After reading chapter 2 "Symbolism and Personal Example"

"mobilizing energy through personal example and with clear, concrete images and symbols."

-Dennis N.T.Perkins

   Before I write this post, one thing stuck in my head and kept me from understanding this chapter. I understood that if a leader are seen as symbol or role model, then his/her action will motivate workers, but the question is “Should a leader be a person to show off their power to make him/her visible or special?”  I had a sense of objection to this showing off actions, since that action is opposite to my admirable one who wish to cooperate and choose to stay equal. However, after some reading and discussion. I find myself misinterpret the message of being symbol from this chapter. I would like to share this little finding here.
   The biggest fault of my interpretation was the case that this chapter is discussing.  It bases on situation that people are at the edge which means an urgent situation. However what I thought is much mild one, in which every workers are energetic and have high motivation to their work. In such occasion, leaders are not very needed to be symbolized. Going back to the urgent case that the book is discussing, leaders should act strongly and take the job as role model. That is because people are afraid of failing, especially when it is at the edge in which one misstep will be a crucial to their outcome, less people will willingly to voluntary take such risk. In such time, the only hope to change people's mind is only left to someone who can motivate people by making "right speech", dramatize the challenge with action, visible so that people can learn. It is the leader who can do all these things and in this way, people can move forward.

    After these things in considerations, giving the right speech, using vivid symbols, being visible as leader comes meaningful to me. I hope this finding will also help other readers agree on the idea of leader as "Symbolism and Personal Examples."