Leaders always lead, followers may not always follow
I had mentioned sometime back that Leadership is Situational. The same person who is accepted as a leader at one time is rejected at some other time. I used the examples of Alexander, Mahatama Gandhi and Churchill.
Now, the questions arises, Leaders are always the same, well, leader-like. So, how come leadership becomes situational? How come a person is leader in one situation and not in another situation?
The people who are leader-like (i.e. the ones taking the lead) are always leader-like (i.e. they always take the lead). However, people may not follow them all the time. In India, at the point of time, so many people are trying to take the lead towards better governance but how many followers have they got? They are still leader-like but there are no followers for them.
Tomorrow, when people are just too fed up with the current state of governance (as much as that they decide to take some “real” action), the same set of leaders (social-activists as they are called) will emerge as leaders.
Anatomy of pressure in work life
Put forth your best and don’t think about the results too much, because come what may you cannot better your best.
My friend Hari Om has written a humorous and very insightful post on pressure in corporate life.
An item on my must-read list. Some more stuff from there -
There is another kind of pressure. Sometime we stretch ourselves, and consciously or unconsciously set the benchmark for us. Since life always do not let us operate in perfect conditions, but in general the expectations do not take into account all these factors. Thus we continuously engage into stretching ourselves. Since stretching in one direction makes our life severely disbalanced, thus we feel the heat on the other fronts in life. Now, the natural reaction is not to eliminate the original stretching, but we start stretching ourselves more. Example we set a benchmark at work place. But consistently performing at your personal high level costs you your personal space happiness. Your family is at the stake. The first reaction is to somehow manage this all. Thus we get into the loop of managing things rather then living the life.
Leadership is Situational
Leader is a person who has followers - Peter Drucker
via Wikipedia
Let’s take an example. Alexander? He was a leader right? A good one? He conquered most of the land known to the Greeks of that time. Starting from Greek, he led his army all the way to heart of India.
But what happened when he was preparing for a fight with Nanda for Magadha? His army refused. And he couldn’t convince his army to fight. What did he do then? He left for home.
via Wikipedia
Another example - Mahatama Gandhi. He was at the forefront of India’s movement for Independence. What happened after the independence? He was not a leader anymore. People started turning away from him. And one day, someone assassinated him because he was considered a “hindrance” in the progress of India.
Another example? Ok, last one. Churchill? Led British Army to victory in World War 2. After the war, Churchill told a huge crowd in Whitehall: “This is your victory.” The people shouted: “No, it is yours”. And what happened in the elections afterwards? He lost. Leader?
So, as we can see, all these people who are among the greatest leaders of all times did not have followers all the time. Even though they were still the same people all along, what really made them leaders and what took away the leadership position was the “time”.
There are several attributes that people tend to assign to leaders - tenacious, determined, leads from the front, thinker, etc etc etc. But the most important attribute of a leader is that he or she represents the aspirations of the people of that time. When aspirations change, leaders change.
As long as the Greek army was driven by a passion to conquer, Alexander served their purpose fine. But when the army got bored of fighting and wanted to go back home, he couldn’t move the army even by a couple of inches.
As long as people of India wanted self-governance, Gandhi looked like a leader to them. However, when self-governance was achieved, he was seen as a hindrance.
Churchill? Chief reason for his losing election was a desire for post-war reform was widespread amongst the population and that the man who had led Britain in war was not seen as the man to lead the nation in peace.
Conclusion? Leaders do show some attributes like tenacity, clear thinking, etc etc. But the most important thing is that leaders represent the aspirations of the followers and they inspire a belief in the followers that all their aspirations will get fulfilled through him/her.
Pottery and User Generated Content
Posted by: Manas in Social Web on December 8th, 2008
As I mentioned earlier, building a website based on user generated content is somewhat like a potter making an earthen pot. Since there are so many websites coming up that rely on the user generated content, it is imperative to understand the process that can make these websites successful or an utter failure.
The pot is made by the momentum of the wheel. And what does the Potter do? Gives shape to the clay of lump so that an earthen pot comes out of it.
First he applies hard force so that something starts rising from the clay lump. And then slowly and gently, control the upward and sideways movement of the clay as it rises further and further up.
Similarly, for the website, first ensure that the wheel is spinning i.e. there is willingness in people to contribute to the cause you are standing up for. Put in some hard work (may be hire some people) to create a critical mass of information. This will set the momentum in the right direction. And then slowly and gently, keep things in order while people dump more and more info to your site.
Of course, things are not so simplistic but there is certainly a pattern.
Carpentry and Pottery {OR} Mahalo and Wikipedia
Posted by: Manas in Development, Social Web, Web on December 7th, 2008
What’s the difference between a Carpenter and a Potter? That’s roughly the difference between Mahalo and Wikipedia. Not precisely, but roughly.
Carpenter works with tools. Potter works with hands. Carpenter cuts the wood in pieces, gives them shape by applying a lot of force, then puts these pieces in some order back again. Potter spins a wheel which is the main supplier of further force and then just sits and gives shape. The wheel keeps spinning and the potter keeps giving shape.
Carpenter exercises explicit control over the entire process while Potter exercises very subtle control.
Building Mahalo is Carpentry where it is decided which articles to write, the format in which to write, assign people to write them, review them, put them up, keep people on job for updating them.
Building Wikipedia is Pottery where the core Wikipedia team primarily works towards keeping things in shape and maintaining some quality. Rest is all done by the spinning wheel (i.e. a movement towards building a free encyclopedia).
Both are art and both have their own pluses and minuses. They both can give good results. You need to decide which approach will work for your site and then stick to that.
Proto.in this Jan
Evolution of a Programmer
Posted by: Manas in Development on December 5th, 2008
There is a usual evolution of a programmer story popular on the web. There is another one, however, given by Vishal. Here it follows -
A programmer, in fact any techie, goes through three phases of evolution:
1. Jackie Chan - You are young, smart and energetic. Even though you can fight, you mostly dread the enemy (mostly the powerful ones). Your fights tend to go on longer and you are mostly beaten up by the enemy. Only towards the end, do you get a control on the situation. You don’t use any sophisticated tools for fighting, you do it mostly with hands OR whatever you can lay your hands on (including broom).
2. Bruce Willis - You have developed a passion for fighting now. You have learned to use tools that boost your productivity by killing enemies faster. Also, you keep a tight control over the enemy right from the begining. But you still can’t do it without getting hurt. You are so involved in fighting that you have blood running down your face and you run bare-foot on glass pieces.
3. James Bond - This is what you eventually become. Calm, fast and effortless. You have equipped yourself with an array of extremely sophisticated tools. With these tools, you can not only kill scores of people by just turning the cap of your pen, you also know how to keep yourself unhurt. Finishing a task is just a cinch for you. And by the way, you have also learnt to indulge in non-technological pleasures 
Politics Oriented Software Development
Posted by: Manas in Development on December 5th, 2008
Politics Oriented Software Development paints a clear picture of how political forces play in software development and how people can consciously jeopardize a product even though they may be directly involved in its development.
If you haven’t read it yet, it’s high time you read it. Time and again, I have been reminded of the truthfulness in this article. Even though the article mentions software development, it’s true for every industry where the work is done as projects.
Whether a Startup or a large company, most people always put short term personal gains (which includes ego boost) over long term project viability. The sooner we understand and accept it, the better it is.
Isn’t there any hope? Well, no and yes. No because people will not change. Yes because now that you know how software development really works, you can figure out what kind of influence will work and what kind will not work.
RSS