Friday, February 16, 2007

Leadership

I've got this friend who's goal in life is to become a neurosurgeon. Let's call him Lucy McGillicuddy. Thing is, he could actually do it. He's one of those EMS protégés, you know, the best EMT on the corps. The guy who knows every protocol and every nuance. The guy who could recite 10 NYCRR 800.20:08-ii from memory [interim testing requirements and pass/fail criteria], if only you could somehow trick him to do so -- as you can guess his ego is pretty big (our fault). Not that that's a bad thing, he's absolutely friendly, and he really is an awesome EMT. Smart, funny, clever, etc. He has earned respect and he's dished it out where it's warranted. In a nutshell: you can get engaged in a conversation with him, but often there's a certain point when he says something, and you just have to go, "I no longer have the intelligence to participate constructively in this discussion." He's that good.

Trouble is, he's 19, and he was just elected to be the Director (Chief, for you non-PC folk out there) of our corps. His two-year reign begins.

Being *ahem!* years older than him, I've been trying to, subtlety, show him the administrative shortcuts I've discovered over the years (and get things I want done, done through him!). That is, the back doors that exist to procure the difficult to obtain, and the efficient ways to avoid red tape. He's learning: he's delegating, and he's dealing swiftly with the administration, he's making friends with those who can give. He's also making some good, if small, changes in the way our organization is run.

However, as I'm just beginning to realize, his overall leadership skills are not yet fully developed. He's not a bad leader, just someone who still has rough edges. Small things: like he'll crack jokes when he supposed to be serious, and not conduct meetings efficiently, etc. People have been commenting to me about him, which has triggered this line of thought. Reflecting on my friend's situation has sparked a debate in my head: what makes a good leader? Is it the ability to 'lead the troops'? The ability to recruit and retain? The man who's a friend to all? The one who gets the job done? The one you confide in when you have a problem? The regular guy who has the best skill set? The guy who makes good speeches? Runs good meetings? Doesn't hold meetings at all?

I view myself as a good leader, but I definitely have my flaws. I also realize that it took me at least a year in my first serious leadership post to develop the skills I needed to handle that job. I don't know if the skills I have would allow me to be competent in a different position, or a leader in a different situation.

I feel like the quintessential leader is thought of as the strong-willed person who have gained those he leads' trust. But that's not even close to being complete, is it? I know Lucy will, with time, become a good leader himself, but in this train of thought, I know that no matter who you are, you can also improve your leadership skills (by the by, this sentence you're reading has six (!) commas -- I've got to learn to be more concise!). I've resolved to reflect on the people who I believe to be good leaders, and think about which qualities in particular make those people the leaders they are. In identifying those traits, I hope I can absorb some of them and become someone better than I am.

No comments: