I don’t mean this to sound as harsh as it may, but here’s the thing: everyone wants to be a leader, but few actually want to do what it takes to lead. Ok, sorry if that made you cringe a bit. I’m really a nice (albeit a bit goofy) guy, I swear.
Leadership is hard. Just ask any executive, manager, or leader who’s doing it well. Many have said–and rightly so–that if leading seems easy, you’re probably not doing it right.
This is the time of year when people all over the globe make resolutions. Many will keep some of theirs; most will not. There’s a reason that January is a big month for gym memberships–it’s the month when many of us resolve to exercise more. So we pay for a 12-month gym membership that we’ll use for a grand total of two months. We’re resolved to exercise, but we’re not that resolved. Leaders, however, don’t have the luxury to make resolutions just once a year; nor do they have the luxury of not doing their darndest to keep the ones they make.
Leaders, you see, must always be pushing, looking, dreaming. As leaders, we can’t allow ourselves to be stuck in a rut. Every day should be resolution day for leaders. Every day you should be challenging yourself. Every day you should be learning, growing, thinking, connecting, collaborating, and motivating. Seem intimidating? Well, it should. Leadership is a big deal.
One of the worst things a team or organization can have is a passive leader or leaders. The results of passive leadership include organizational passivity, lack of innovation, lack of forward momentum, boredom, lack of competitive drive, fear, insecurity, lack of employee engagement, and an almost infinite list of other things. Leading, by its very nature, requires a healthy skepticism of whatever your particular status quo happens to be. But not only that–it requires the courage and persistence to consistently and continually push forward. Passivity is not an option.
Sorry to get all semantic on you,but is “passive” leadership really leadership at all? There’s good and bad leadership, but it seems to me that both imply some degree of active-ness.
I guess “lead by doing absolutely nothing” might be better than active leadership that destroys the organization, though.
I think that’s kind of my point–there are lots of “leaders” out there that are pretty consistently passive, which seems to be antithetical to what leadership, or at least good leadership, as you said, is all about.
I actually laughed out loud (really) when I read your last sentence. But you’re probably right.
I’m surprised you wrote what you did. You cannot “lead” by doing nothing.
Your phrase, Leading by doing nothing, means you are being led by some other means, or force; drifting, wandering, abstaining, but certainly not leading.