Saturday, November 3, 2012
I belong to a group of people online. They're going through this upheaval. The leaders are AWOL, nothing gets done even when they DO show up, and we've now initiated the process of picking someone. I've already chosen.
There were two favorites, but only one has any real talent for leading. He was the one who CALLED the meeting in the first place. He chose group leaders for minor events that make the whole group more active, things they wanted to do.
Isn't that what a leader is? Someone who can see what needs to be done, what wants to be done, and can step back and say, "This is something better done by someone else. This I can do. This I can do, but this one has a better grasp of this particular thing. This I can do. This I need to do." and so on? Other people agree he already leads our group, whether he realises it or not. This is something that our group NEEDS. This is something that will make our group stronger, more active, more fun to be with and do things with.
Now let me tell you something about the other guy. He can be a real sour pickle sometimes and has the name to match. Oh, he's personable, he's nearly always with the group, but somehow, he's...lacking. I don't think this guy can handle leading. Maybe sub-leading...maybe. But this guy...he has his friends, and then he has..........those other guys in the group. He knows of the others, maybe a hi, hello, oh, heard about that thing, great for you!
But the clear choice? He has his friends, and then he has his other friends. Maybe they're not as close, but he cares about them just the same. He takes the time to make sure they're doin' okay, maybe do they need help with this or that or the other thing?
So what do you all think? Who's the better choice?
Yeah, me too.