the herd. They will lock horns for a while and test their strength, but when the leader has once asserted himself, by common consent of the rest, who do not question it after the first test, he is master.
On every board of directors or trustees, in every organization of men, there is always one who easily overtops the others; there is always one man who by tacit consent of all the rest is recognized as spokesman, as leader.
The leader is always characterized by positive qualities. He rules by his vigorous affirmatives. There is nothing negative or minus about him. The positive man, the natural leader, is always assertive, while the negative man shrinks, effaces himself, waits for some one else to take the initiative. A natural leader does not need to urge those under him. They will follow wherever he goes.
A good chess player must be able to see a dozen moves ahead. He must keep constantly in mind the unexpected, so that he may meet every move of his opponent.
Looking ahead is characteristic of the leader. It is the man who can see far into the future that is wanted everywhere. The man who can provide for the unexpected, for the emergency, is the safe man.
On the other hand, there is such a thing as knowing so much and seeing so much that it makes one timid about undertaking the lead.
Some one says: “It is generally the man who does not know any better who does the things that can not be done. You see, the blamed fool does not know that it can not be done, so he goes ahead and does it.”
Scholarship often kills initiative. Scholars are proverbially timid when it comes to great undertakings. The man who knows little outside of the particular thing he undertakes frequently has courage because he does not see the risks, the possible dangers of failure, of disaster, as clearly as a more intelligent, better educated man sees them. His range of vision is narrow; he just sees the step he is taking, and so he plunges in with all his energy and enthusiasm.
Everywhere there are men who murder the English language every time they open their mouths; men who know almost nothing of books or schools, who are doing things that the college-bred man shrinks from attempting.
Whether the leader be educated or uneducated, he is always able to draw the line between theoretical knowledge and practical ability. He knows that ability that can not be practically applied is useless so far as his work is concerned.
There were many men under General Grant who were better educated, more cultivated, more widely read than he, but who could not transmute their knowledge into power. On the other hand, what Grant knew he could turn to practical use.
You can not be a general and a private at the same time. You must either lead or follow; you must either make the program or help carry it out. You can not do both if you expect to do anything big.
The success of the great general depends largely upon his ability to surround himself with a staff of officers who can carry out his orders, execute his plans. Grant had many officers who could work harder than he, but he could outgeneral them all.
A leader must be a man of prompt decision. If he vacillates, if he never quite knows how to take the next step without consulting some one else, his followers, his employees will soon lose respect for him.
“You can not do the biggest things in this world unless you can handle men, and you can not handle men if you are not in sympathy with them.”
The greatest leaders are those who combine executive ability with kindness and consideration. Employees will not only follow such a leader, but will also follow him enthusiastically, work for him nights and holidays—do anything to help him along. But if they see mud at the bottom of his eyes, if he lacks the qualities of manhood, if they see nothing in him to admire and respect, they will follow, if they follow at all, as the slave follows his master.
There is no system, there are no rules of business by which a man can force people to be loyal to him and enthusiastic for his welfare. There must be qualities in himself which will call out their voluntary confidence and respect. They must see that he is businesslike, that he has executive ability, that he has the qualities of leadership. Then they will follow with zeal and loyalty.
If you are a leader, an employer in any line, it is idle to expect that you can call out of your employees qualities which are vastly superior to those you possess yourself. The very idea of leadership is superiority, force of character, executive push, the ability to plan and put an undertaking through to a finish.
If you are afraid of making enemies, do not try to lead, for the moment you step out of the crowd and show originality, individuality, you will be criticised, condemned, caricatured. It is human nature to throw stones at the head lifted above the crowd.
No great leader ever yet escaped the jealousy and envy of those who could not keep up with him or do what he did.
A leader must be positive, aggressive. He must have an iron will, an inflexible purpose, and boldness bordering on audacity; he must be able to defy criticism without being insensible or indifferent to it.
Some of our great leaders have been extremely sensitive in this respect. Criticism was very painful to them, yet they had the qualities of leadership which urged them on in spite of the pain caused by harsh and unjust criticisms. Many worthy young men have retired from the race for leadership because of the sting inflicted by the malice and envy of their fellows. They did not think the honey worth the sting.
Large leadership to-day calls for great breadth of view, for the same qualities which made the leader in the past, but much enlarged and developed to meet the needs of our time. The vast combinations, the enormous interests involved in our large concerns to-day require colossal leadership.
“Organization is the one overtowering necessity of the times. It comes logically of the vast interests put into one business through incorporated capital.” There never was such a demand for leaders, men who can do things, as there is to-day.
One great flaw in the education of the young is its failure to develop individuality. Boys and girls with the most diverse tastes and talents are put through the same curriculum. The dull boy and the bright boy, the dreamy booklover and the matter-of-fact realist, the active, inventive spirit, and the one whose soul its attuned to hidden music, the youth with the brain of a financier, and the one who delights in mimic warfare and strategic games—all are put into the same mold and subjected to the same processes. The result is inevitable. Nine-tenths of the children educated in this machine-like fashion are copies of one another and reproductions of the same pattern. Our system of education tends to destroy individuality.
Except in cases where special talents and characteristics are so marked that they can not be dulled or blunted by any amount of conventional training, the collective method of education destroys individuality, nips originality in the bud, and tends to make the child a weakling, or an imitator, instead of an original, forceful, distinct entity.
A great many people remain trailers all their lives, followers of others, echoes instead of realities, because their distinctive qualities, their original powers, were not developed, called out, or encouraged in youth.
What a sorry sight is a man with great possibilities of leadership following somebody else all his life, seeking the advice of others when he is amply able to give it, and never daring to venture on his own judgment, because he has always leaned upon others, or depended upon some one else to lead the way! His common sense and power of independent decision, his strongest inherent qualities, lie dormant within him. He is doing the work of a pygmy when he has the undeveloped capabilities of a giant, all because of a lack of proper individual training.
True
