Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

A general, or a leader should have various qualities. And the ability to inspire his followers as well as the ability to guide them should include in the list.

But, even among leaders there are good ones and bad ones. If we keep aside any other variables and consider only these two, guidance and inspiration, having which of these two 'in a large amount' will make the leader good or bad?

Neither quality would fulfil that need.

I am sorry but I didn't get your point. Could you please elaborate it a bit. Were you meaning that either having the ability to guide or the ability to inspire won't make a good leader? If so, what will make a good leader?

A leader can be highly inspirational, though useless as a leader.
And a leader can be a great guide, but also useless as a leader.

Leadership also requires the ability to listen and delegate, intelligence, vision, charisma, and care for the followers. There is no point leading your followers to their deaths even if they find it inspirational.

A good leader should lead his team towards success, or a productive goal. I agree with that.

And, yes, there are many leadership qualities, and these abilities to inspire and guide are among them. Having these two only won't make a good leader.

But for the purpose of discussion, what quality out of these two will be more useful from the side of the follower? Will they prefer an inspirational leader who will help them to find their own path, or a guiding hand who will guide them towards their goal? (Let's say all the other leadership qualities are available in abundance)

[Sushan]

There is no argument regarding how a leader should act if he/she is incompetent. He/she should not have been the leader in the first place.

But if the competency part was okay, then the leader can guide his/her team towards a specific goal. If a leader let his/her team members to come out with their own creative plans and ideas, then who will remain to execute them? Won't there be much chance to such an attempt to be end in chaos?

Who is better suited to come up with an effective plan, those who actually do the work and have a practical understanding of it, or a guy who doesn't do the actual work, but goes to meetings and entertains clients all day?

As I mentioned before, your commentary fits performing simple tasks, so simple even a boss would know what to do. This doesn't work well with professionals.

A leader cannot be a person who has no idea about the task. A politician can be such a person, and usually ppoliticians fail when they try to do things by their own.

Whether it is a simple task or whether you are working for a huge goal with a set of professionals, you have to guide your team. That does not mean that you have to be a dictator. You can always listen to them and take their ideas. But the final decision and the plan should be yours and otherwise it will lead only to chaos.

'Too many cooks will spoil the soup'

You mean "should not" (and I agree with you), yet bosses commonly don't know a lot about the work.

Chaos? What's the difference between a group of professionals coming up with plans A, B and C, discussing it and choosing B. Or a boss listening to their discussion and choosing B? It has nothiing to do with cooks and soup. At the professional levels bosses and leaders are more cheerleaders to keep the troops motivated than a source of expertise.

Exactly. When working with experienced experts the leader or the boss have to just motivate them and keep the work going.

Yet, the problem when experts are taken together for some task is that they are reluctant to agree among themselves. This is very well seen when they come from different subject areas. Neither will be willing to accept shortcomings of their own plans.

In such occasions a leader or a boss is really important to make the final decision. Then ultimately it will be his responsibility about the decision and its outcome. If he just do the cheerleading part and let the experts to decide, then I don't think that the team will survive for much long.

[Sculptor1]

But for the purpose of discussion, what quality out of these two will be more useful from the side of the follower? Will they prefer an inspirational leader who will help them to find their own path, or a guiding hand who will guide them towards their goal? (Let's say all the other leadership qualities are available in abundance)

Depends.
The leader of a knitting circle would not bear the same answer as the leader of a family business, or Empire, or street gang.
It might help to know why you are asking. And what is your leader leading?

[Sushan]

But for the purpose of discussion, what quality out of these two will be more useful from the side of the follower? Will they prefer an inspirational leader who will help them to find their own path, or a guiding hand who will guide them towards their goal? (Let's say all the other leadership qualities are available in abundance)

Depends.
The leader of a knitting circle would not bear the same answer as the leader of a family business, or Empire, or street gang.
It might help to know why you are asking. And what is your leader leading?

This discussion is not for any actual scenario. But let's take a military leader for an example, as I am currently serving in the Army. Which quality out of these two will make a better leader? Is it guidance or inspiration?

[LuckyR]

But for the purpose of discussion, what quality out of these two will be more useful from the side of the follower? Will they prefer an inspirational leader who will help them to find their own path, or a guiding hand who will guide them towards their goal? (Let's say all the other leadership qualities are available in abundance)

Depends.
The leader of a knitting circle would not bear the same answer as the leader of a family business, or Empire, or street gang.
It might help to know why you are asking. And what is your leader leading?

This discussion is not for any actual scenario. But let's take a military leader for an example, as I am currently serving in the Army. Which quality out of these two will make a better leader? Is it guidance or inspiration?

The military is a special case, basic training does most of the inspiration already. Noncoms provide guidance.

[Sushan]

But for the purpose of discussion, what quality out of these two will be more useful from the side of the follower? Will they prefer an inspirational leader who will help them to find their own path, or a guiding hand who will guide them towards their goal? (Let's say all the other leadership qualities are available in abundance)

Depends.
The leader of a knitting circle would not bear the same answer as the leader of a family business, or Empire, or street gang.
It might help to know why you are asking. And what is your leader leading?

This discussion is not for any actual scenario. But let's take a military leader for an example, as I am currently serving in the Army. Which quality out of these two will make a better leader? Is it guidance or inspiration?

The military is a special case, basic training does most of the inspiration already. Noncoms provide guidance.

Actually, I did not get any inspiration from my training. Most of the tasks were nerely impossible and no ordinary fellow would do them unless they had a strong motive. Most of the times we did them because of fear. Failure is followed by harsh punishments. It is true that the training moulded us. But I don't think that inspired us. Even today, after many years from that hard training, we do things according to the commands, but not out of any inspiration (I am not talking about war, but the regular day-to-day tasks. When it comes to the war the inspiration came from different means)

[Sculptor1]

But for the purpose of discussion, what quality out of these two will be more useful from the side of the follower? Will they prefer an inspirational leader who will help them to find their own path, or a guiding hand who will guide them towards their goal? (Let's say all the other leadership qualities are available in abundance)

Depends.
The leader of a knitting circle would not bear the same answer as the leader of a family business, or Empire, or street gang.
It might help to know why you are asking. And what is your leader leading?

This discussion is not for any actual scenario. But let's take a military leader for an example, as I am currently serving in the Army. Which quality out of these two will make a better leader? Is it guidance or inspiration?

These are of basically no use. In a war situation it is fear that works. The leader has to be more scary than the enemy.
Leaders might inspire, and guide but basically the leader has to get the grunts to STFU and die quietly.
Why the **** did you enslave yourself like this?

[Sushan]

But for the purpose of discussion, what quality out of these two will be more useful from the side of the follower? Will they prefer an inspirational leader who will help them to find their own path, or a guiding hand who will guide them towards their goal? (Let's say all the other leadership qualities are available in abundance)

Depends.
The leader of a knitting circle would not bear the same answer as the leader of a family business, or Empire, or street gang.
It might help to know why you are asking. And what is your leader leading?

This discussion is not for any actual scenario. But let's take a military leader for an example, as I am currently serving in the Army. Which quality out of these two will make a better leader? Is it guidance or inspiration?

These are of basically no use. In a war situation it is fear that works. The leader has to be more scary than the enemy.
Leaders might inspire, and guide but basically the leader has to get the grunts to STFU and die quietly.
Why the **** did you enslave yourself like this?

I get this as you are talking about a military leader and the military personnel.

I can't fully disagree with you. Yes, it is kind of an enslaving, but it is not the only thing. Just because of the fear the soldier will not go forward in the battle. We see a number of soldiers leave the army, when they are not inspired enough for the battle. If a soldier says he has no fear, then either he has gone insane or he is completely a fool. But the soldier looks at his leader who is fighting in the war front along with them and uses that to control his fear.

Many great generals and commanders did that, and that was the reason for the death of many of them. You can command an army even by sitting in an air conditioned room, but to inspire them you have to be there.

[LuckyR]

Depends.
The leader of a knitting circle would not bear the same answer as the leader of a family business, or Empire, or street gang.
It might help to know why you are asking. And what is your leader leading?

This discussion is not for any actual scenario. But let's take a military leader for an example, as I am currently serving in the Army. Which quality out of these two will make a better leader? Is it guidance or inspiration?

The military is a special case, basic training does most of the inspiration already. Noncoms provide guidance.

Actually, I did not get any inspiration from my training. Most of the tasks were nerely impossible and no ordinary fellow would do them unless they had a strong motive. Most of the times we did them because of fear. Failure is followed by harsh punishments. It is true that the training moulded us. But I don't think that inspired us. Even today, after many years from that hard training, we do things according to the commands, but not out of any inspiration (I am not talking about war, but the regular day-to-day tasks. When it comes to the war the inspiration came from different means)

I am not going to lecture someone actually experiencing something that I am not, though I gotta point out that again the military is a special case (that does not apply to most leadership situations).

Firstly, since the purpose of the military is warmaking, discussion outside of that are meaningless.

Second when I referred to basic training, I was not speaking about the training itself, rather the shared experience of going through it together. When asked, active duty warfighters commonly cite acts of bravery to doing things for their comrades, not for leadership, nor country, nor patriotism.

[Sculptor1]

Depends.
The leader of a knitting circle would not bear the same answer as the leader of a family business, or Empire, or street gang.
It might help to know why you are asking. And what is your leader leading?

This discussion is not for any actual scenario. But let's take a military leader for an example, as I am currently serving in the Army. Which quality out of these two will make a better leader? Is it guidance or inspiration?

These are of basically no use. In a war situation it is fear that works. The leader has to be more scary than the enemy.
Leaders might inspire, and guide but basically the leader has to get the grunts to STFU and die quietly.
Why the **** did you enslave yourself like this?

I get this as you are talking about a military leader and the military personnel.

I can't fully disagree with you. Yes, it is kind of an enslaving, but it is not the only thing. Just because of the fear the soldier will not go forward in the battle. We see a number of soldiers leave the army, when they are not inspired enough for the battle. If a soldier says he has no fear, then either he has gone insane or he is completely a fool. But the soldier looks at his leader who is fighting in the war front along with them and uses that to control his fear.

Many great generals and commanders did that, and that was the reason for the death of many of them. You can command an army even by sitting in an air conditioned room, but to inspire them you have to be there.

Say what?
You think generals fight?
Generals like Montgomery, Patton, Rommel were inspiriational, but never fought or were ever in danger.
They were media savvy and created a persona.

[Sushan]

This discussion is not for any actual scenario. But let's take a military leader for an example, as I am currently serving in the Army. Which quality out of these two will make a better leader? Is it guidance or inspiration?

The military is a special case, basic training does most of the inspiration already. Noncoms provide guidance.

Actually, I did not get any inspiration from my training. Most of the tasks were nerely impossible and no ordinary fellow would do them unless they had a strong motive. Most of the times we did them because of fear. Failure is followed by harsh punishments. It is true that the training moulded us. But I don't think that inspired us. Even today, after many years from that hard training, we do things according to the commands, but not out of any inspiration (I am not talking about war, but the regular day-to-day tasks. When it comes to the war the inspiration came from different means)

I am not going to lecture someone actually experiencing something that I am not, though I gotta point out that again the military is a special case (that does not apply to most leadership situations).

Firstly, since the purpose of the military is warmaking, discussion outside of that are meaningless.

Second when I referred to basic training, I was not speaking about the training itself, rather the shared experience of going through it together. When asked, active duty warfighters commonly cite acts of bravery to doing things for their comrades, not for leadership, nor country, nor patriotism.

Comradeship is the most important thing in military and all the training are focused on developing it. That is why when one person do something wrong, the whole bunch are given the punishments. That is not because of anything but such a mistake in the battlefield will determine whether you are going to live anymore or not.

But I disagree that no one is doing these acts of valor for patriotism, or their country, or because they are born leaders. Our country was in war for 30 years. In the early stages of the war when the opposing terrorists were in a good position many army soldiers left the army because they were mentally depressed. But when the tides of the war changed towards its end, many were inspired by the great leadership and joined the army. Many of them sacrificed their lives for the country.

Anyway my point was, though the count can be few, there are people in military who do it because they love leadership, they are patriot, or because they love their country.

[Sushan]

This discussion is not for any actual scenario. But let's take a military leader for an example, as I am currently serving in the Army. Which quality out of these two will make a better leader? Is it guidance or inspiration?

These are of basically no use. In a war situation it is fear that works. The leader has to be more scary than the enemy.
Leaders might inspire, and guide but basically the leader has to get the grunts to STFU and die quietly.
Why the **** did you enslave yourself like this?

I get this as you are talking about a military leader and the military personnel.

I can't fully disagree with you. Yes, it is kind of an enslaving, but it is not the only thing. Just because of the fear the soldier will not go forward in the battle. We see a number of soldiers leave the army, when they are not inspired enough for the battle. If a soldier says he has no fear, then either he has gone insane or he is completely a fool. But the soldier looks at his leader who is fighting in the war front along with them and uses that to control his fear.

Many great generals and commanders did that, and that was the reason for the death of many of them. You can command an army even by sitting in an air conditioned room, but to inspire them you have to be there.

Say what?
You think generals fight?
Generals like Montgomery, Patton, Rommel were inspiriational, but never fought or were ever in danger.
They were media savvy and created a persona.

I agree. Most of the generals who are considered as great ones have not fought in battles as a general. If we think of that practically, actually their lives cannot be put in unnecessary danger, because a demise of such a person will discourage the soldiers and encourage the enemy.

But there are leaders at the ground level who fight. Starting from a second lieutenant who commands a platoon, there are company commanders, battalion commanders, divisional level commanders and so on. All these personnel are actually fight along with the soldiers, inspiring and guiding them. Do you think if they too were commanding from an air conditioned room, that the soldiers wwill fight?

[Sculptor1]

These are of basically no use. In a war situation it is fear that works. The leader has to be more scary than the enemy.
Leaders might inspire, and guide but basically the leader has to get the grunts to STFU and die quietly.
Why the **** did you enslave yourself like this?

I get this as you are talking about a military leader and the military personnel.

I can't fully disagree with you. Yes, it is kind of an enslaving, but it is not the only thing. Just because of the fear the soldier will not go forward in the battle. We see a number of soldiers leave the army, when they are not inspired enough for the battle. If a soldier says he has no fear, then either he has gone insane or he is completely a fool. But the soldier looks at his leader who is fighting in the war front along with them and uses that to control his fear.

Many great generals and commanders did that, and that was the reason for the death of many of them. You can command an army even by sitting in an air conditioned room, but to inspire them you have to be there.

Say what?
You think generals fight?
Generals like Montgomery, Patton, Rommel were inspiriational, but never fought or were ever in danger.
They were media savvy and created a persona.

I agree. Most of the generals who are considered as great ones have not fought in battles as a general. If we think of that practically, actually their lives cannot be put in unnecessary danger, because a demise of such a person will discourage the soldiers and encourage the enemy.

But there are leaders at the ground level who fight. Starting from a second lieutenant who commands a platoon, there are company commanders, battalion commanders, divisional level commanders and so on. All these personnel are actually fight along with the soldiers, inspiring and guiding them. Do you think if they too were commanding from an air conditioned room, that the soldiers wwill fight?

Yes I do, because wherever possible the brass gets the grunts to stand in the way of the bullets.

[Sushan]

I get this as you are talking about a military leader and the military personnel.

I can't fully disagree with you. Yes, it is kind of an enslaving, but it is not the only thing. Just because of the fear the soldier will not go forward in the battle. We see a number of soldiers leave the army, when they are not inspired enough for the battle. If a soldier says he has no fear, then either he has gone insane or he is completely a fool. But the soldier looks at his leader who is fighting in the war front along with them and uses that to control his fear.

Many great generals and commanders did that, and that was the reason for the death of many of them. You can command an army even by sitting in an air conditioned room, but to inspire them you have to be there.

Say what?
You think generals fight?
Generals like Montgomery, Patton, Rommel were inspiriational, but never fought or were ever in danger.
They were media savvy and created a persona.

I agree. Most of the generals who are considered as great ones have not fought in battles as a general. If we think of that practically, actually their lives cannot be put in unnecessary danger, because a demise of such a person will discourage the soldiers and encourage the enemy.

But there are leaders at the ground level who fight. Starting from a second lieutenant who commands a platoon, there are company commanders, battalion commanders, divisional level commanders and so on. All these personnel are actually fight along with the soldiers, inspiring and guiding them. Do you think if they too were commanding from an air conditioned room, that the soldiers wwill fight?

Yes I do, because wherever possible the brass gets the grunts to stand in the way of the bullets.

I do not see it like that. There can be such officers, yet do you actually believe that if the soldiers feel that they are being abandoned by their commander and just sent for their deaths, that they will still obey? There have been occasions that the soldiers have turned on their commanders.

And there have been unfavourable situations in the battles, but the soldiers have fought courageously and given their lives. Such situations can be interpreted as 'brass letting the grunts to take the bullet', yet I believe that such situations show how inspirational the commanders were, and how courageous the soldiers were even to fight till their deaths. (I do not say that there have been no occasions where soldiers were lead to death because of foolish decisions of the commanders, but I believe that the number of occasion that the soldiers were inspired to fight unfavourable conditions with courage outnumber such occasions)

[Sculptor1]

Say what?
You think generals fight?
Generals like Montgomery, Patton, Rommel were inspiriational, but never fought or were ever in danger.
They were media savvy and created a persona.

I agree. Most of the generals who are considered as great ones have not fought in battles as a general. If we think of that practically, actually their lives cannot be put in unnecessary danger, because a demise of such a person will discourage the soldiers and encourage the enemy.

But there are leaders at the ground level who fight. Starting from a second lieutenant who commands a platoon, there are company commanders, battalion commanders, divisional level commanders and so on. All these personnel are actually fight along with the soldiers, inspiring and guiding them. Do you think if they too were commanding from an air conditioned room, that the soldiers wwill fight?

Yes I do, because wherever possible the brass gets the grunts to stand in the way of the bullets.

I do not see it like that.

Then I think you are probably a naive grunt.