Ultimately, all leaders were following someone at some point. You don't have to be a follower forever, and it sounds like you see following as an opportunity to learn from leaders--which it can be. And you can learn from bad leaders as well as good ones.
But following is also important. If everyone is leading, who are they leading? Both roles get things done. There's no need to dismiss one simply because it isn't the one you want for yourself. Instead, give followers the respect they deserve. That's a crucial part of being a good leader.
I agree that following is important and I am not trying to dismiss it, I just wish that it was presented in a different matter such as "Everyone follows at some point because leaders aren't always leading, and everyone follows someone" instead of justifying it by saying that we are not going to lead, acting as if we will never lead.
Thanks for the comment!
October 13, 2008 12:28 pm
KateNonymous
No problem. My guess is that they were trying to say that most people aren't going to be leaders, which is largely true. But it doesn't sound like they worded it very well.
And lots of people may not be leaders overall, but may have moments of leadership. There's a pretty broad spectrum there, but it sounds like they didn't present that clearly.
In my experience, no one really tells you how to use your MBTI. And people who do often are telling you to apply it to things that it wasn't designed for.
I'm curious--are the students who are older than you also fairly recent college grads? Or did most of them graduate a while ago, and are taking this class after having been in the workforce for a few years? I ask because when I was in college, only art students had portfolios.
We learn and lead n ot only by following but by doing. This means taking the skills that you learn in class, from a mentor, from a book or article and applying it to a real world problem or situation. By your teacher not having the answers gives you the freedom to go online, talk to friends and find answers that matter to you and not just the garbage that is spit in most college prep courses.
Ultimately it is you that has to lead from what you learn and it is who decides what sticks in that ol brain of yours.
October 13, 2008 3:24 pm
jrandom42
First of all, let's face it. There are always going to be a lot fewer leaders than followers. If everyone strives to lead, who follows? It's the too-many-chiefs-not-enough-indians syndrome.
And if 2 or more people contend for leadership (absent any official selection or designation), who decides who leads? And if one is chosen, by whatever method, how does the new leader win over their opponents? It's a situation ripe for insurrection, backstabbing, sabotage and conflict.
Ultimately, all leaders were following someone at some point. You don't have to be a follower forever, and it sounds like you see following as an opportunity to learn from leaders--which it can be. And you can learn from bad leaders as well as good ones.
But following is also important. If everyone is leading, who are they leading? Both roles get things done. There's no need to dismiss one simply because it isn't the one you want for yourself. Instead, give followers the respect they deserve. That's a crucial part of being a good leader.
I agree that following is important and I am not trying to dismiss it, I just wish that it was presented in a different matter such as "Everyone follows at some point because leaders aren't always leading, and everyone follows someone" instead of justifying it by saying that we are not going to lead, acting as if we will never lead.
Thanks for the comment!
No problem. My guess is that they were trying to say that most people aren't going to be leaders, which is largely true. But it doesn't sound like they worded it very well.
And lots of people may not be leaders overall, but may have moments of leadership. There's a pretty broad spectrum there, but it sounds like they didn't present that clearly.
In my experience, no one really tells you how to use your MBTI. And people who do often are telling you to apply it to things that it wasn't designed for.
I'm curious--are the students who are older than you also fairly recent college grads? Or did most of them graduate a while ago, and are taking this class after having been in the workforce for a few years? I ask because when I was in college, only art students had portfolios.
We learn and lead n ot only by following but by doing. This means taking the skills that you learn in class, from a mentor, from a book or article and applying it to a real world problem or situation. By your teacher not having the answers gives you the freedom to go online, talk to friends and find answers that matter to you and not just the garbage that is spit in most college prep courses.
Ultimately it is you that has to lead from what you learn and it is who decides what sticks in that ol brain of yours.
First of all, let's face it. There are always going to be a lot fewer leaders than followers. If everyone strives to lead, who follows? It's the too-many-chiefs-not-enough-indians syndrome.
And if 2 or more people contend for leadership (absent any official selection or designation), who decides who leads? And if one is chosen, by whatever method, how does the new leader win over their opponents? It's a situation ripe for insurrection, backstabbing, sabotage and conflict.
Thanks for the comments!
GOT SOMETHING TO SAY?