3 ms·
If you're supposed to be the leader and no one comes to you with their problems you're not really the leader any more. A lot of ego and politics in that defini
by shin_lao 13y ago
If you're supposed to be the leader and no one comes to you with their problems you're not really the leader any more.
A lot of ego and politics in that definition of a leader.
What about this: the purpose of a leader is to become useless?
A leader is there to empower his team, and yes, there are always problems to solve, but you're job isn't solving your problems, it's to teach them to solve problems.
How is your company going to grow otherwise?
Sometimes, B comes to you because he doesn't trust A.
When two people in your team no longer trust each other, it means you had a problem running for a long while and you haven't been doing your job correctly.
It also falls in Ben's category two and must be treated differently.
You need to do more in this case than simply getting them to talk. You need to understand why the trust was broken and work to repair it.
When trust is broken, this is what I call a "broken arrow" situation and this isn't something you just "fix". This generally ends up with someone leaving.
- YZF 13y agoI see where you're coming from but I think it's not as black and white. There are going to be situations and problems the individual or the team feel like they can't solve themselves. The definition isn't about ego, it's something observed externally, it has to do with the official structure vs. the un-official social order. I think trust builds and breaks over time (breaks more easily) and external intervention can help to prevent this from getting to the point where someone has to leave. My point though is why is B coming to you about A in the first place and why is forcing them to talk in front of you a good solution to that?