A good leader ...
Un bon leader ...
assertive, helps the greater community, powerful
connects everyone in the team, knows the strength of each individual and achieves the task efficiently
has a vision
has integrity, inquires and respects public opinion, and is reliable. And NOT CORRUPT.
inspires hopes, brings people together, makes people feel good about themselves
inspires others to put forth their best effort.
is able to be forceful and convincing, but also listens to the needs and suggestions of his or her peers.
is capable of doing the same actions he asks of others. A good leader should be able to connect with others as well.
is decisive, confident, thoughtful.
is decisive, responsible for his/her actions, devoted
is objective and inspiring, and motivates people to do their best.
is one that does what's best for those they are leading, but also does what is best for what needs to be accomplished.
is one that listens, is a good decision-maker, and has good communication skills.
is one with good interpersonal relationship skills.
is someone able to inspire his followers, and align their personal interests, talents, and resources to meet a certain goal
is someone who can effectively start and maintain cooperation in a group for productive purposes.
is well-organized and ambitious, taking into consideration past experiences to improve future ones.
knows how to work with others on a team, not just make decisions and delegate.
learns how follows first, teaches the group, mediates conflicts, and helps with everything.
listens to others
has a vision
leads by example
must also learn to be a good follower.
One who can motivate people to do better than they would have on their own, one who can rally many people towards a similar cause.
open-minded, good listener, cognizant
Passionate; a good listener; responsible; has his own opinions, and knows how to convince others
respects the opinions of those he/she leads.
a de l'autorité, prend les bonnes décisions, n'a pas peur des responsabilités
à l'écoute, sûr de lui, bon orateur, convaincant
écoute, répartit bien et est autoritaire tout en pouvant se justifier
charismatique, motivant, intéressant.
décisif, décisionnaire, attentif, autoritaire, investi
dirige une équipe en faisant attention à chacun, se considérant non pas au-dessus mais au service de son équipe.
est à l'écoute, et permet la réussite de tout le monde
est capable de donner l'exemple, de diriger en gérant les conflits, est capable de s'éclipser pour le bien commun.
est capable de faire des choix impliquant sa responsabilité pour le bien du groupe, de répartir les ressources.
est compréhensif tout en étant charismatique et en gardant les barrières de la hiérarchie.
est droit, sait prendre une décision, à l'écoute
est ferme mais ouvert aux propositions, créatif
est une personne à l'écoute et ferme en même temps.
est une personne qui sait peser ses mots, qui aide et guide ses collègues tout en laissant des libertés.
il décide mais écoute toutes les idées de ses collaborateurs; un bon orateur
n'est pas suivi par obligation.
quelqu'un de responsable, qui prend les bonnes décisions et qui les fait respecter en gérant les conflits
sait communiquer, se fait écouter, a du charisme
sait prendre les décisions, a du charisme et sait imposer des idées.
travailleur, attentif, autoritaire
Discussion
Je trouve que cela rejoint plutot bien le sujet 'Autorité/authority"...
Mon ressenti sur ce sujet :
EN COMMUN :
- la notion d'équilibre entre authorité, influence, pouvoir d'un coté et écoute, optimisation des ressources humaines dans l'equipe .Le coté inspirant, motivateur et compétent mais en même temps un rôle humain.
- On sent dans les réponses qu'au MIT comme à l'ensam, on aspire à être des leaders !
Plutot AMERICAIN :
- la notion de follower : apprendre à écouter, exécuter d'abord ! Je comprend et en même temps je pense que c'est parce que 'on veut être tous des petits chefs, on doit malheureusement apprendre à travailler avec d'autres.
- Je trouve que cela est plus orienté RESULTS, POWER, comme les interventions de Anna Kotova (being able...being able...) et Ye Wang (power to...) le montrent dans le topic précédent.
Plutot FRANCAIS :
- La notion de sacrifice pour l'équipe, de dédication d'abord aux hommes de l'équipe, à l'écoute etc...Cela retombe encore une fois dans les "bons sentiments" mais on a vu comme les francais rejettent l'authorité (grêves, refus du depotisme etc...) et ces bons sentiments formulent peut être juste que...on aime avoir notre mot à dire, et pouvoir râler face a l'autorité..
Et la cela rejoint la "quête de pouvoir" outre altantique ! Qu'en pensez vous? Pensez vous que les francais veulent tout comme vous pouvoir prendre les décisions, mais le formulent en disant "l 'équipe d'abord !"
Après discussion...nous avons clarifié :
Peut on apprendre à être un bon leader?
En France NON : c'est plutot une qualité personnelle, innée.
Aux USA OUI? c'est plutot être dynamique et efficace ?
Etes vous d'accord? Cela traduit plus de dynamisme, d'ambition aux US ou un art de vivre, avec moins d'ambition en France (au niveau du travail)?
I think that both countries feel that inter-personal skills are important in making a good leader: one who communicate effectively and one who can rally people towards a cause. The French also put much more emphasis on being a good speaker, Which goes along with the theory that there are some innate skills necessary to be a good leader in France.
I disagree with the notion that the Americans do not have a mentality that thinks of the team as a whole. Many students made comments suggesting this: "bring people together", "connects everyone in a team", "helps the greater community", etc.
I do agree with the second post by Eric, i think in America that there is a belief that one can do anything they put their mind to, including being a good leader. There are some innate qualities that make good leaders, which are listed in the answers, but I think most people, especially at MIT, believe they will be able to be a leader in the future if they need or want to be. It is unfortunate that most French students do not believe they can be leader. This may have to do with the social and political structures in the two respective countries, with US being purely capitalist while France has more socialist influence.
How many of the French students feel they have what it takes to be a leader? Why or why not?
Oh je pense que comme vous nous voulons tous et serons tous leader un jour ou l'autre ! Par contre, ici on parle de la théorie, de l'idéal et même si tout le monde n'est pas le leader parfait, on s'efforcera de tendre vers ceci. C'est un développement de qualité humaines où on peut s'améliorer mais pas dans un livre !
Pour l'idée de l'equipe aux US, oui il ya la notion d'équipe, ce que je voulais dire c'est que l'équipe est moins un but, plutot un moyen : on cherche à l'optimiser, à ne pas gêner son fonctionnement, à la motiver pour qu'elle soit productrice.
En France on raisonne en plus dans le sens "créer un équipe pour chacun des équipiers"...Je ne pense pas que ca vienne de tendances capitalistes ou socialistes : tu sais en tant que futur (gros) cadres d'entreprises, la balance de l'opinion des élèves de l'ensam est francehement capitaliste aussi !
'Can people learn to become a good leader, or is it innate?'
A fascinating nature vs. nurture question, Eric.
I say, of course.
I predict that most Americans believe that one can learn to become a good leader, or at least be trained somewhat to improve. Across the US and especially at MIT, there is a strong emphasis on 'leadership' -- being a leader in a student group, going on 'leadership' retreats with others, holding entire week-long 'leadership programs' for people to get to know each other, work together, and do team-building exercises.
After being a part of some of these, I see that there are obviously certain people who are much more gifted in being decisive, confident, charismatic, etc., but I have also seen others open up, and grow to become that way. Why do the French say no, that leadership is only a personal, innate quality?
I also agree that leadership can be learned, but some people start with a better set of innate skills. At MIT we have programs (like the Gordon Engineering Leadership Program, Freshman Leadership Program, Leadershape, and others) that are designed to enhance leadership skills in students. In those programs you often find a wide range of "types" of leaders.
I think one reason Americans believe that one can learn to become a good leader ties back to the idea of making oneself better. There's great emphasis on leadership on all scales - projects, clubs, start ups, etc. To get into college, students often have to write about their leadership experiences. So it's no surprise that with everything we're told, we think leadership is learned.
While I think that all people can improve their skills to be some type of leader, not everyone can be a truly great one. Some people have it. People with the motivation and work ethic who happen to be in the right place at the right time can make a huge impact. I suspect that the French view leadership as something more selective than Americans - not just the vice president of a random high school club.
When you are applying to college or jobs, are you asked about your leadership experiences? What sorts of leadership is expected from people at your level?
If we consider this leadership question in terms of what the corporate world, which is arguably where it is most prevalent, considers, then it's by far a question of experience.
Consider an entrepreneur who is skilled in a specific industry and capable of bringing a product to market. During his early ventures, the probability of that person taking the correct actions will be very slim. However, as they gain more experience, they will be entrepreneurial leaders, regardless of if they have had preliminary success.
But then do you really want that person leading a multinational corporation? It is unlikely that the experiences that they had as an entrepreneur and that accompany their learning that role will facilitate doing a great job as the grand vizier of GE, which asks for a different touch. The people who would do the best job in that role have had experience on a slightly lesser level doing the same actions, and that's why the best corporations usually have some sort of training ground at lower levels on the hierarchy for the next vizier.
I like to think that if an idea works where the pressure is the greatest, then it's likely to work most elsewhere as well. Extrapolating this then, the tl;dr is that our experiences in life make up an auxiliary school where we pick up the intangibles as well. This includes leadership.
To Danielle DeLatte : When you are applying to college or jobs, are you asked about your leadership experiences? What sorts of leadership is expected from people at your level?
Pareil que vous je pense, même si c'est super varié suivant les gens et qu'on a aussi vécu une période "travail" où les extras étaient rares. Ce sont toutes les positions de menbres d'association, voire leader, à l'école mais aussi au dehors !
On en a tous au moins une à mettre en valeur quand on fait une candidature...que cela sorte au moment ou l'on parle des expériences professionalisantes ou loisirs ! A notre age, on a pas encore exercé de travail au sens de celui que sera notre premier emploi ( durée différentes, position...) et donc mettre en valeur un engagement qui en plus nous apprend la responsabilité, le leadership etc...est forcément déterminant. Par contre, ces petites expériences disparaitront des CV au fur et a mesure que nos responsabilités professionnelles grandiront.