be considered as a leader.
How do people with irritating or inappropriate leadership styles become leaders?
If you look at the two-phase process of elimination, there may have been a weak field of unqualified
candidates or their communication style was less irritating than others.
Or, perhaps, the more qualified candidates were unwilling to be persuaded to assume the
leadership position.
With this information, you likely better understand how leaders emerge in a group, both formally
and informally.
And you may be able to better position yourself as a potential leader.