Being a Member Rather Than a Leader of a Group
I am in consent with the statement: “It is better to be a member of a group than to be a leader of a group.” I will base my arguments on the challenges that entail taking the driver’s position (leader) as opposed to being just a subject, entitled to following the group’s leader.
Groups are a composition of diverse personalities. Such a people have different believes, attitudes, cultural orientations and other personality differences. A group leader is expected to lead such a diversified populace into achieving the objectives of the group. Maintenance of a team amidst such diversity is not only hard but demoralizing. Unification of group members is quite a demanding task. A member has no such a great ‘load’ to bear. A leader is the vision bearer of the group he/she leads. However, within a group, not all the members share the opinions of the leader. A leader has a great challenge of not only inspiring the members to buy the idea, but also to set the pace. Sometimes the members may be unwilling to follow the leader’s line of thought or ideologies. Amidst such opposition, he/she still have to oversee the accomplishment of the group’s dream. A member just enjoys the comfort achieved from the leader’s zeal.
The success of any group is dependent on the wiliness of the members to participate in the group’s activities. However, at times, the members may be unwilling or demoralized consequently employing “go slow” or retreat from their tasks. The group leader is not immune to those challenges, nevertheless, he/she is still expected to inspire the group members to press-on; such a task is quite challenging. If all the members were to retreat, the leader should still ensue; sometimes it’s a risky endeavor. A member is never blamed when a group fails to achieve its objectives, even if the members triggered the failure; the group leader stomachs all the blame. It is better to a member of a group than its leader. Leadership is sometimes too demoralizing and tasking.