Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations waross on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

How do you define leadership? 12

Status
Not open for further replies.

thixoguy

Automotive
Feb 2, 2006
120
0
0
CA
Hi All,

I had an interview this morning at what seemed to be a very interesting organization. They employ approximately 30 people; skilled machinists.

The company is looking to expand into specialized field in which I have a great many years experience.

The interview went quite well and they seemed somewhat impressed with my skills and experience. More importanly the interviewer stressed how my position would be to provide leadership and mentoring to some of his team members.

He has asked me to return next week and explain what kind of leadership I can bring to the organization.

My question, therfore, is how do you define a good leader?
What quality or qualities do you feel make a good leader?
Why is it that some people have an inherint ability to motivate, inspire and keep people engaged and others do not?
Pick someone who you have dealt with in the past and viewed as a great leader and briefly describe them.

Thanks in advance to all who provide input

thixoguy
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

You manage things, you lead people.

Leadership is getting people to agree in practice even though they may disagree in principle.

Three elements of leadership:
[ul][li]authority[/li]
[li]responsibility[/li]
[li]accountability[/li][/ul]

[bat]Honesty may be the best policy, but insanity is a better defense.[bat]
-SolidWorks API VB programming help
 
You gotta love MS Word's grammar checker in that PDF.

"Art without engineering is dreaming; Engineering without art is calculating."

Have you read faq731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
 
The biggest difference is the spelling. The second biggest is in the style of getting the work done.

A manager is given authority over subordinates, and they do as they are told because they know they have to.

A leader inherently has authority, or at least the impression of it, that's why he/she is elected to be a leader. Followers listen to their leader & want to be told what to do.

A good manager also leads his subordinates. A good leader is able to manage his followers. The end result is the same ... the task gets done ... but the morale of the "troops" is very different. --CBL


Worthy of restatement......

Heckler [americanflag]
Sr. Mechanical Engineer
SWx 2007 SP 4.0 & Pro/E 2001
o
_`\(,_
(_)/ (_)

This post contains no political overtones or undertones for that matter and in no way represents the poster's political agenda.
 
A few thoughs on what an effective leader does:

• Effective leaders embrace a shared vision
• Effective leaders work to establish a collaborative culture
• Effective leaders are clear in setting direction and communicating expectations
• Effective leaders build and maintain internal and external relationships
• Effective leaders develop competent people
• Effective leaders take responsibility for failures



Greg Lamberson, BS, MBA
Consultant - Upstream Energy
Website:
 
thixoguy

Go on holidays with a group of people, preferably a group that never met each other before. Very soon you will spot the person who decides what to do, where to eat, how the bill will be split, what time to meet again for breakfast etc etc. This is the leader. Without a leader nothing much happens.

BTW leadership is a beautiful thing but it is a misconception for a company to make it a recruitment selection criterion. You don't want a company full of leaders. You want a company where 90% of the people are followers or it becomes a great mess. :)
 
"Why is it that some people have an inherint ability to motivate, inspire and keep people engaged and others do not?"

Well why do some people have red hair? :)

Another interesting question: "Why is it that some people THINK THEY have an inherent ability to motivate, inspire and keep people engaged and others do not?"
or why do some people think they don't while they could if they just felt confident enough to try
 


One US tests trying to define common traits in proved good leaders came up with:

' .. the ability to clearly communicate the organizations target to the other members...'

Part of leadership is being able to focus all resources towards the common goal.

 
thixoguy,

Take the replies from the various responses and see how they apply to you. Some rhetorical questions/comments [soapbox] time.

How well do you connect with people, (superiors, peers, subordinates, external contacts)? The scale of your goal will have increased necessitating the ability to work well with people across organization(s) even if there are only 30 people.

How well do you plan? Given a goal, timeframe, and budget you will need to establish a (hopefully) flexible path to successful completion. Execution of the plan requires an ability (at a higher level) to delegate, identify and resolve obstacles, and provide feedback on status. You may occasionally get to jump into the trenches but you no longer have the "luxury" of being able to handle everything yourself. Your viewpoint needs to retain a strategic focus. From a team standpoint, in my view, it is nice to have someone who can jump into the everyday fray. However, if you stay in there too long, you can cause people to lose faith in their capabilities. You need to let them know that you trust them to accomplish the work but will assist in resolving obstacles.

Provide feedback. People want to know that the work they are doing is actually leading to accomplishing something worthwhile. Your superiors are going to want to know what your overall status is. Be honest, managers tend not to like surprises.

Celebrate with your group once a project is complete even if it did not go overly well or to plan. This gives you a more "relaxed" time in which to review with your team what went well and what did not. Helps avoid repeating mistakes and provides a sense of accomplishment recognition or at least closure.

End of [soapbox]

Regards,
 
One thing that surprises me in this post is why they would give you a week to think about, gather answers, in short be able to come up with all of the right answers whether you had the skills or not (and this is not directed at you thixoguy at all, but at the management of the company).

I would think you would want to nail a guy cold with a question like that - if you can answer a question out of the blue, under pressure (in an interview) then you know your subject, if you can't then you don't. Just seems to be an odd interviewing technique to me.

If someone asks the question and said you have a week to think about it, it would impressive to say "don't need a week" and then give them a full run down on whatever it was they asked.

Off the original question, sorry, just an observation.

Greg Lamberson, BS, MBA
Consultant - Upstream Energy
Website:
 
Hi All,

I am about to go to another (different company) interview so I don't have very much time, however, I just wanted to thank all you who posted your views. Please, keep them coming. When I get some more time I will post some comments.

epoisses, you raised a rather interesting point:

"Go on holidays with a group of people, preferably a group that never met each other before. Very soon you will spot the person who decides what to do, where to eat, how the bill will be split, what time to meet again for breakfast etc etc. This is the leader. Without a leader nothing much happens"

Do you think it is possible to be a leader, say at work, while being a follower in social settings. Or is leadership a trait the encompasses your entire life?
Is it mutually exclusive?

thixoguy
 
You don't say what is the position you are interviewing for but it seems most of the replies here are focused on being a leader in a supervisory-type position. It is very possible to be a leader and not have any "subordinates."

True leaders inspire other people by their actions, rarely by their words. People can learn to manage, most leaders have the ability to be a leader naturally. I believe there are rare circumstances where someone can learn to be a leader.

There was a .wmv file that went around by internet several months ago which was a video about "impedership vs. leadership". This was a video by a company called EJ4, I believe. It is very good. You might try to find it on the web. I think it might be here, but I can't verify because streaming media is blocked at work:
 
I think there are some good posts above. I will throw in my 2 cents:

The ablity to lead effectively is 100% innate. It cannot be learned, sought after, or forced into being. But a leader can hone his/her skills.

Being a good leader in one area of your life/career/etc... does not imply that you will be a good leader in other areas.

Real leaders do not "struggle" to lead. Its just that folks naturally want to follow him/her in a particular situation.

Leaders see individuals as peices of a puzzle and realize the specific strengths/weaknessess of each team member.

What is difficult for a follower is generally easy for a leader (i.e. leader has an excellent grasp/understanding of fundamentals for particular tasks)

Leaders enjoy the sensation of success more than most and are willing to work harder (are more focused) than the followers to acheive it. But contrastly, the leader will NEVER take personal credit for a win.
 
"A good manager also leads his subordinates. A good leader is able to manage his followers. The end result is the same ... the task gets done ... but the morale of the "troops" is very different. --CBL"

This is so true and this recalls a story. To see if you are indeed a good “leader”, volunteer some of your time to volunteer organizations, be it a professional society or your local soup kitchen. Take charge of a task (trust me there are many) that will require to lead volunteers in a direction. Good leaders will find ways to motivate, influence, and persuade the volunteers to move in a particular direction. Since volunteers do not get “paid” for their time; they can’t even get fired, money is not the reason for them to be there, so all you have is your charisma to depend on to keep them moving forward. So if you start pissing them off, the volunteer will just disappear. So the management style of “do it because I’m your boss” will not fly.

Now the story, I volunteer for a few volunteer organizations and have seen two different styles of personalities play out. One volunteer came in (with good intentions) who was a manger for a company. We gave him an event to do and a list of volunteers. He was good at creating schedules and budgets, but he treated the volunteers like employees where he was demanding results to happen at certain times per his schedule. Volunteers started dropping like flies. The officers had to step in to staff the event because most of the volunteers “had something come up and was too busy to help” excuses. After that event the manager was so frustrated because he did not get the support he needed to run a good event and (like any good manager) blames the volunteers for not caring.

Another volunteer that, who was some what of a task lead in his company and funny enough did not want to be a manger, came in who wanted to help out. So we gave him an event to do and a list of volunteers to help out. Now this person had a simple schedule and budget planned out, but what was amazing was that with his volunteers, he was able to rally them to accomplish a goal. He led the team in not ordering them around, but supporting their efforts as much as possible. It was not his event; it was his team’s event. When the event came, his team was fired up and ready to go. Even during the event, he made sure that his volunteers were supported. From that time forward, he had a core of volunteers that would help him out for every event he did.

In a leadership class that I have taken, there was a quote “Not every manager is a good leader and not every leader is a good manger”.


Tobalcane
"If you avoid failure, you also avoid success."
 
I am with epoisses,

Who really knows?

I am thinking of one person I know that that easily took charge and lead people to walk around 2-3 miles in the bad weather. One person with a deep cut across their face that required 13 stitches that could barely walk.

Then a week later the person was doing the... Come on guys... (which I am sure everyone knows) Lets go to pizza hut... and no one listens.

One thing that comes to mind is the subtle tone of, "we WILL" vs. "I would like to" or passive compared to assertive.
 
This is from Jack Welch's book Winning

Leaders relentlessly upgrade their team, using every encounter as an opportunity to evaluate, coach, and build self-confidence.

Leaders make sure people not only see the vision, they live and breathe it.

Leaders get into everyone’s skin, exuding positive energy and optimism.

Leaders establish trust with candor, transparency, and credit.

Leaders have the courage to make unpopular decisions and gut calls.

Leaders probe and push with a curiosity that borders on skepticism,
making sure their questions are answered with action.

Leaders inspire risk taking and learning by setting the example.

Leaders celebrate.


Heckler [americanflag]
Sr. Mechanical Engineer
SWx 2007 SP 4.0 & Pro/E 2001
o
_`\(,_
(_)/ (_)

This post contains no political overtones or undertones for that matter and in no way represents the poster's political agenda.
 
Do you think it is possible to be a leader, say at work, while being a follower in social settings. Or is leadership a trait the encompasses your entire life?
Is it mutually exclusive?

I think you're confusing leadership with being a control freak.

A true leader knows when to shut up and when to let others take the lead. Sometimes a true leader will lead by following.

A true leader is not afraid of others becoming leaders, and will actually work to cultivate new leaders.


TTFN

FAQ731-376
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top