What do you think about message in "how to win friends & influence people" ?

[skprojekt]

My opinion is that for leadership there is no way to be accepted and he says we should think reflectively.

 

And it is not mentioned that social competence is very subjective.

 

 

 

 

[Angury]

Funny I came across this thread, I was just having a similar conversation with CuriousGeorgette.

 

Looking back, I think the book was quite simple and I'm surprised at how popular it is, especially all the rave it receives in the media.

 

As for social competence, I agree that it is subjective, but I think there are certain behaviours that are expected of you, simply as etiquette. And that normally differs from culture to culture.

I'm not sure what you mean about leadership and there being no way to be accepted? I think as a leader you will always have people who don't agree with your style, but as long as you listen to everyones opinion with equal weighting and explain your decisions, as well as accept feedback, then you will receive respect.

If you can complete the task at hand efficiently and use everyones abilities (division of labour etc), then I think you will be accepted as a leader.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Angury

[CuriousGeorgette]

I think I understand what skprojekt is getting at - accepted as a leader yes - one of the guys no and that is right and good. There must always be that small divide that can not be crossed between a leader and those they lead. If you attempt to remove this divide you lose authority. 

[Angury]

I think I understand what skprojekt is getting at - accepted as a leader yes - one of the guys no and that is right and good. There must always be that small divide that can not be crossed between a leader and those they lead. If you attempt to remove this divide you lose authority.

 

Interesting, I've always believed the opposite. If the leader is seen as "one of them" then the team members feel more comfortable sharing their ideas and opinions with them. And a more comfortable setting means the team is more likely to complete their tasks efficiently. If the leader is seen as being on another level, then the team may feel as if they cannot get their ideas across, or may even feel daunted by the idea of communicating with the leader.

 

This is just from personal experience of course, but I tend to be much happier when the leader is someone I feel I can go to when I have a problem, and that is more difficult when the person doesn't seem to be on your level.

[CuriousGeorgette]

Interesting, I've always believed the opposite. If the leader is seen as "one of them" then the team members feel more comfortable sharing their ideas and opinions with them. And a more comfortable setting means the team is more likely to complete their tasks efficiently. If the leader is seen as being on another level, then the team may feel as if they cannot get their ideas across, or may even feel daunted by the idea of communicating with the leader.

 

This is just from personal experience of course, but I tend to be much happier when the leader is someone I feel I can go to when I have a problem, and that is more difficult when the person doesn't seem to be on your level.

 

However I think if you analyse it a bit more you will discover that you want a leader to be a leader, not just another one of the guys. If he/she was then why are they leading? Why should you respect their opinion and/or authority? There is always that small gap created by authority that can not and should not be closed. Ultimately the buck stops with the leader. They can be great, they can joke along with the best of them, they can and should be approachable and relateable  but at the end, there is that small small gap that means if the smile comes off their face and they say 'ahem, come to order' you all listen, while if 'one of the guys' said it you'd all just carry on.

Edited March 24, 2014 by CuriousGeorgette

[Angury]

However I think if you analyse it a bit more you will discover that you want a leader to be a leader, not just another one of the guys. If he/she was then why are they leading? Why should you respect their opinion and/or authority?

Generally the leader is chosen by the team as someone who has good knowledge of the topic and is able to use the abilities of the team members efficiently. They should be respected on this basis. I think if the leader is too aloof, it will make them appear arrogant. There is a danger that the leader will fall Ito the stereotype of being too bossy or taking all the credit, I think that is less likely to happen if there isn't that gap in the first place.

 

There is always that small gap created by authority that can not and should not be closed. Ultimately the buck stops with the leader. They can be great, they can joke along with the best of them, they can and should be approachable and relateable but at the end, there is that small small gap that means if the smile comes off their face and they say 'ahem, come to order' you all listen, while if 'one of the guys' said it you'd all just carry on.

I agree it is ultimately up to the leader to make the decisions. But that decision is based on the teams opinion, not the leaders own biased opinion - otherwise the project is just based on what the leader thinks and there's no point in having a team.

Regarding your last point, that sounds to me like something a teacher would have to do in front of kids.

 

I should probably add that I don't have much experience in a leadership role. I just imagine that as professionals, the leader shouldn't need to be too authoritative - everyone should be behaving as adults anyway. It's the leaders role to make sure everyone understands their task and there is an effective division of labour.

 

I guess when there is conflict it is the leader who has to sort things out and that's where the authority comes in. But I would have far more respect for a leader who knows what he's doing rather than one who keeps a distance from his colleagues. Because the team members are his colleagues, not his minions

 

I do think there is a time and place for that small gap to come through, I would just like to hope it isn't needed very often. Maybe I'm being too optimistic.

[CuriousGeorgette]

I think that perhaps certain issues you have with authority are colouring your picture, not to mention a rather modern 'we are all a team' nonsense. It isn't about aloofness as you are so insistent on calling it. There is simply a natural divide that occurs when a person has the authority and responsibility. A divide I will maintain is necessary. Let's call it a line of respect. See if that flies a bit better with you.

 

FYI I would assume that a leader chosen for their skills and abilities has a wee bit more than just 'bias' going for them when making a decision and a decision made by a quorum of boobs with no experience will always be a decision made by boobs.

 

FYI (b) a 'leader' of a team chosen because they have knowledge is not ipso facto a leader. They are simply the one with experience and not necessarily authority. 

 

FYI © I would not consider experience working as a team as any kind of experience with leadership. 

 

Have you seen some one like say Donald Trump on any one of the many TV shows? He listens to his staff, has an easy manner with them, but when he says 'Right' they shut up and listen - THAT is leadership at work. Not the "we are all equal team players". No team ever built a multi-million $ company from nothing because who is ever going to follow a team? 

Edited March 24, 2014 by CuriousGeorgette

[Angury]

not to mention a rather modern 'we are all a team' nonsense.

 

What's wrong with the "we are all a team" motto? :s

 

I agree with you in your previous statement that a small gap is necessary - but I believe it should only be a "small" gap.

Anything more than that and I don't think anyone would feel comfortable to discuss their ideas with their leader. Then it just becomes an issue of "he has power over me."

 

I've never seen any of Donald Trump's shows, nor do I know anything about business. As I've said, I have very little experience of leadership so I don't think I'm really in a position to say much about it.

Regarding your last point, aren't there some companies that were started simply by a group of friends who had an idea and decided to work together? They didn't decide that one person should be the leader etc, they just worked as group based on their interests. And it's only once the company became big enough that they started to employ staff and build the whole hierarchy with a leader etc. This is only from the very few articles that I've read, so feel free to correct me. I don't have much interest in business.

 

However, I do agree with your point that a leader shouldn't be picked simply based on knowledge. As mentioned previously, I believe it has to do with ability to utilise the skills of the team and set the wheels in motion (which is why I'm confused why you think the "we're all a team" motto is nonsense).

Edited March 24, 2014 by Angury

[CuriousGeorgette]

What's wrong with the "we are all a team" motto? :s

 

I agree with you in your previous statement that a small gap is necessary - but I believe it should only be a "small" gap.

Anything more than that and I don't think anyone would feel comfortable to discuss their ideas with their leader. Then it just becomes an issue of "he has power over me."

 

I've never seen any of Donald Trump's shows, nor do I know anything about business. As I've said, I have very little experience of leadership so I don't think I'm really in a position to say much about it.

Regarding your last point, aren't there some companies that were started simply by a group of friends who had an idea and decided to work together? They didn't decide that one person should be the leader etc, they just worked as group based on their interests. And it's only once the company became big enough that they started to employ staff and build the whole hierarchy with a leader etc. This is only from the very few articles that I've read, so feel free to correct me. I don't have much interest in business.

 

However, I do agree with your point that a leader shouldn't be picked simply based on knowledge. As mentioned previously, I believe it has to do with ability to utilise the skills of the team and set the wheels in motion (which is why I'm confused why you think the "we're all a team" motto is nonsense).

 

Teams only work to a certain point, at which point there needs to be some one to make the final decision, carry the can, etc. Now a team might thrash out ideas, or whatever but ultimately the team will report to someone. 

 

As for groups of friends starting a business - yeah sure - there is always one who is more the leader than the others, who drives things and ends up the CEO / major shareholder down the line. 

 

I'm anti-teams except in limited circumstances because ultimately teams don't make decisions, individuals do. It's somewhat ra-ra kind of stuff which leaves me stone cold. All this company team building BS is truly a load of codswallop. Which would you prefer? Some one who is competent or some one who can play nice with others? 

Edited March 24, 2014 by CuriousGeorgette

[Angury]

Teams only work to a certain point, at which point there needs to be some one to make the final decision, carry the can, etc. Now a team might thrash out ideas, or whatever but ultimately the team will report to someone.

 

As for groups of friends starting a business - yeah sure - there is always one who is more the leader than the others, who drives things and ends up the CEO / major shareholder down the line.

 

I'm anti-teams except in limited circumstances because ultimately teams don't make decisions, individuals do. It's somewhat ra-ra kind of stuff which leaves me stone cold. All this company team building BS is truly a load of codswallop. Which would you prefer? Some one who is competent or some one who can play nice with others?

 

I would rather take the opinions of a group of experienced individuals than the opinion of just one person. Which is also why I'd prefer to have a leader who is willing to take his teams views into account and come to a decision based on their views, and not just his own.

 

I noticed you mentioned CEO/stakeholders, and I realise I'm thinking about it from a healthcare point of view where it is more about multidisciplinary teams, rather than a business point of view which seems to be where you're coming from. I imagine it differs between sectors, as I always imagine the business world to be much more ruthless, whereas in healthcare your primary aim is the wellbeing of the patient.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Angury

[CuriousGeorgette]

I would rather take the opinions of a group of experienced individuals than the opinion of just one person. Which is also why I'd prefer to have a leader who is willing to take his teams views into account and come to a decision based on their views, and not just his own.

 

I noticed you mentioned CEO/stakeholders, and I realise I'm thinking about it from a healthcare point of view where it is more about multidisciplinary teams, rather than a business point of view which seems to be where you're coming from. I imagine it differs between sectors, as I always imagine the business world to be much more ruthless, whereas in healthcare your primary aim is the wellbeing of the patient.

 

 

or should be - but that is a whole other discussion and way off-topic. 

 

I'm not sure where you got the idea that opinions are discounted? It is just that ultimately one or a small group of people make the decisions. Think of a doctor in an operating room - I sure wouldn't want him getting opinions from the nurses on what he should be doing, or even having a discussion, debate, team meeting. He needs to know what he is doing, have the knowledge and experience and willingness to take the lead in decision making. 

 

I think I'm coming at it from an authority point of view rather than a strictly business one. Ultimately one person carries the can, sorry but that is the reality. Even if the team messes up - watch how fast they find one person to point a finger at as being the weakest link that brought the team down. That might be the team leader or the guy who failed to do his research properly, but sure as God made little apples, one person will take the blame.  So yeah teams work for some things but not for all, and sure as sure can be, the reality of the power lines, authority, hierarchy will become highly apparent when the proverbial hits the fan.