Many times have I asked myself as to what makes a 'good leader' and many times the response always comes back to 'depends'. Just life with life experiences, we tend to approach problems in different ways depending on the circumstances - be it a schoolgirls torn off nail, first aid following a bike accident or managing a group when the state of your mind can only relate to slow dancing in a burning room. Coming up with a single answer is impossible!
One of the bits of feedback I have recently received was the 'rawness' of my delivery, in this context, it was positive. The 'rawness' I guess relates to the contrasting way of dealing with things than lets say 'the corporate talk' - where the instructions/feedback are often too diluted to make sense out of as described in a scholar article titled 'On Pseudo-Profound Bullshit' which I can highly recommend.
As an experiment, I have asked the group to give anonymous feedback on first impressions to both myself and Ellie. Whilst Ellie was described as an all round knowledgeable nice person (which I hate to admit she is) some of my feedback included bad cop, sarcastic, motherly and caring. How to interpret this I do not fully know (especially the motherly comment), but I am very happy my group saw me as caring.
Back on the subject. The outdoor work can only be describe as 'labour of love' (just like the UB40 1983 album), normally the pay (arguably) does not reflect the effort and quality of work - in our case (hopefully) at all, given that we are on an unpaid internship. The best teachers, doctors, nurses or in fact outdoor providers I remember are the ones who almost seep passion. Despite not always conforming to the norms their intentions and actions always reflected the desire to achieve the best possible outcome. An example of this can relate to a climbing session I have witnessed before ran by two instructors, when the junior lead climbers (at different times) asked if the instructors 'definetely have them' one replied 'Yes, I'm a qualified instructor' and the other 'I promise, go ahead' and begun singing 'I got you babe'. Whilst just a random example I do believe it differentiates perfectly a human who has become a robot and one that can emphasise with other human beings.
So how does that fit with existing theories of leadership? Let's have a quick look at leadership continuum.
Well... no luck... How about some of Hudson's offerings?
Woaaaaaah, HOT STUFF! Vision, gathering informtion, out the box thinking... and that's just the first paragraph! I'm sure we can all think of situations where we met people who tick all these boxes and its great. Is it relevant? Well, I don't think of vision or impacting others to unleash potential of others when slapping on a wound dressing, nor embrace diversity when telling someone the only worse place for a toilet tent is to put it on the other side of the river. So its all bollocks, right? Well... this is where the context comes in. The model shows the individual as a whole and what the 'context' is I can only guess, however, my interpretation is a whole range of situations, where these elements combine as a whole. This a lot of this stuff links into the 'clear intentions' mentioned by me at the beginning of the post... Awesome. We have the recipe!
... But wait, if I meet a person at the bar and decide they are the spitting image of Hudson's model does that mean we will spend the rest of the night envisaging and fantasising of all the crazy things we could do whilst crossing Svalbard together, chasing the northern lights and being chased by polar bears?
Probably not. This is where more juicy stuff comes in (I know I know... 'ffs'... not any more). You could be the most able leader in the world but unless you also possess the technical abilities necessary for the job your usefulness is questionable.
A simple example from experience is this:
Many people can make me laugh, and sure as hell there are many people that are able to catheterise me. Yet it takes a very very special person who can make me laugh following the process. Because of this simple act of cruelty and kindness, I was happy enough to follow all instructions given by the lovely Dr. Fiona of Southampton General religiously. She was, and is, in my eyes, a perfect example of a leader.
Many people can make me laugh, and sure as hell there are many people that are able to catheterise me. Yet it takes a very very special person who can make me laugh following the process. Because of this simple act of cruelty and kindness, I was happy enough to follow all instructions given by the lovely Dr. Fiona of Southampton General religiously. She was, and is, in my eyes, a perfect example of a leader.
How could you apply this to the context of outdoor leadership? If we put ourselves in position where we tell a group of wet, tired kids that they still need to make a fire, help in the kitchen and dig a hole which 16 people will shit into you may, initially, face similar lack of enthusiasm. Play your cards right and you will face a fire bigger than anything you've seen before and onions chopped so small and precisely that you will feel pathetic about your own abilities. In fact, these exciting activities might spark off cohesion, teamwork and leadership that will continue beyond their time with you...
HOW you play the cards may vary. The key is to play them right, and this I can only think of to be an art rather than a science
...Of course this may also mean you will end up with bits of fingers in your veggies or a pile of burning cow shit every now and then,
To conclude, what I consider a leader to be is someone who can emphasise, understand, adapt and react appropriately to the situations he/he may face.... simple really?
Where it becomes complex is how.
No comments:
Post a Comment