What Denotes A Negative Leader?

What denotes a Negative Leader?

This is in response to:

Avoiding negative leadership practices

If leadership is guiding intent with integrity towards a goal, then negative leadership is one style of leadership among seven (7) styles : Great, Positive, Good, General, Bad, Negative, and Dark. While leaders also interact with five (5) other groups: peers, followers, non-followers, outsiders and observers.

The qualities of a negative leader listed in the article were: - tendencies to control everything, - interfere and dictate how the job should be done, - their goal is to hijack the glory of the good results, and - to absolutely refrain from any delegation.

Other qualities of negative leaders to consider are: - their type of guidance provided? - their intentions? - how they view the social contract? - what are their goals? - responses in decision making areas?

A leader's guidance can motivate their subordinates? Or, place them under greater stress to complete the project? Does the guidance imbue the subordinate to take initiative? How are subordinates separated from each other? What words does the leader use?

What are the leader's intentions? For himself, for his subordinates, his career, and so on. Does the leader intend to share success or keep it to himself? Is this just part of a larger project? How close is the leader keep their intentions? Why did the leader join this project?

How does the leader view the social contract between him and his subordinates? Is the contract a mutual one, or is there a 75/25 split? How often is the leader trying to break the contract? What methods does the leader use to break the contract? When and how are people removed from the group?

What goals has the leader may expressed? Are there other goals in mind. Many people usually see an opportunity as a stepping stone to another, what does this leader see this goal as?

Decision making is usually situation. Here are several categories that a leader will make decisions in. They are: communications, rules, roles, problem solving, issue identification and raising, reputation, human condition, integrity, intent, guidance, promotion, individualism, group membership, group management, task management, strategies, expressions, influence, security, networking, offensive actions, defensive actions, resource allocation and distribution, governance, observation.

Then there are the other people that they interact with, the: peers, non-followers, out-siders, and observers.

How does a negative leader interact with fellow peers? How does he talk about his subordinates? How does he talk about his projects? What issues does he raise and address surrounding his goals?

Non-Followers are those that dislike the leader usually. The message that the leader trumpets usually grates against them in various ways. Either through violations of integrity, or a knowledge or distrust of their true intentions. Or it could be that the guidance is so poorly worded that the non-follower recognizes the harness of the negative leaders speech and tries to stay clear.

Out-Siders are usually unaffected by the leaders actions, discussions, goals, or day to day interactions. However, if this group has something that a leader wants / needs, they may become a target for a larger strategy to acquire that resource.

And finally, there are the observers. These individuals live in all camps. They are peers, followers, non-followers, and out-siders, who watch the leader and take in his decisions and actions from a distance. They calculate his next possible move, and contemplate what his overall objective is and how likely he is to make it. In the end, observers play a vital role for keeping leaders in check, in either reminding them about how in-effective they are, to how effective they are being, or how over reaching they are.

So, as you can see, the discussion of a negative leader is much larger than originally described. I look forward to reading more about your thoughts and findings on the subject.

Bad Leaders Fail 75% of the time

One of the points I made earlier in this conversation was the Bad Leaders make bad choices 75% of the time. Two (2) of those choices are not building coalitions and not looking at how the change will playout like a stage play. Leaders that neglect to build alliances in various the groups - peers, followers, non-followers, outsiders and observers - make the of becoming the issue, instead of leading the change. Organizational members can then ignore the need for change by getting rid of the leader that represents the issue. However, if there are several people trumpeting the same message for change, it is harder to marginalize and get rid of them. The message is usually about what change is needed to the organizational structure in order to accommodate the new world order being brought about by other elements and forces outside the organization. An organization that does not adapt to these changes will eventually die out. However, leaders face a tougher challenge when changing organizational elements because people like certainty. They know where their next meal is coming from now. If you change the rules, they don't know if they will get fed. Change can also affect many other aspects of the organizations psychie, but that discussion is too broad to cover in one paragraph. To summarize, an organization has a history, culture, rituals, pride, and many other facets that need to be accounted for in order to instigate change. If a leader neglects any portion of this, they may be unwittingly building a coalition against them. To understand this last point, leaders need to look at the change process as a play being produced. There is the author who wrote a message into the story, the actors portraying characters in the story, there is the director who is adding and deleting scenes to help focus a message in the story, and then there is the audience who is watching the play. Add scenery, lighting and music to spice up the drama, and you have a play. A leader that can step into all these roles as well as step out and watch how all these roles affect each other, can more accurately tailor their corrective actions. Stories are adapted all the time to summarize longer stories. For example, ReBoot ends with a rendition of "I'm a modern major general".

Is Leadership About Growing Others?

This post is in response to:

Leadership is About Growing Others

The premise provided, "Leadership is about growing others - It's not about you!" is incorrect as a whole. The reason why this understanding is correct is based on the definition of leadership. Leadership is "Guiding Intent with Integrity". A leader has to guide his subordinates and himself toward a goal that solves a business or humanistic problem.  Jack Welch's quote, “Before you become a leader success is all about growing yourself. Once you become a leader success is all about growing others.”, is not bout being a leader, it's about being SUCCESSFUL! Successful people look for business or humanistic problems to solve that have a greater solution benefit to production cost ratio. They marshal resources, which may cultivate future leaders or managers to handle the business problem's solution life cycle.  Bryan Oliver's comment, "Leadership is all about self-sacrifice, not worrying about who gets the credit for what idea, and is not about how good the leader looks to the person they report to.", also misses the mark. The perception is perpetrated by the idea that "[ Leadership ] is Not About You!", your ego. Are you the business problem or the solution? You are neither. What you are is an individual among many working on the problem trying to solve it. You can work with others to solve the problem, or you can work alone. But, you are never the only person who can solve this problem.  Leaders do not sacrifice themselves or others in the name of producing a solution. They are motivated by the outcome they want this solution to have on humanity. How will this solution impact the world, make it a better place, and make life easier for others. That is what leaders envision, and convey through their guidance. Their passion, is about them. Their motivation is intrinsic, based on solving an extrinsic problem.

What guidance would you give to a leader?

This guidence was given to "Anne Salisbury, PhD" after listening to her lecture on Fireworks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrqDGR042vg

In comparison to the lectures on meditation from SFZC.org, this lecture seemed very confusing, because it lacks two (2) key elements: the journey towards the goal, and how achieving the goal will enrich other's lives. Which, if held in thought correctly, sets up a positive feed back loop, that self motivates the individual to work towards the goal, even though it seems very far away.

An info graphic that displays this very closely, is of 10 guys sitting on a 10 case stairwell. On each stair the figure has an expression - emoticon and written expression - that describes his thoughts. At the bottom of the stairwell is exasperation at how much work he has to do. In the middle he is seeing some of the fruits of his labors. And at the top, he is jumping for joy that he has succeeded.

From a leadership perspective, with leadership defined as, "Guiding Intent with Integrity", this lecture on thoughts to meditate about would best be served by suggesting to the audience this guidance. "Think of a phrase that describes what you want to accomplish, and how you will feel when you accomplish it." Then, every time you reach a hard spot, remember to chant this phrase like a mantra. Don't allow any other thought to enter. Stay grounded and focused on this mantra until your mind clears and the solution to the problem in front of you becomes clear.

It is the readers intentions to achieve the goal they have set forth for themselves. It is the authors intentions to provide you with the best possible guidance given. As for the fireworks reference, I'm not sure what this was in reference to. Maybe it's the spark of joy that comes from reaching a goal, I guess.

As for integrity, this is the social contract between the leader and his audience. Are you in integrity by talking about meditation rituals that do not include a discussion on clearing the mind, or finding a path to permanent happiness, or even offering a clear example on how to bring happiness into your mind while it is clouded with frustration and anger?

Please take a moment to listen to the teachings from SFZC.org to understand my points. And contemplate the deeper meaning of what leadership is, and how it can enrich someone's life when applied correctly.

Why do Supervisors Plans Fail?

This is in response to Chris Swains article on "Why Supervisor's Plans Fail!" (http://bnetworking.info/?p=1652)

Chris, the article provides an interesting perspective, but the perspective is too narrow. It should also account for the global calendar and leadership.  Organizations could have a global calendar from which all departmental calendars are synchronized to. In addition, the organizational calendar could be synchronized with events outside the organization, such as trade shows and economic events, like Christmas, tax season, and major holidays. The unfortunate part for most organizations is that there is no physical global calendar for organization members to refer to. Thus the global calendar is cerebral.  While organizations and teams have their own calendars, individuals have their own personal calendars. Personal events may or may not interfere with the organizations calendar, and the teams calendar. What is not conveyed to the calendar though are intentions, otherwise known as "Hidden Agendas". These intentions, for example, don't provide time to adjust the project plan and account for success.  Which brings me to my next point in the perspective. Leadership is "Guiding Intent with Integrity" towards a goal. The article was written from the perspective of a Supervisor relying on their project plan / time table to drive results. The problem with this perspective is that it suggests that the motivational methods for driving the project are based on reminding employees that there is a dead line.  The goal should be the motivational drive here, not the time table. Individual employees should see how their enthusiasm for this work builds commitment to this part of the project and helps drive other team members through external motivation. It's also known as "Motivation From Without." And is often written about in health magazines, as people use other people to motivate them to go to the gym and keep going.  The piece that most supervisors fail to realize and understand, that team leaders study, is now to motivate people through many different methods. As mentioned, one source of motivation is from within, an employee's personal drive to solve a particular humanistic problem. And, motivation from without, where employees are motivated by seeing someone else's dedication to solving this problem.  This is what really distinguishes a organization at Stage 2 & 3 vs an organization at Stage 4 or 5.

Chris Swain (https://www.linkedin.com/groups?viewMemberFeed=&gid=2355813&memberID=227104845)

Seven Ways to (Really) Engage People

This article is in response to:

http://bnetworking.info/?p=2369

Interesting article on Seven (7) Engagement Motivators. Question: What brought this group together in the first place? It's a generic question, but usually points to the issue that people are passionate about working on and trying to solve. The more that people care about the problem they are trying to solve, the more energy, effort and fighting spirit that they will put into the project. As you pointed out, a project that has personal meaning and SMART goals remains tangible to the whole group. Relationships are formed as people discuss various aspects of the problem, ways towards the solution, and fight over the best course of action. Commitment becomes a self motivator that prevents apathy from setting in. Belief is a tricky issue though, yes I would want people to believe in my abilities, but I think belief goes much deeper than that. I suggest that you take more time to delve into how belief affects individual members, the group as a whole, observers, peers no in the group, and people who don't care about this issue. I think there is a lot that will affect the human psyche from each of these perspectives. Freedom arrives as, you mentioned, managers learn to stop micro managing the process, and rely on subordinates to follow the ISO documents that describe the step by step process. However, as long as managers are tasked with gathering metrics against the ISO documents, their ability to provide freedom may not be permissible. And, subordinates may have to rely on other venues to provide feedback into the system. As described through "The Toyota Way." Work Ethic and Integrity. The Social Contract. Whether written or verbal is an agreement and understanding about the quality of the work that needs to be performed, what each person is responsible for, and why they are there - usually their expertise. These points, in turn, point back to each individuals intentions for being part of the project. Only 10 percent of the each persons intentions will ever be exposed to the group. As a leader, following the definition of leadership, "Guiding Intent with Integrity" towards a goal, these categories plus the additional 600+ out there, need to be thoroughly understood to properly master leadership. I look forward to reading your thoughts on how the rest affect leadership, followers, non-followers, outsiders, and observers. For example, a topic you touched on, and could discuss further is, how facilitation affects a leaders ability to build stronger relationships with everyone.