Is leadership position worth it?

[Drvladivostok]

I came to find myself in a position(s) to lead some group projects assignment (Moot Court) that give me the Authority to command about a dozen people around to finish the assignment for an entire semester, so it comes to little surprise that I find myself to be iritated most of the time thanks to my new post.

Speaking by experience leadership is first and foremost a responsibility than it is a privilege, the satisfaction to order people around depends entirely whether or not you have an affinity to such things but the inate responsibility of delivering a finished product and meeting your goals is inevitable, also leadership would entail the 'unwritten x-factor' that would go beyond your job desc, like being considering of emotions when ordering people around, being diplomatic when calling the flaw in ideas presented (Even when they're especially egregious), encouraging or chastising slackers (Without being too rude), having to subsidize for freeloaders (God I fucking hate these people), complaints, complaints by call, responsibility to quadruple check everyone's work, extra work, etc... I'm not sure wether or not this type of command hierarchy is iritating to engage in or that command hierarchy that's not based on financial reward is just intolerable for me since I can't fire anyone and I don't have enough incentives.

My lack of Te might be the cause of this, the way I look at it people are ruining my perfect logical solution to the problem at hand, I told one persom to do "A", and the second to do "B" for them to do entirely different things on the excuse of ignorance.

So the question is if there's no financial or external incentives (Military for example), is being a leader worth it by the mere virtue of being a power holder?

 

[Hadoblado]

Yes for the experience, if it's not coming at too great a cost to you.

Leadership is an extremely valuable skill and it has to be developed. There are attributes that lend themselves to natural leadership qualities, but people tend to attribute too much to the innate.

For now you're not being paid, but when you work leadership is a skill that will get you paid more. It's also helpful to have leadership experience when you're not the leader, as it will help you understand why and how decisions are being made (rather than it feeling arbitrary and stupid).

There is a lot to learn about leadership, a lot of different lines of thought. I personally subscribe to empowerment models where it's about providing people the opportunity to succeed and only guiding people to the extent they need top-down guidance. You sound a bit more autocratic?

 

[Cognisant]

Don't assign work, delegate responsibility then establish "project partners" and delegate to them accountability for each other’s responsibilities, don't chase people make them chase each other.

Then hold big meetings where everyone blames each other

 

[Drvladivostok]

Yes for the experience, if it's not coming at too great a cost to you.

Leadership is an extremely valuable skill and it has to be developed. There are attributes that lend themselves to natural leadership qualities, but people tend to attribute too much to the innate.

For now you're not being paid, but when you work leadership is a skill that will get you paid more. It's also helpful to have leadership experience when you're not the leader, as it will help you understand why and how decisions are being made (rather than it feeling arbitrary and stupid).

There is a lot to learn about leadership, a lot of different lines of thought. I personally subscribe to empowerment models where it's about providing people the opportunity to succeed and only guiding people to the extent they need top-down guidance. You sound a bit more autocratic?

I want to be a Laissez Faire leader, but that would assume that my subordinate/cowerkers have the incentive and personal initiative to devwlop themself and do the work well. If you've lead a group of more than a dozen people without financial incentives you'd soon can single out the freeloaders and slackers.

 

[sushi]

leadership is just psychological manipulation

carrot and stick

ususally the person with most experience or contribution gets it
then knowledge or charisma, or good relations with other people (popularity)

which is why people hold elections annually in the past toelect khans and tribal chiefs, and people who are unhappy duke it out or discuss in meetings.


i think popularity is the worst measurment for competence

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Cog gave a perfect answer, though maybe the issue your seeking seems more related to getting better than mediocre performance, so that's a persisting issue.

You have to be someone they respect. That's mostly easy imo, as most will instantly respect you if you respect them or extend an olive branch or whatever.

If they don't respect you, all your communication will fall on deaths ears.

It is hard if you have no real way of incentivizing their material and intrinsic values. You have to be able to read people very well.

Why not go for it? It's the best way to get rich. Being a skilled human manager person is top skills to have in ANY organization.

 

[Drvladivostok]

Why not go for it?

Lack of Incentives on my part

 

[Puffy]

I agree with other people, leadership opportunities are valuable experiences to have. Unless it really effects you negatively it’s worth going with as a learning experience.

Like Hado said, I’d research into servant leadership and see if you can apply those principles more. It’s more in style than command leadership in a lot of the cooler places I’ve worked for. To be frank, if someone started bossing me around like you’re doing I’d probably not like it and be difficult and challenging with you. So I’d consider if there’s an aspect of that going on.

 

[Hadoblado]

Haha yeah. If you call me your subordinate our interests no longer align.

 

[Daddy]

Don't assign work, delegate responsibility then establish "project partners" and delegate to them accountability for each other’s responsibilities, don't chase people make them chase each other.

Then hold big meetings where everyone blames each other

We must work at the same company.

 

[birdsnestfern]

Let them know you will have meetings every month to talk about what is expected, update changes, and let people know if they are meeting their expected 'job' descriptions. Being reminded/updated regularly will help everyone feel like they are on the same page and then when the review comes, they will know they are on track better. Lots and lots of communication is good and the more meetings you ask for, and welcome input on, the more they will feel the 'group' energy of a team.

However, leaders are often fire signs like Aries, Leo, Sagittarius it takes a LOT of energy and responsablity and you need to be a good encourager and ask for things a lot so they start to see you as a leader.

 

[BurnedOut]

If you are a leader, don't ascend to the heavens and be god to your team members. Ideal leaders should have lots of humility and should be able to involve everybody in some manner. You have to understand that expectations will not be met by everybody. However, being a leader gives you the opportunity to take the whole group for a ride. If the journey is nice, your teammates will remember you fondly even if the goal is not attained. Being a leader is like looking out for a family. You cannot always get what you want but you can enjoy the journey while it lasts.

I have experimented with leadership roles throughout my college life and learned things the hard way. I realized that your teammates expect you to be an arbiter and doer. I figured that the best way to be a leader is to push everybody into bettering their part of the work and routinely checking up on everyone to see if they are not experiencing trouble. Being a leader requires good abstract reasoning skills. Nobody wants to be accountable for their action so they want to project their shortcomings on to the leader. However by delineating work clearly, teammates feel reassured. Half of the job is done there.

 

[Puffy]

I think a good team is going to function relatively autonomously and only need a leader to support them, make key decisions, and provide some direction where it's needed. But it can take some work to get to that point.

Ideally everyone is fulfilling a role that they want to do, based upon their skills or experience, or the direction they want to develop in. So they should feel sufficient motivation to contribute, learn and get better, and own their responsibility in the team. I'm in favour of people learning in a self-directed way which means being responsible to organise their own work. But they also need access to someone with more experience than them who they can turn to for mentorship and advice.

A good leader needs to trust the team to give it an appropriate amount of freedom to organise itself how it needs to in order to fulfil its objectives. Or coach and guide them to that point if they're not ready yet. As this trust, autonomy, group accountability, and creative freedom is a big part of what motivates people. And they need to create a safe environment that members can turn to them or each other for support where they're running into problems. A cooperative mindset works better than a competitive one in that respect.