Leadership 2

Something occurred to me this morning I had not thought of before.  Happens all the time.
I was thinking about leadership.  So often it is presented as a triangle with the leader at the top.  Yet there are other leadership models which show an inverted triangle.  I am told and I adhere to it, that the best leaders are the best servants.  As I put somewhere, leadership is not about being the best, it is about making others better.
Often someone does all sorts of study which is rewarded in a leadership position.  Training is always necessary and good.  But while training may thrust a person into a position, at that point they are a leader in name only.
I saw that with the troops.  Leaders were sometimes loved, while others were obeyed simply based on their position.  The difference seemed often to be that a leader, while maintaining the distance that leadership entails, was felt to be “one of us.”  In other words, responses by the leader, were not just based on words, but actions.
I have come across a bit of this in my time.  I have had leaders who would not do a thing, and expected me to do everything based on their command only.  I have had other leaders I obeyed, not only because they told me to do things, but I knew they could, and would, do it themselves if necessary.
Merril has told me a bit that goes on in nursing.  So often someone gets a degree and they consider some activities that are central to nursing, as beneath them.  Others do what needs to be done because they are told to, but there is an absence of respect for the one who considers what is necessary as beneath them.
I do not think this sort of thing is confined to nursing and government jobs.  It seems it can happen anywhere.  Some assume leadership roles and they are not leaders.  Leadership can seem really desirable, pay well, and be great to have on the resume, but I don’t know that it would not be better to be a doorman and happy, than a surgeon who is unhappy.
I was thinking about that inverted triangle. Leadership that has just one bracketed point after it (ie training) is less desirable than one that has at least two points (training, experience.)
Not only does training alone not make someone a leader but training alone does not deny someone being a leader.  I am a great believer in giving someone room to grow.  None of us get things right first time every time.  But leaders in the true sense, acknowledge they are human and put failures down to experience (I find it easier to love someone I can relate to).  Leaders, who lead on the basis of training alone, often see failures as failures, and prefer they are never acknowledged.  Therefore a chance to grow in a good way, is missed.
It is hard.  Scarcely for a good man would I die.  Yet I know that I would lay down my life far more willingly for a leader who, with me, was willing to put their life on the line too.  I acknowledge theory, but respond more readily to theory in action.