In the book Made in Canada Leadership, Henein and Morisette describe two different starting points for leaders. One is "accidental" and one is "innate". Accidential is described as "backing in to leadership". "The leader within an accidental is not initally visible. They see themselves as leaders through others eyes first. Innate leaders are very aware of the power within. The presense of leadership is palpable and tangible. They choose leadership, feeling entrusted with a mission and sensing they can carry it out." (Henien, Morisette, 2007).
Do you relate to these starting points and what are your thoughts on the charaterisitcs unique to accidental and innate leaders?
What do you think the challenges would be for one, the other or both?
Shelagh
5 comments:
Re-posted with Permission
Milind Limaye,
Solution Archtect
Sātāra Area, India
Hi Shelagh,
A very very good question for leaders of yesterday, today and tomorrow.
In my opinion, all first generation leaders are accidental. Leaders do not know that they are leaders unless situation puts them into the shoes of leaders. As there is no background, they may come to know it accidentally.
Challenges -
1. Confusion when a first generation leader finds himself in a drivers position without knowing how to drive.
2. Experience of leading from front and making decision. Many leaders prefer to work themselves rather than delegating
3. Accepting responsibility and authority. It is very very difficult to accept responsibility and authority for sensible people. If the endevor fails, they may take it as personal (ego) failure.
4. Support from people may be difficult as more or less, people worship god (idols) as accidental leaders are not proven one
Innate leadership may be by position or by birth. Business owners sons and daughters finds themselves as innate leaders. Same thing happens with politicians. Doctors son will be doctor and lawyers daughter will be lawyer.
Challenges -
1. As they are by default in drivers seat, there is no experience. But people expect that they will have all required skills.
2. Inheritance can be a major problem as they are compared with their ancestors
Re-Posted with Permission
Earon Davis,
Writer, Teacher, Integrative Bodyworker, Media Advisor, Environmental Policy Analyst and former lawyer
Greater Chicago Area
Shelagh, after reading the response of Milind, I don't think I can top that! I agree that there can be generational aspects bringing one into leadership roles. Yet, there are so many other aspects to leadership.
Appearance issues cut across both innate and accidental leadership. The one who is genetically endowed with attractive features, height, coloring, voice and socially endowed with poise, articulation and self-confidence will receive opportunities for leadership and it will be up to them to recognize them and accept or decline.
On the issue of political leadership (and I apologize for using examples from the US), it seems that accidental leaders emerge from time to time in a democracy, but that generational leaders have may have a better sense of how to behave and what to expect. President Clinton was an innate leader, in terms of his talents, but an accidental one also - because he lacked the generational perspective to show him how to behave appropriately. George W. Bush had the family background, but his personal history seemed to negate the generational leadership qualities one would have expected, although he certainly has innate leadership skills. Barack H. Obama may appear accidental, and is certainly quite unlikely, but he managed to draw upon a generational heritage to create himself as an innate leader. Categories are good discussion tools, but there's so much more to leadership - and followership!
Great question!
Re-posted with Permission
Todd Stevens,
I agree with the others, a good and relevant question Shelagh.
I feel the difference lies in the awareness of the individual regarding their own leadership abilities. I personally feel all 'true leaders' are innate leaders that have held and known about this ability since a very young age. The difference, to me, lies in if they personally acknowledge and act on it or if others bring it to their attention.
If someone acknowledges and acts on their abilities in leadership, then they are engaged innate leaders, if not, and others have to clue them in on their own abilities, then they are disengaged innate leaders.
With that said, I think an individual who needs others to tell them that they have this ability probably does not want to use it and be a leader; so they could be forced into a leadership role when they would rather use their other skill(s). One's ability to lead does not inherently mean that they want to do so.
I also feel that 'accidental leaders' are those that should not be in any leadership role and most likely have been Peter-Principled into it, much to the chagrin of the people he/she leads.
My .02
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle
I respectfully disagree with what is said so far here by Milind and Earon. Please allow me elaborate.
Milind’s comments regarding first generation and second generation (I am not sure what that really means, but) suggests that leadership is somehow, genetic or hereditary. World history has proof to the contrary. M.K. Gandhi, deemed as the greatest leader modern India has produced, was the sole leader in his family (neither his ancestors nor progenies ever even came close). George Washington, Woodrow Wilson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt – the list goes on.
It suggests confusion. Leaders are not confused, it’s quite the opposite. Leaders are born out of general confusion – the ones who have that clarity of vision, character to lead, ability to motivate the masses.
It also suggests that leadership is somehow, meeting expectations. On the contrary, leadership is about creating that expectation where none exists, creating hope where none exists, bringing clarity where none exists, showing the right path where no clear path exists, it’s all that. What it is not, and what could be accidental, is the position, title, authority.
Leaders do not need a job title and authority that goes with it. Their power is given to them by the people that follow them willingly – not by a panel or a board of directors (Job titles are given by these people).
Earon’s comments seem to suggest that somehow, physical abilities (or disabilities) of a person could contribute to his or her leadership abilities. Respectfully, I disagree again.
Franklin Roosevelt, the only President who served four terms, leading the US out of the Great Depression and lead the allied victory in World War II, was a victim of polio and ran the country and the world from a wheelchair.
In conclusion, I submit this for your consideration. A person can accidentally be in a position requiring leadership abilities, but leadership is no accident. Leadership, some are born with it, some develop it over time, some have it but suppress it for most of their lives, and some never have it. Leadership is essentially an attitude, a way of thinking, and a behavioral pattern (acquired or natural). It refers to how one reacts in situation of chaos and confusion. Leaders don’t impose (as such, they don’t need authority). Leaders lead a group of willing followers. As an old saying goes, Power flow from the barrel of a gun, not leadership.
Addition -
Leadership is not positional, leadership is not a job, leadership is not a title. Leadership is a state of being.
Post a Comment