Week 3: Chapter 2 "Symbolism and Personal Example"

"Set a personal example with visible, memorable symbols and behaviors."

I haven't studied philosophy before so this can be wrong, but human seems to have two natures: reason and emotion. Chapter 2 seems to be more focusing on leadership tactics for this human "emotion".

Basic idea from Shackleton stated in the chapter 2 is, as concisely shown in the quote above, two things: 1. personal presence 2. easy symbols work quite well to encourage groups.

Thoughts on element 1: personal presence

This reminds me of the argument about "charisma". Looking back at the history, so-called great leaders seemed to have this element. Personally, through their visible performances, "charismatic" leaders seem to send a silent message saying that they have two seemingly opposite traits (which work well to draw the fidelity from the members): "friendliness" and "force". 

The more the leader shows great sophisticated skills, the more people feel the leader afar since majority of the people are not that much "perfect".

Therefore, leaders need to in some way show that they are at the same place as them. When one of the member lost his mittens, Shackleton threw his. I thought this is one of the examples of leaders showing that they are at the same position with other members. By throwing his, he showed his will to the members that he too will suffer from the cold together with his member. 

Nevertheless, it is also true that when leaders show too much friendliness all the way up to the point that they completely loose their difference in their act from other members, this is not a good situation for the groups - in terms of confronting the Edge. 

My basic image of leadership contains the assumption of affirmation of the hierarchy at the end of the day. I mean, yes, leaders are not "Boss" (actually I've written about it in my previous post), but the fact itself that you are distinguishing "leader" from "members" can be interpreted as having that assumption. However, I do understand that from another point of view, this distinction is as same as difference in characters, whose difference doesn't have a competitive nature. So the point I wanted to make here is, as far as they are leaders, they should never forget about their unique role, which is different from that of the members. 

And I say, that is "force".

Well, but why in the first place leaders "need" force? I didn't mention it yet. I'll answer to it here.
I don't want to be like a totalitarian leader, but I think some of the points they made related to leadership were right. And one of them related to my point is that, human, in their nature, desire for the power on which they can rely on, or which removes their fear.
If leaders can supplement this hollow, then they can get not only rational support but also emotional attachment from their members.
Leaders are the ones who make decisive decision at the last moment and decisive decision often tend to entail antipathy. In order to minimize this antipathy, obviously which is not good for the atmosphere of the group and therefore not good for the group unity, building firm emotional relationships with members do matter a lot for the leaders. 

Because these two features are something opposite in their nature, balancing between these two become one of the tuff things for leaders, I think - and I actually feel. 

Thoughts on element 2: easy symbols

...I didn't expect writing till here takes this much time!!!

So, I'll write about this in my next post.

I sometimes forget about the time when I'm too absorbed in something......nah!