When Leadership Means Doing Nothing

CLARIFICATION:
Thanks for all debate participants.
Please note that the debate is about the attitude of leaders during challenging situations (like economic crises) and thus was the analogy of the goalkeeper and the penalty kick in particular.
The example given is saying that goalkeepers are better be reactive than proactive. The example did not ask the goalkeeper to forget his professional skills. Instead, he is expected to use his skills to block the ball once kicked.
We all know what it needs to be a leader. The point for leaders is to keep doing what they were doing during crises. Actions for the sake of actions only are not recommended.

brother javier the success of a goalie depends on how correctly he reads the eye of the kicker and anticipates in the split second the calculations going on his mind and takes proactive action accordingly.

prerequisites o a goalie.

1. alertness

2.anticipation

3.mind reading

4.action

result : the kicker fails

god knows what a leader does because i am still a follower.

will have to experience being a leader to answer it correctly

Well Ahmed, for the first time, i find myself agreeing with you here, maybe it is to do with the fact that you have stepped out of the comfort area of the "common sense" you seem to be soo snug in.  ;)

I think the title of the debate is the best definition of leadership I have come across lately.

For what is a leader and what does he/she do?  Leaders can be safely compared to shepperds, I guess, and what does the shepperd do?  Nothing, he takes the sheep from A to B, with his dog doing most of the work, ie. protecting the sheep from the big bad wolves, looking to bring back those that may go astray... while he or she sits comfortably in his sheepskin´s coat, eating his delicious sheep´s cheese.

I mean let us look at our politicians, what are the traits of their personality that brought them where they are now:  they seem to be able to talk themselves out of almost any question and they are taller than average. They do not come across as actually doing much...

My first first hand experience of leadership, actually took place when I was thirteen, the head of studies of my new school called me to her office to inform me that she had spotted clear leadership qualities in me and since she was worried about the academic performance of my peers, perhaps I could give her a hand in turning the situation. I agreed with her and obviously did nothing, other than what I would have done normally, ie. continued with my long jump and middle distance athletics training, and quite by chance I managed to set up a new school record at basketball free throws: 100% effectivity.  I only got to actually throw ten times, but never mind, the record was set and they thanked me for having raised the class academic standards. It continues to puzzle me even to this day.

Anyway I will leave you with a quotation by Lao Tzu, or Tse:

Doing nothing is better than being busy doing nothing.

Ha ha

I love you all, please vote for me at the next TooStep elections.

lol! I don't know, why I am tempted to say 'Yes'. I guess a new leader who is under fire to perform may opt to do something in such case, even if there are more chances of a loss. A Julius Caesar will opt to do nothing, but then he may get Brutus to turn foe. Brutus would always like Caesar to lead by doing something (jump either left or right)  instead of playing safe. However, once Brutus get to lead and face similar situation, he will be wary to play Julius Caesar and will jump left or right. All I mean to say is, a good leader and a good goal keeper knows when to stand still and when not to. Doing nothing is an art which a leader should know as well.