Further Incites Into The Definition Of Leadership

Further Incites into the Definition of Leadership

Not sure how different this is from previous posts. I think I've added a few more things that help clarify leadership.

======

The definition of leadership is “Guiding Intent with Integrity”.  Leaders have followers, non-followers, outsiders, and observers.  Followers follow the leader’s guidance towards the goal / vision.  Non-followers have vehemently opposed to follow the leader or the goal / vision, and may work to undermine the group’s ability to achieve the goal. Outsiders do not care one way or the other about the leader, the groups or the visions.  An observer may be a follower, non-follower, or outsider, their role is to provide feedback on the group’s progress towards their goal / vision.

Guidance is council concerning the steps needed to achieve the goal / vision.  Intent or intentions are the reasons driving each individual to either be part of the group, not part of the group, or work against the group.  These reasons may or may not be expressed.  Integrity is based on the Social Contract or agreement held between the leader and the group.

People choose to follow a goal / vision, due to the Human Condition.  The human condition concerns the plurality of culture and personal values, the standards of evaluation, the satisfaction of basic needs, the maintenance of cultural identity, and reasonable conceptions of well being.  In conjunction with the Change Formula, humans want a better life, and are willing to overcome their dissatisfaction with the status quo, by imagining a future that is better than the present.   In this instance the challenge is convincing others that change is needed, or showing them a path through change that improves their lives. Based on their belief that they can achieve a better life, they will either become leaders of change, follow the guidance and council of others to achieve it, or become part of a movement.

“The true nature of power isn't about strength or control, it’s about relating to people”, Bleach, (Japanese Manga) episode 250.  

How deep does the lotus blossom's color run through your curiosity?

Dalai Lama

We need to understand the inadequacy of an educational system so slanted towards material values. The solution is not to give an occasional lecture, but to integrate ethics into the educational curriculum. To do this effectively requires a secular ethics, free of religious influence, based on common sense, a realistic view and scientific findings.

-----

I don't believe that this post is from the Dalai Lama. What stands out is that the Dalai Lama is making several judgments, which he would never do. The Dalai Lama projects a vision about what education could be. The judgments are: inadequacy of an educational system, slanted towards material values, not to give an occasional lecture, and secular ethics free of religious influence based on common sense. The vision of a better education system looks at the problem of getting young minds to engage in the process of discovery. For example, how does a lotus blossom's color come to be? What minerals are needed? How do these minerals move through the flower? What role does water, mud, sun, and surrounding environment play?What sounds are made as a lotus grows? What do cross sections of the flower look like if drawn by hand?  If the child were curious about just a flower and nothing else, how could this motivation to learn as much about a flower as possible be used to shoe horn in other subjects needed to study the flower .. like reading, writing, composition, comprehension, science, art, music, competition, ecology, and so on. The vision is to improve education. How then does judging and deeming it inadequate help? This creates two, separate, and unequal parts. It is better to point towards the flower, and say, "There is only 1, when two are of the same mind".  The master guides the student's curiosity and discovery.

The Truth About Leadership - Part 5

Focusing on the Future sets Leaders apart

This chapter argues that leaders are set apart from ordinary average everyday people because they have a vision about the future and act on it.  This point is true; it does set different types of leaders apart.  There are those that dream about a better future, but don’t act on it. There are those that haven’t even thought about a better future, but are just responding to needs of others.  And then there are others that do what is suggested by the title of this chapter, “Leaders look long term”.

However, just because you’re not looking 500 years into the future doesn’t mean that you’re not a leader.  The definition of Leadership simply states, “Guiding Intent with Integrity”.  If there is a goal someone needs to achieve, and you have a way to achieve it, you are their leader.  It doesn’t matter if it’s about going out dancing Saturday night, teaching a class room full of students how to speak English, or leading a nation through an economic crisis manufactured by the banks.  As long as you are guiding your own intentions and those of our followers, and they feel you are in integrity, you are their leader.

Coincidentally, on page 47, it is stated, “we found not surprisingly, that the importance of being forward looking increased with age, work experience and level in organizational hierarchy”  Leadership is about guiding people to their goals, so as people gain more experience about understanding goals, obtaining goals, and helping people achieve them, as well as motivating people to achieve them, yes, it stands to reason, just like children learning to walk, we will strive to use techniques that make it easier to achieve our goals and rely less on others.

Have you ever wondered why children learn to walk?  Maybe it’s because they get tired of waiting on others to help them do things.  Have you ever wondered why seniors refuse to stop driving?  It’s reported that seniors don’t want to give up their independence.  Interesting correlation, wouldn’t you agree?  Therefore, if follows that if I can achieve a goal more easily by leading a group of people to help me achieve it, wouldn’t I prefer to do that, instead of doing it all on my own?  We as a general rule learn how to do things more easily, and will leave older habits behind that took more time, and energy.

How many people do you know that still use type writers?  Now, why have so many people switched from type writers to using word processors?

The problem isn’t that other leaders are not thinking about the future. It is that they are here in the present, dealing with present problems, and haven’t learned how to utilize the tools of leadership effectively to motivate others around them to help them solve a common problem around the human condition.  As was illustrated in the first chapter, “You Make a Difference”.

In the political arena, how does Obama show positive leadership in handling the fiscal cliff for the benefit of the greater good of all, when the Republican leadership (as well as the Democratic leadership with its principles) refuses to consider any plan that involves raising taxes, or essentially breaking the Norquist Mandate. Does good leadership in this case mean compromising to meet the mandated deadline? Or does it mean sticking to one's principle? Or a combination of both? 3rdmurnau

There are a couple of different things I could talk about concerning this question.  I could talk about the different types of leadership:

Great Leadership, 

Positive Leadership,

Good Leadership,

OK Leadership,

Bad Leadership,

Negative Leadership, and

Dark Leadership

But these styles of leadership are only a method to reaching the goal, they are not the goal in itself.  

The goal as many would have you believe is to fix the fiscal cliff.  But is that really the goal, or is someone just trying to control the conversation?  What is the real problem and is that the goal?

Could the real goal be to move social security and medicare insurance into the private sector?  And what would happen if these organizations were privatized? Why do Republicans want military spending to go up? Why do Republicans believe that too many people are abusing the system - choose your system, including voter fraud. Maybe the real goal is to develop a stable economy, where everyone can prosper? But this goal would require the government to return to it's former practices of redistributing wealth, in order to benefit all, not just a few.

Compromise will come once we understand what the goals are. This is the unfortunate part, since the intent of the Democratic party and the Republican party may not be the same.  And to-date, the Republican party has been unwilling to budge on even those points which they have in common with the Democratic party. It's become an all or nothing atmosphere.

So, how should President Obama lead in this instance. The President has the ability to influence not only the Republicans and the Democrats in the House and Senate, but also those at all levels of government. While the President is charged with upholding the laws passed by Congress, he usually isn't fully funded to administrate all of them.  We saw this when is informed his personnel and the public that certain individuals would no longer be sought after for deportation. 

Another way that the President could lead in this instance is to take his case to the general public.  While most people believe that the President only influences the House and Senate, he has clearly demonstrated that he can influence the general public to "Get Out To Vote!" Through an information campaign, or as  mentioned before, take control of the conversation and reshape how the public perceives the problem, the goal, and the steps towards achieving that goal.

Since, information is power, the President can do what he has been doing all long very well: outline the facts, provide the options, and discuss his plan on how we can pressure the House and the Senate to move.  Letter writing campaigns can be very effective when it comes to getting representatives to move at all levels of government, especially when their whole party is at stake of being overturned.

Now should President Obama allow Norquist Mandate to go into effect?  While at first this might seem like a bad thing, it could also be like a parent telling their children that if they don't straighten up, then the punishment will be a night in their room without dinner.  As harsh as it may seem, children usually get the message the first time around when you stick to your strategy. So, the worst that could happen is that the American public becomes upset with their representatives and decides to vote them out of office.  

And if these groups of people don't want to wait till the next election for that representative's due date, then they can gather the necessary signatures for a petition and vote them out early using a recall election.  I, though, doubt that President Obama would publicly call for this type of grass roots action be taken, but it may be necessary in the next year to adjust the House and Senate to remove the blocks, and get the Republicans to come to the table.

I think right now the Republicans have a very hard decision to make. Stick to their principles and wants, or watch their constituents turn on them and remove them one by one or on mass.  Personally, I'm for the on mass option, as they would get the message that much faster.

WHAT MAKES YOU FEEL BETTER WHEN YOU ARE IN A BAD MOOD?

When I'm in a bad mood, I take time to journal about what has upset me?  I ask a series of questions ..

What is upsetting me?

What caused this upset to happen?

What should I do to resolve this upset?

How do I feel at the time of this writing?

Can I live with the upset and that which caused me to become upset?

What to do I gain by becoming upset?

What would I give up to stop feeling upset like this?

What would I gain if I stopped responding this way?

What do I want?

I then take a nap and fall asleep.  The questions, solutions, wants are subconsciously processed . New possibilities surface, and that which caused me to become upset ceases to upset me any more.

The Truth About Leadership - Part 2

You Make a Difference

This truth presumes that only leaders make a difference.  The problem with this truth is that it’s too narrow.  The definition of leadership allows everyone to be a leader at one moment or another.  In addition it doesn’t recognize personal leadership, “You leading yourself.”

A simple street cleaner being asked for directions suddenly becomes is a leader, as easily as the waitress who is asked how they would prepare a dish to their liking.  Even athletes who recognize that they are giving up on their training because it’s too hot and muggy suddenly step into their own leadership roles.  Why do leaders have to be people who motivate and guide 100’s of people to do something that improves the lives of others?

There is a question posed in this chapter, “What difference will I make?”  This question opens the discussion about intent.  While this is an interesting question for someone who is actively engaged in leadership, most leaders don’t consciously realize that this question is occurring.  Take for example the street cleaner that was asked about directions.  What difference is he making in the lives of the individuals who are asking for directions?  He is not consciously thinking about how his guidance will affect anyone else, and just as easily those asking for directions may not realized the release in anxiety.  But it happens.  The difference is small.

Most of this chapter is dedicated to demonstrating how positive leadership can improve an organization’s inner levels of piece and throughput. It fails to examine the affects negative leadership has on similar organizations.  For example, several positive leadership roles are: Modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act, encouraging the heart.  While Negative Leadership would: discourage reviewing models, disparage a shared vision and focus on a singular vision, it may challenge the process only to prove that the new process is worse than the existing process, allow others to act and fail as a way to demonstrate how the current process is better, and discourage people from caring about clients and customers as a level of separation is needed in order to respond objectively.

Page 13, the discussion turns to: “Improving the Quality of Life”, “The Social Contract”, or put another way, “Whose responsibility it is anyway?”  This discussion opens into the integrity of leadership. A second question is posed on page 14, “If you are not willing to follow yourself, why would anyone else want to?”  This is a question posed in “Leadership 101” (2002) by John C Maxwell, ISBN 0-7852-6419-1, chapter 3, page 25.

As the story goes, Jerry Rice was in high school practicing football. The last exercise that his coach assigned to the team was to sprint up and down a forty yard hill 20 times. On a particularly hot and muggy Mississippi day, Rice was ready to give up after eleven trips.  As he sneaked toward the locker room, he realized what he was doing.  He returned to the hill and continued to sprint up it.  Rice realized that if he quit, he would get into the mode of quitting again and again. 

This is what personal integrity is, “Holding your self accountable.”