Martha Stewart. Steve Jobs. Donald Trump.
What do these people have in common?
We have all had that one leader in a group setting with a domineering attitude, or we have been that person ourselves, all in the name of getting work done or reaching a goal. And prior to, you leave with an even stinkier feeling than when you started.
In the Washington Post article, “Do Jerks Make Better Leaders?” it goes out of its way to name a cluster of people with the similar manner of influence, and these well-known leaders use their “influence” (Iron Fist could be another name) to reach their specific intention. Does that forceful attitude to get things done work on everyone?
While the article named famous “jerks”, it did go out to name people who chose to lead with respect for others like Ghandi, John Wooden, and the apostle Paul. The “jerks” have been wildly successful, but there needs to be emphasis on the latter; I believe that the whole point of working with a combination of people, and in that case leading, the goal should be for everyone to leave with the mutual respect that they had their peers that they came in with. I am not saying you should sacrifice efficiency, but wouldn’t it be a great to have an effective group dynamic and still like each other afterwards?
Remember, whether it is one person or fifteen people, whomever you are working with has feelings. Exchange the antagonism for some amiability. Your group project may be due Friday, and although it seems easiest to discard their feelings for the sake of success, nothing ever goes well when you try to intimidate fellow peers. We are not in an arena and the goal is not to be the last one standing, it is to cooperate together. However your leading style, it is a reflection of the group come the end scheme. As much as it does help for someone to take the reign and guide at times, nothing is completed better or more proficiently if you are a jerk about it.
October 3rd, 2012 at 10:58 am
I don’t think being a “jerk” is being an effective leader. However, sometimes there are times when a leader might have to come off as a jerk to get things done. Sometimes people get lazy or if a group is together for a long time, people get too familiar and feel that they don’t have to work as hard since they know everybody. So, in that case, somebody has to be the one that comes in and gets everybody back on track. If someone is constantly being a jerk though, it could jeopardize the quality of work done since none of the team members are happy about being there.
October 3rd, 2012 at 2:35 pm
I think that everyone should have to goal to lead with kindness but the degree to which you can do that depends on both the type of people that you are working with as well as your own personality. Not all groups are going to respond to kindness because you may at some point be stuck in a group of people that is inherently lazy. And on the flip side you yourself might not be able to fill the role of kind leader. Some people cannot be extremely nice and relatively laid back without becoming the doormat of the group and losing any sort of influence that they had in the group. There needs to be a balance between the two and the leadership style has to depend on the situation as a whole.
October 3rd, 2012 at 4:01 pm
I agree with you. Often, people think that to be an effective leader, or even member of a group, you have to lead with an Iron Fist. That isn’t true because people need to notice that kindness not only fosters positive progress for a group, but it also enables people to network and communicate positively during and after the activity. Yes, a level of professionalism and assertion are required to be productive, but too often people mistake that for having to be an Ice Queen and cut off all emotional ties.
October 3rd, 2012 at 4:33 pm
I feel like the only way they really know how to lead is by bossing people around. It is an effective tool. It makes your workers work hard and stay on task. But with this, it can seem like you are a jerk. The difference between Donald Trump and Gandhi is that Donald Trump is in a business environment.So the workers are expected to be in somewhat of a hostile place. It is all about making With Gandhi, he was more peaceful.
October 9th, 2012 at 5:21 pm
I think the balance you’re venturing for is definitely ideal. The balance between being known as a ‘jerk’, keeping a peaceful working environment, and still trying to maximize efficiency. By being forceful and hostile with the rest of your team, whether it be your co-workers, a sports team, a club or organization, or even just a small group assembled for a group project, doesn’t always maximize efficiency as it has been assumed to do. I think there is a fine line between urgency and becoming hostile and forceful. The personal relationships developed within a company or organization can often work to maximize efficiency without having to sacrifice time or conflicts between co-workers.