How Deep Does The Lotus Blossom's Color Run Through Your Curiosity?

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.

Staying Motivated?

In Max Muscles February 2014 issue, David Calhoun, describes how he stays motivated and determined.

Set a goal and don't give up Pushing for better Making the right choice from one decision to the next Remember you're being watched Remind yourself every day why you're on this journey Find reasons to keep going on the journey Be proud of the progress Don't be satisfied with status quo Remind yourself that there is another level to reach Make yourself better than you were yesterday You influence people around you by just being present Maintain a positive mental attitude And ... Enter a contest.

Apparently money is a motivational factor. =)

So, how do you stay motivated, excited, determined, and inspired? Do you enter contests?

What do you see as the difference between leading leaders and leading followers?

There are four (4) groups surrounding leaders: Followers, Non-Followers, Outsiders, and Observers. Your question focuses on breaking down followers into five (5) categories: enthusiasts, visionaries, pragmatists, conservatives, and laggards. ("Crossing the Chasm", Geoffrey A. Moore) Based on the definition of leadership, "Guiding Intent with Integrity" there should be no difference in leading Leaders vs Followers. However, as described above, there are different types of followers, as well as three (3) additional groups, that require different types of handling.

The terms Scott mentioned: [accountability, empowerment, innovation, collaboration, trying and learning, straight communication, supporting intentions, [assessment], projection, and blame] concern integrity. And, he split them into two (2) groups based on proximity to the leader - closest and farthest.

Integrity's unwritten rule is called a, "Social Contract". The expectations that all parties have against each other. When unwritten it's "word of mouth" or an "Understanding". When written it's a contract.

Exceptions on outcomes, drives the group to accomplish something, or resolve a problem. The question now is, "How much have various individuals bought into this outcome?" The answer indicates their level of participation, motivation and excitement. Participation, motivation and excitement levels diminishes the farther from the leader.

In the five (5) groups of followers: enthusiasts, visionaries, pragmatists, conservatives, and laggards a pattern emerges around expectations and willingness to change. Enthusiasts and Visionaries look for new innovative ways to merge ideas and craft unique solutions to the "Human Condition" or Business Problem. Pragmatists want something that will give them a leg up. Conservatives don't care where the solution comes from, it's foot cream, any will do as long as it does the job. And, laggards, refuse to use new tools until it's so entrenched into society that they have no other choice.

Now we can measure the level of effort needed to interact with each group. Enthusiasts and Visionaries talk in broad terms, are excited and motivated about you're work, and in return excite and motivate you to continue researching bigger, better solutions. Pragmatists only believe what other pragmatists say, thus your conversation dynamic has to change. The amount of energy to convince someone to "Try the New" increases. Conservatives require your product to be main stream, mature and in full competition before they will look at it. This requires a tremendous amount of energy, which few entrepreneurs are capable of providing. And, there is no amount of energy that will move a laggard.

Each group assess change differently as well. This is based on their judgments triggered by beliefs "On how things should be". "Shared Visions" play an important rule in motivating followers. This is where followers migrate to non-followers and outsiders depending on whether or not they share your vision. Thus when employees can't see the vision, or understand how they are part of a larger whole, and are treated as a commodity (foot cream), they loose motivation, excitement, creativity, enthusiasm, and so on.

As such, when searching for the right people for the right roles, leaders are looking for excited people who can motivate others through a shared vision of a better world. Thus the mission of the organization is to achieve this vision, and it has to flow out from the Board down to every member in the organization.

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.

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.  

The "Belief about how things should be" - How should Leaders address this?

I'd like to expound on another area of communication I thought about while at the gym today. It's with the "Belief about how things should be".  Most project managers build project plans that account for tasks, risks, dependencies, issues, unknowns and assumptions. The plan builds mitigations for each of these that are identified. Basically, in short, the plan covers the best case through the worst case scenarios.  When changes occur, members of each of the groups .. enthusiasts, visionaries, pragmatists, conservatives and laggards have these same scenarios running in their Synthetic Experience Generator (aka head) (this term comes from a TedTalk). A good sales person will identify all these worst case scenarios and address them up front.  As Scott pointed out, a Good Leader, will develop a communications plan tailored specifically to each group that addresses the scenarios. The idea is that a leader cannot run from controversy, he must face it head on.  In change management, this is a given. Users are usually grouped into 4 categories: eager to adopt, willing to adopt, need assistance to adopt and those that refuse to adopt. As you can see, these categories are the same as "Crossing the Chasms" categories.