On Leadership

[jducoeur]

I was chatting with ladysprite about this the other day, and it occurred to me that I've been meaning to write it up for ages, since it's been much on my mind lately. Important note: I am *not* talking about anyone in particular here. If you think I'm speaking about you specifically, you are incorrect. If anything, I'm mainly drawing from my own experience, plus extremely broad observations of how things work.

Question: what are the most important qualities and practices of a leader in an organization like the SCA?

I'll put a stake in the ground, and assert that the single most important element is Enthusiasm. Indeed, I'll go further, and say that enthusiasm is both necessary to being an effective leader in the SCA, and sufficient to being at least moderately effective. There are other qualities needed to do a job really well, but in most cases one can do at least an adequate job without them.

I intentionally contrast Enthusiasm with Duty. A lot of people lead activities in the SCA out of a sense of duty -- a feeling that it is their responsibility to take this leadership role. In my experience, that almost never works well. Duty can get you going through the motions, but it fails in a couple of key respects:

• First, it fails to inspire others. If a leader shows a measure of passion for the task -- if they find the activity fun, or care deeply about their branch, or what-have-you -- that almost always inspires others to come join in. It is *very* difficult to inspire people out of a sense of duty.


• Second, it doesn't sustain the leader well. Every activity goes through ups and downs. If the leader is passionate about it, they can generally get through that decently unscathed. But if they are doing it out of duty, burnout sets in rapidly. And that tends to lead to a downward spiral: when the leader burns out, others get *negatively* inspired -- just as passion for the activity tends to infect others, so does lack of passion for it.

Enthusiasm is not a simple constant. In many cases, someone starts a role with enthusiasm, but that gradually shades over time into doing it out of a sense of obligation. That's essentially the definition of burnout, and most people don't recognize it in themselves anywhere near fast enough. This usually has a negative effect on the activity over time. It's an understandable syndrome (I think almost all of us who have taken leadership roles in the Society have been through it at least once), but usually means that the leader has done a modest amount of unintentional harm to the activity by the time they actually step down.

It's not a quality that is necessarily limited to the activity head -- a really healthy activity will often have a lot of passion spread among its various members, and it's possible for that passion to make up for some lack of it in the leadership. In my observation, though, the people in charge of the activity have a large multiplier in how much effect their passion (or lack thereof) will have on the activity.

There are a few exceptions to this rule -- I believe they are all cases where the leadership job is mainly administrative in nature, where inspiring others is largely a non-sequiteur to the task. In those cases, one can be decently effective motivated only by duty, although that effectiveness tends to fade with time, as lack of motivation takes its toll. The number of such roles is very small, though: I can think of maybe a half-dozen offices in Carolingia that falls into this category. And even there, a passionate officer will almost always do a better job.

For now, I'll leave the practical implications of this as an exercise for the reader. I do think it *has* a lot of implications, that we ought to take seriously, but I think they're a tad complex, so I leave them as a matter for discussion.

So -- opinions? Am I correct? Am I full of it? What are the other characteristics of effective leadership in the SCA? I'm making a very broad statement here, that applies to most officers, guild and activity heads, and branch heads. In what ways do these roles differ in terms of their leadership? What are the implications for how we can make our various activities (and the Barony in general) more active and lively? I'm throwing the floor open for discussion...

Comments

[tangerinpenguin.livejournal.com]

Two quick comments as I get ready to head off to work: first, I've seen many, many enthusiastic people who didn't have some pragmatic sense of how organizations work who charged full speed down a dead end, or (worse) became viewed as "annoying." For leadership, passion is important but not sufficient.

The second, touching on your point about strictly admistrative positions, is we may need to clarify what "leadership" is. If it's strictly admistrative, are you ever "leading" other people? We lump anything with an "Office" together as leadership, but there's a big difference between being the person who ably makes sure the forms get filled out and the person who organizes and motivates a team to pull of an event, or gets a new an unfamiliar practice launched.

[jducoeur]

If it's strictly admistrative, are you ever "leading" other people?

A good question; I'm not sure. There are cases where the lines can be very fuzzy, where an office is split between leaders whose job is to inspire and drive people and others who are supposed to keep the trains running on time. Whether the latter are "leaders" is a matter of definition, and often varies depending on how the people in the role define it...

[keshwyn]

A question for you, coming at it from the Borough side of things (the only place I've had a close relationship with leadership) - do you think it's worse to have a Provost with minimal (or sometimes negative) enthusiasm, or no Provost at all, given that the no-Provost thing often means the group ceases to exist?

[jducoeur]

Good question, and applicable much more broadly than just in Boroughs -- I think the same question applies to many such leadership positions.

I'm not sure there's a definite answer. The Provost with low-to-negative enthusiasm is almost never effective on their own; I can think of few cases where the Borough hasn't sunk pretty badly under circumstances.

The Provost in this situation does tend to have a couple of important positive effects. They keep awareness of the SCA up, at least to some degree, so that people who were looking for us have something to latch onto. And since there is still nominal life to the Borough, it tends to make it much easier to fan things back to full activity when and if someone enthusiastic comes along. This is particularly relevant in the case of Boroughs, where restarting a college club is sometimes a significant pain in the ass.

That said, it can sometimes have negative effects as well. If the Provost gives off negative enthusiasm, that can color peoples' impressions of the SCA quite negatively, and turn people off from trying to get involved. Often, the Provost finds enthusiasm in things that aren't really SCA, and steer the Borough away from the club at large -- we've seen this happen at least a few times, where the college club became very tangential to the SCA, and that can lead people actively away from the Society. And in the case of activity leaders, it can sometimes drain off energy that might be more usefully focused into more energetic activities within the Barony.

All of which boils down to: I dunno. I don't think it's entirely obvious either way...

[antoniseb.livejournal.com]

I'm a big fan of putting the enthusiastic in the personal contact positions. The places where it is most needed is in leading and otherwise interacting with the boroughs, or anyone else who might catch the enthusiastic infection.

[meranthi.livejournal.com]

I think it's interesting to compare leadership in the SCA or anywhere, with teachers. Assuming the same knowledge, a teacher who in genuinely interested in their subject will hold the attention of the class much more than one who teaches because they feel they ought to. So, I think that enthusiasm is a HUGE part of making something interesting, which does provide leadership of a sort.

However, if you have no knowledge of your organization/subject/what have you, then your enthusiasm is a detriment. I can be very enthusiastic about beer making, but as I know nothing about the process, putting me in a leadership position is not useful. (Yes, this is an extreme example)

Heck, some teachers don't know squat about the subject they are supposedly teaching. My parents taught a course for astronomy professors with no background in a astronomy for years. :)

Don't know if this is helpful at all.

[jducoeur]

I can be very enthusiastic about beer making, but as I know nothing about the process, putting me in a leadership position is not useful.

Perhaps, but there's an interesting and important question of purpose here. If the purpose is to provide accurate education, you're certainly correct. But much through the SCA likes to paint itself as an educational organization, the reality is that, like most clubs, it is fundamentally social in nature. And for that social purpose, knowledge is sometimes surprisingly irrelevant.

Now admittedly, this is part of why so much arrant nonsense thrives in the SCA -- it's why, for example, many of the most popular dances in the SCA are blatantly out of period. But while the leaders teaching those dances fail to educate, they *do* manage to spread enthusiasm and passion for the activity. If the yardstick is accurate re-creation, it's a failure; if it's people doing that activity (albeit incorrectly), it's a success. Which yardstick you choose to focus on determines whether this leader is doing a good job or not. (Or, most likely, somewhere in between.)

Or to put it another way: enthusiasm has everything to do with whether the activity is a success. Whether that activity was well-chosen in the first place is a separate question...

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

This is an awfully theoretical gedanken experiment, but I'd still put competence ahead of enthusiasm. I've seen too many SCA ships run aground, full steam ahead. Enthusiasm is nice, but success validates more, in the long run.

[jenwrites.livejournal.com]

You're right, but if there's no enthusiasm, then the person's volunteering to lead for the wrong reasons. The SCA is a hobby--it's supposed to be fun. If someone can't muster up any enthusiasm for their job, then it's probably a sign that the SCA has gone from becoming a hobby to becoming a chore. And that's not good.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

My personal experience suggest otherwise to me.

[jenwrites.livejournal.com]

We had different experiences. I knew it was time to leave when I found all of my work to be a chore. "So-and-so wants me to do gate for their event, so I should do it so I'll know that it'll be run well, but as soon as gate closes I'm going home."

Yep, it was time to quit when I noticed that happening.

[jducoeur]

Perhaps, but I'm honestly unsure I agree. We might want to take this offline, but I'd be interested in talking about examples. In most cases I can think of, failure had more to do with lack of passion than lack of competence. Lack of competence tends to reduce the level of success, to be sure, but I honestly think it's less important in almost all SCA pursuits...

[cellio]

I think enthusiasm is necessary, even critical, but that it is not sufficient. We've all run into enthusiastic people without the skills to pull off an effort; these often do harm. Note that while "implementation" skills are relevant, the real make-or-break usually comes down to organizational, political, and people skills. I have seen people who were enthusiastic about a new idea delay the eventual implementation of that idea because they botched the first effort, causing some people to conclude that the idea rather than the implementation is flawed, and because they didn't have the necessary skills to fit it into the broader organization.

[jducoeur]

While I'm certainly willing to grant this on the hypothetical plane, I honestly have *not* seen it happen often. It's common for a project to come out less perfectly than it might have been because of the concerns you describe, but I really don't know many cases where it was botched to such a degree that it turned people off from the concept. With a few very notable and conspicuous exceptions, I haven't dealt with a lot of people in the SCA whose skills were so poor as to really hose their projects.

By contrast, I see failures due to low enthusiasm on a near-constant basis. This doesn't lead to sudden colossal failure, but to slow stagnation (and sometimes death) of the activity. I see it in branches, I see it in guilds, I see it in activities, all pretty commonly...

[cellio]

I haven't seen it happen a lot, but I have seen it happen. Perhaps interestingly, the cases that come to mind have to do with adoption of new technologies.

In the early days of the web (1993 or 1994) I saw someone create a page for an SCA entity (how's that for vague?) that was very badly done. Members of the group, who were seeing the web for the first time, saw that and basically said "why would we want to sanction that junk?". It took a while to straighten that one out.

Of course, the flip side is that fear of severe botching leads to over-regulation, which is often worse. We have to be willing to let people try new things, even though the possibility of doing this kind of damage exists. 'Cause it's a volunteer-driven club, and if you discourage too many volunteers you're hosed. So we've got to support the enthusiastic volunteers, but this support includes pointing them at helpful resources and maybe hooking them up with experts when needed, because competence matters too.

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

Perhaps interestingly, the cases that come to mind have to do with adoption of new technologies.

The Saga of Warrior Bus Lines. Fundamentally, a good idea. The enthusiastic-yet-incompetent attempt poisoned it for a decade and a half (and counting).

I do agree with Justin that lack of enthusiasm is a far more pervasive problem.

[kellan_the_tabby]

Funny as hell...thanks for sharing.

And, yeah, not the only Catastrophic Bus Failure on the Way to Pennsic story I've heard...

[mindways]

*laugh* Oh, dear...

I'm glad you documented that for posterity. As you say, it was the only way to make it worth something... :)

[cellio]

Saga: oh my. I'm curious about what eventually happened to Matt and his lawyers.

I do agree with Justin that lack of enthusiasm is a far more pervasive problem.

Lack of enthusiasm is more pervasive, but as you've demonstrated, lack of competence can doom a project. :-)

[dagonell.livejournal.com]

"I haven't seen it happen a lot, but I have seen it happen."

Actually, you were a small part of one. Cigfran and I ran the Amherst Museum / SCA Renaissance Faire without a major hitch. Apparently we made it look too easy. The next pair that tried to autocrat it muffed the job so badly that the Barony flat-out refused to ever do it again!

[mindways]

In general, I agree with you, even on the point I'm about to offer a counterexample for. However, just because a point is more true than its converse is doesn't mean that it's unmitigated.

It's common for a project to come out less perfectly than it might have been because of the concerns you describe, but I really don't know many cases where it was botched to such a degree that it turned people off from the concept.

I can't speak to the SCA, but I can offer a counterexample in another field: LARPing. The LARPs that are written by folks who've fallen in love with the concept after playing just one or two games tend to be plagued by problems which have been encountered (and solved) a thousand times over... despite a surfeit of enthusiasm and verve. While they may run quite well for *some* of the players, they often run very poorly for others, and have turned many off of the genre, much like a bad GM can turn folks off of RPGs.

This is, admittedly, not analagous to the SCA; the nature of the two activities - and what "leading" means in each - is rather different. But enthusiasm in a social endeavor may require skill (or raw talent, or luck) as well, depending on the nature of the interaction.

[ian-gunn.livejournal.com]

Certainly in the best of cases a leader is both enthusiastic and organized. Enthusiasm can be sufficient by itself in some circumstances. It is sufficient and very important early on in forming groups in general. At some point, as things grow, you need some amount of organizational skill or it all falls apart. For activities that stay on the smallish side, local guild meetings, practices and the like I agree enthusiasm is usually sufficient.

It is possible to have a very enthusiastic leader who knows they lack organizational skills and sub out those tasks, but there is always a chance of something slipping in that kind of arrangement. We have a sometimes autocrat like that up our way.

[jducoeur]

Yes, definitely true. OTOH, even in most of those cases, it's remarkable how successful someone can be despite an astonishing lack of organizational skill. For example, I can think of one person who has multiple times started projects *far* beyond their personal organizational capacity. Those projects came off distinctly imperfectly, and people did remark on the flaws -- and yet, their intense enthusiasm for those projects inspired others to pick up the ball and run with it for a long time thereafter. The results were qualified successes in the short run, and unqualified ones in the long run.

Hence, while I certainly grant that organizational skills and the like have an enormous impact on the *quality* of an activity, passion is as far as I can tell the single key element responsible for the *existence* of such activities, at least in most cases.

All that said: it's true that, as things scale up, organizational prowess becomes essential. I've mainly been thinking in terms of guilds and similar sorts of activities, where that is far less important, but as you get into high-level bureaucracy, or truly large-scale events (such as Birka), you begin to get the possibility of catastrophic failure if the leaders don't have appropriate organizational skills. This raises two interesting questions:

-- Are the leadership skills for a well-entrenched activity different from those for a new one?

-- Are the leadership skills for a *large* activity different from those for a smaller one?

My intuition is that the answers to these questions are generally "mostly not" and "yes" respectively, but that bears more thought...

No answers, but some more questions

[greatsword.livejournal.com]

I have some preconceptions here. I'm tempted to agree with Justin, but also with the person up thread who mentioned people skills.

This is a volunteer organization. You have to be able to motivate and manage people. Enthusiasm helps, but you have to assume some level of social grace - and we all probably have horror stories about that particular problem.

The questions:

Does the leadership of a group require different skills from the leadership of an activity?

Is the leader of an activity necessarily the center of instruction for that activity?

Re: No answers, but some more questions

[jducoeur]

Does the leadership of a group require different skills from the leadership of an activity?

One of the implicit questions that originally motivated this whole line of thinking. IMO, the answer seems to be "mostly not". The qualities that seem to be coming up -- passion, vision, organization, personal skills -- seem to require similar levels of expertise in both of these cases, at least in my experience. More precisely (along the lines that are most immediately interesting to me), the qualities required for running a guild well seem to be similar to those required for running a borough well. So at least on the small scale, I believe they're generally similar.

Is the leader of an activity necessarily the center of instruction for that activity?

Interesting question. It's a little hard to answer because it calls into question the definition of "leader", which is admittedly vague. I think the answer is "not necessarily", but better stated in more precise terms: the center of instruction for an activity is not necessarily either the chief cheerleader for the activity, nor the administrative head for the activity. I know of examples of each within Carolingia, that seem to function acceptably.

That said, I do think it's often easier and more effective if the functions can be combined, at least within small groups. When these different sorts of leadership roles are split, it definitely makes the dynamic more complicated. But I think it can work, when appropriate...

Let me guess...

[ladyariadne.livejournal.com]

I think I know who that is! LOL

Either way... my thought is you really need SOME kind of combination of the different aspects. Personally if someone doesnt have enthusiam, I aint going to e too interested in them. Enthusiasm doesnt mean they have to be bouncing around like a playgirl bunny at the Mansion when Hugh comes along either.

Enthusiasm just means te ablity to make me feel that YES, this is something this person feels strongly in and might be worthwhile to get to know. I think of it more as a confidence, even if they arent really totally confident.

That is one of the things we learned in our teaching workshops, or as they call it now facillitating instructors. If person A doesnt have some sort of enthusiasm/confidence inn whatever X is, then otehrs arent likely to catcht he fever persay.

The flip side of this is, as otehr people said, that a person may be full of said enthusiasm/confidence and yet not be able to get a bowl full of spagetti to twist together.

I think this is where mentoring or groupthink or something similiar needs to come in to help the unproven. Or for those who are really good at part A and need help with part B. Too many times I have seen the whole thing either sloughed off or purposely hoarded, and then things happen that probably should not have.

Its a hard thing trying to walk that razor and see who doesnt get sliced up. And I aint even trying to know how. Just giving my obeservation.

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

Consistency in the face of uncertainty. I think this can be a facet of Enthusiasm, but too often I see Enthusiasm thought of as "unbridled energy until we hit that first snag" (see above comment about running full steam into the cloud's granite lining, to mix my metaphor and incur visions of Girl Genius).

Every group has its dry periods, its hard parts, its misscheduled time or meeting site that goes away or whatnot. Conversely, most groups has its overly-good parts, gets swamped with newbies for some reason, windfall, etc.

Having an even keel through this gives members of the group a sense of constancy, and makes the group understandable by outsiders, who are then more likely to make more effective use of it -- which in turn increases its involvement in the larger group as a whole (kingdoms for baronies, baronies for guilds/households/activities, etc.)

Likewise, having a leader who knows how to maintain group cohesion and focus of purpose in the case of being swamped with new members or droughted by departures makes the new or remaining group members more likely to continue in their activity, rather than it turning into a social (unless of course that's the desired goal).

[umbran.livejournal.com]

Enthusiasm is of no help if it is not accompanied by focus, determination, or dedication. Enthusiasm provides energy, but it gives no assurance that tasks actually get done in a timely manner.

Enthusiasm may be key, but so is the ability to get the job done when it needs doing.

Without a Vision the People Perish

[siderea]

Am I correct?

Nope.

Vision is far more important than enthusiasm.

"Let's do something!"

"Yeah! Uh... what?'

"What do you want to do?"

"I dunno, what do you want to do?"

Enthusiasm without vision spins its wheels. But a compelling vision is a wellspring of enthusiasm. What's Jehan's sig quote? The one about if you want to get people to build boats, teach them a longing for the sea?

Enthusiasm is terribly important. But if you don't have a something you're enthusiastic for, it goes nowhere.

I'm not talking some big falutin' all encompassing Vision. Even a small "wouldn't it be cool if we..." can do it. The job of a leader is not merely to say "Hey!" but to say "Hey, let's..."

As necessary as both are, neither is sufficient.

In the above discussions, you make a consistent error. You keep discussing projects as if they exist in a vacuum, and their merits are solely on the basis of whether or not they "succeed" as individual activities.

As a number of people have pointed out, the consequence of a lack of competance or responsibility in leadership results not so much in the failure of that project, but in the impact on successive projects.

I call such enthusiastic but incompetent or irresponsible leadership "Salted Earth Leadership". Salted Earth Leadership is often "invisible" in its deleterious effects because people are given to evaluate the "success" of a project independent on its effect on its context.

Alexx's story of Warrior Bus lines is an example of an idea being tainted by its execution. I've seen repeating projects burn through available staff; an example of a volunteer pool being tainted. I'm told we had a borough de-recognized (i.e. thrown off campus) because of highly enthusiastic and incompetant autocrating of an event there; that's an example of a material resource being tainted. I've seen the poor handling of money by someone coordinating a borough's food almost kill the willingness of students there to coordinate on things which cost money; that's an example of group cohesion being tainted.

I have a lot of examples, actually.

---

There is a difference between enthusiasm as an attitude and enthusiasm as an affect. This bears remembering. I'm not sure which you are talking about, or if you are simply not differentiating.

Someone who has enthusiasm as an attitude towards what they are trying to do, but who doesn't know how to express or communicate that enthusiasm to others... do they possess what you are calling enthusiasm? What about someone with lots of Caterina-style bounciness, but no staying power, flitting from one project to another... do they have it?

---

Really, it seems to me that what you are saying (and maybe I'm mis-reading you) is that "Mere willingness is inadequate to leadership; to get anywhere you have to be more than willing, you have to be enthusiastic; you must have a positive desire for the enterprise itself --" and that involves the aforementioned vision "-- and you must delight in the endeavor."

(I'll point out, there's a difference between being, say, enthusiastic for music, and enthusiastic for running a music group. Very, very big difference. As many unhappy guild leaders have discovered.)

If that is what you're saying:

Oh, yes, that has implications. Does that mean that if we can't find people enthusiastic for washing dishes we shouldn't hold feasts?

But more interesting to me is that this whole rant has the ring of an implicit agenda. What is the point you're trying to make? It sounds like you're trying to get buy-in for a course of action. What course of action is it?

Or, I guess what it is I am asking is: why is it important to you that you get buy-in to the idea that enthusiasm is important?

Personally, I think that's how we got into this mess, and I don't think sticking to that gun -- more of what ails us -- is going to help. But convince me. I'm interested in hearing your reasons.

Re: Without a Vision the People Perish

[jducoeur]

Actually, the agenda really is mainly to understand a somewhat ill-defined problem, which is why so many of our circles have been fairly shaky in recent years -- that observation cuts across both activities and boroughs, so I'm trying to grok if there are common causes. And the one thing I *have* observed, nearly consistently, in the circles that have been having trouble is a lack of what I think of as infectious enthusiasm in the leadership. I'm by no means sure whether that's a cause or an effect, but it's too strong a trend to ignore.

Now that I look at it this way, it's interesting to note that, while I was mostly thinking about ongoing activities when I put my stake in the ground, most of the counter-examples have been project-focused. This may indicate a different set of priorities in those cases.

The reason you're perceiving an agenda is mainly that I was looking for a good argument here -- I'm trying to get a well-rounded view of the problem. And the best way to get a lively discussion on LJ, I've found, is to stick a controversial stake in the ground and have people react to it. (As for me defending that stake: hey, I'm a Silverwing. I'm always going to argue the point. It's reflex.)

I honestly don't have a specific course of action I'm trying to advocate here. Really, it's almost the other way around: I'm trying to grasp the essential qualities of circle leadership, to see whether there are general courses of action that *are* worth nudging along. Indeed, one problem I've been grappling with is that I sincerely do believe that infectious enthusiasm is dead critical (even granting that other qualities may also be essential), and I have no idea whatsoever about how to foster it. But the first step is to develop some confidence that it's something we should be fostering.

As for your initial point about vision, I would probably have let that stand quietly if it had been posted on its own, because I don't disagree. But for the record -- okay, yes, I think you're right that the enthusiasm does need a measure of focus in order to be effective. I don't think it necessarily needs a *tight* focus, but it can't be entirely scattershot; I can think of at least a few cases where an extremely diffuse focus has been harmful, especially in the boroughs. (Where a lack of focus on the SCA per se has occasionally been a big problem.)

Actually, the competence point is rather similar. I think the examples presented have illustrated that competence is relevant, but I don't think I've changed my mind about the priorities. More precisely, it seems to me like a leader needs at least a minimal level of competence and organization, in order to not be actively destructive, but those seem like somewhat more passively-needed qualities than the enthusiasm thing. They need positive enthusiasm and vision; they need to not have negative competence and organization. Related to that, I've observed a lot more people in leadership positions who lack sufficient motivation than who lack adequate organizational clue. (Perhaps because motivation fades with time, while clue usually doesn't.) Hence the prioritization that I seem to be developing at a gut level...

Re: Without a Vision the People Perish

[jducoeur]

Actually (now that I've been to the gym and am thus fully awake), I should say that there is another agenda here, but it's a fairly simple one: to get people thinking about the question. Eleanor has called a meeting of activity heads for this coming Monday (after Council), and this was what originally set me to thinking about the question. So as well as helping me to think about the issue of effective leadership myself, this was also intended as a way of getting at least some other people pondering and maybe talking about the question as well. It wasn't the primary purpose, but it was definitely in the back of my mind...

Re: Without a Vision the People Perish

[learnedax.livejournal.com]

But more interesting to me is that this whole rant has the ring of an implicit agenda. What is the point you're trying to make? It sounds like you're trying to get buy-in for a course of action.

Funny that you should say that. Within the past year you railed at great length against anyone trying to ferret out the ulterior motives behind any of your abstract posts. Granted, jducoeur didn't explicitly say "bring your own example", but you're still committing the same fault that originally riled you.

Re: Without a Vision the People Perish

[siderea]

I railed against people attributing to me examples that were not mine and putting words in my mouth. Perhaps it would help to refresh your memory.

Charisma

[cristovau.livejournal.com]

Enthusiasm is great, but not enough. I get enthusiastic about a lot of things. I'm an enthusiastic person. I'm only a successful leader, sometimes, and I've wondered why.

I've done best in an existing structure. Trying to create a structure is a lot of work, and not something I am skilled at. However, pulling together a class, a commedia performance or a bardic cricle is possible, because there is an established way of going about it.

But this is more helmsmanship than leadership. Leadership involves yelling, "Let's go to Trivanta" or "Let's all do Blocksi," and having a lot of people behind you. Leadership involves enthusiasm, but also organization, good thinking and charm. I'm not sure that someone other than Sebastian could have formed I Sebastiani. It wasn't just his sense of timing or enthusiasm, but he charmed people into falling in love with it.

This is the skill of making people feel a longing for the sea. Direct correlation: asdr83 is bombastic, outgoing and charming. Does she have a huge drive for dance, sewing, theater or any specific activity in the SCA? Not so much. She's organized and likes the whole thing in general. She conveys it, not with enthusiasm for any specific thing, but through infectious attention, charm. After talking with her, a new person wants to try something in the SCA. They might not know what, but it sounds exciting.

On the darker side, Sebastian kept driving the commedia troupe with drive and charm, long after it lost it's luster for him. He was still a good leader, despite a lack of enthusiasm. Personal enthusiasm is what keeps you in the game. The outward people skill enthusiasm keeps others in the game. A really charismatic leader can lead people in a campaign he isn't excited about. He probably shouldn't (for his own sake), but he can.

So, in the end I've placed leadership skills as something undefinable, but I think that's fairly appropriate.

[asdr83.livejournal.com]

I don't know for other activities, but for running a borough, if you cannot organize well and herd people who have very difficult schedules than individual enthusiasm doesn't do much. Specifically getting people to stuff until they themselves are hooked is vital to the role.

Yeah

[cristovau.livejournal.com]

Part of this is a matter of how leadership is defined. I suspect that organization is a headache for you (maybe not a big one, but there) Whereas talking something up and bouncing as you do it comes easier to you...

For me charisma and being outgoing are challenges, so this is what I see as needed leadership.

For Justin, fear of burnout and lack of enthusiasm are worries and key to leadership.

It's funny, but I think our suggestions might say more about our difficulties and lack than about what leadership is.

Re: Yeah

[asdr83.livejournal.com]

Um, yes and no. Organization for the borough is what i've been up to all week so it is foremost on my mind. In all honesty bouncing and being enthusiastic this demo season was nearly impossible for me because of school and life, etc. So it's not just what is hard for me (honestly not standing in a corner or following someone else is very hard for me), honestly I think all the qualities you listed are important to a good leader. We just notice those thyat are hard for us the most.

Am I a good leader?

[siriel.livejournal.com]

Question: what are the most important qualities and practices of a leader in an organization like the SCA?

I think the answer is very different whether you're talking about a 'figurehead' leader like the Baron, or someone with recurring administrative duties required to keep the activity going. Without the Baron, we'd still have the barony. Without a baronial archery marshal, we probably wouldn't have baronial archery.

I'll address the second scenario because I can use myself as an example. As a leader of a baronial activity, I think the fitness of a leader is closely tied to the goals of the activity. For example, if we want our barony to have a smallish group of good fencers who have regular practices and do well in tournaments, I think I'm a pretty good leader. If fencing practice is supposed to recruit tons of people as a gateway to the SCA itself and become a venue for different activities to come together, I think my performance rating slips a bit. But both goals require enthusiasm.

The first goal -- skillful and dedicated fencers -- comes from enthusiasm about my own fencing. I love to fence; I work hard at getting better and I like to think I inspire people by example. I give people a challenging fight to push both of us to the next level. My love for fencing means I will always make sure there is a local practice and people at it.

The second -- recruiting new fencers and getting people involved in the SCA -- requires outwardly directed enthusiasm, something I have less of. It doesn't come naturally to me. Which isn't to say that I don't enjoy teaching new people -- one of the best things about the SCA is introducing new people to it and rediscovering it through their eyes. But while I value the sort of enthusiasm and charisma required to recruit, I don't pursue it myself. I will talk passionately about fencing for hours, but I'm more inclined to do it with people who are already interested rather than out of a desire to interest them.

Enthusiasm for the subject and enthusiasm for getting other people involved in the subject are two different things.