This is a strange take. A natural leader is a leader without a title. They have they have the qualities needed to be a good leader. People gravitate to them because they have all the prerequisites and skills of leadership.
They lead people because of the relationship they have built without having to resort to institutional authority. This makes natural leaders better than a boss who is given a title sometimes without the attributes or even the skills of leadership.
Your take seems to be someone who is born a leader doesn’t necessarily have the skills. Like they are charismatic but don’t have good listening skills. These people are not natural leaders though. Natural leaders by definition posses the attributes and skills of leadership.
This is not saying every natural leaders has all the skills or attributes of leadership as that would be a ridiculous bar to expect. It really just feels like you could just say leadership is often confused with charisma.
I think it makes sense that some people who “posses the attributes and skills of leadership” would none the less lead others to bad outcomes.
If in the original post you read “good leader” in the sense of “somebody who leads others to good outcomes” rather than in the sense of “somebody who is good at leading others”, then it does make sense in that some natural leaders whilst being good at leading people don’t actually lead those people to good outcomes.
Muad’dib was a natural leader. People tended to see him as a leader even when he had nothing. There is something to the notion of “he said he’s not the messiah. That’s exactly what the messiah would say!”
Maud’dib also exploited the native peoples for his own benefit. The series past the first book is about how awful the result of that was.
To bring this into real life, where you end up leading people is important.
This is a strange take. A natural leader is a leader without a title. They have they have the qualities needed to be a good leader. People gravitate to them because they have all the prerequisites and skills of leadership.
They lead people because of the relationship they have built without having to resort to institutional authority. This makes natural leaders better than a boss who is given a title sometimes without the attributes or even the skills of leadership.
Your take seems to be someone who is born a leader doesn’t necessarily have the skills. Like they are charismatic but don’t have good listening skills. These people are not natural leaders though. Natural leaders by definition posses the attributes and skills of leadership.
This is not saying every natural leaders has all the skills or attributes of leadership as that would be a ridiculous bar to expect. It really just feels like you could just say leadership is often confused with charisma.
The name I have heard for this concept is “leadership without authority”.
Oh, I like that!
I think it makes sense that some people who “posses the attributes and skills of leadership” would none the less lead others to bad outcomes.
If in the original post you read “good leader” in the sense of “somebody who leads others to good outcomes” rather than in the sense of “somebody who is good at leading others”, then it does make sense in that some natural leaders whilst being good at leading people don’t actually lead those people to good outcomes.
Muad’dib was a natural leader. People tended to see him as a leader even when he had nothing. There is something to the notion of “he said he’s not the messiah. That’s exactly what the messiah would say!”
Maud’dib also exploited the native peoples for his own benefit. The series past the first book is about how awful the result of that was.
To bring this into real life, where you end up leading people is important.
Your last sentence should’ve been what OP posted, you’re right. 👍