-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Quite a few of the exemplary leaders or rather the founders of good/ethical companies had some sort of religious background or affiliation. Even Phil Powell, who my group interviewed for the exemplary leader project, mentioned his Christian values. I don’t think that being a person of faith, any faith, is necessary to be a good leader, though one could mistakenly make that corralative assumption. The key seems to be being a person of values and consistent and good morals. Generally this is associated with religious people but does not have to be. As I have mentioned before, good leaders must lead themselves. Leading yourself requires self-awareness and discipline; self-awareness and discipline are associated with a moral framework and ethical personal fabric. That point may seem obvious but it is not – it would be niave and foolish to walk away from this course thinking that good leaders need to be religious. What a person should walk away from this course understanding is that it is necessary to have a firm and deep moral framework for yourself. There is a recurrent theme here: you can’t lead if you don’t know the path and the path is drawn in part by who you are and what you believe.
The group projects were very effective and I deeply enjoyed seeing everyone’s presentations about the ethical companies. The exemplary leader paper was fun too because it provided us a chance to be in charge of gathering information about a leader we admire and developing that information into a profile of the leader. The assignments were good. Dislikes…that is hard to say. We did a lot of video case-studies but it may be nice to have a few more supplemental articles or case studies on companies or leaders who are doing the job right. Overall, as you can see from some of my blogs and you will read in my final leadership paper, I have truly learned from this class and adjusted my way of thinking about leaders and leadership. For that reason, I have little to offer by way of suggestions for change; as far as I’m concerned it worked.
Most importantly in this course I have l when I learned to refine my notion of leadership. Initially when I approached this class I was under the mistaken impression that a leader led people. What I have learned is that any jerk can lead people. The essential question for a Kelley to ask is for how long and to what ends does the person lead others? Effective leaders, lasting leaders and good leaders lead others through the methods and ideas we’ve learned here. The result is enduring companies, visions and creations that survive the leader. Also, the result is confident, happy and effective employees who are capable and prepared to continue without the leader and sustaining the creation or are capable of moving on to other things but are better for it. Effective leaders make great teams and good enterprises.
Not discussed in a leadership course is the nature of a good follower. We have talked at some legnth about getting the right people on the bus but I’d like to suggest that first, before one can be a good leader, one must be a good follower and be the right person on someone else’s bus. If anything, this class has shown that good leadership is a joint effort between the leader and the team. The leader is responsible for building the best team, setting the goals, providing the direction and framework and then helping move the group forward. The team is reponsible for taking direction, moving forward with the goals and vision and doing the work essentially. In order to be a great leader though I believe that one must know what it is like to be led, to know what it is like to take direction, follow somneone else’s vision, manage challenge, defeat, dissention, success, pride and resolution. The “trenches” are different from the leadership roll and it is crucial to understand the trenches before you lead the team. It will make your job so much easier if you can.
A good follower takes direction, is confident enough in her work to offer suggestions when appropriate and is not insecure. Insecurity can lead to rejection of direction and hurt feelings when the team makes a decisons against one of her ideas. The traits of a good follower are similar to those for a good leader; humility, dedication, good ethics, goal orieneted nature, self-awareness. The difference between a good leader and a good follower is the role on the team, not much else.
“The 48 Laws of Power” by Robert Greene and Joost Elffers is a book about just that – acquiring power. An example of the laws are #7 “Get others to do the work for you but always take the credit” and law #17 “Keep others in suspended terror: create an air of unpredictability.” The book uses examples from history (both recent and ancient) to illustrate its principles of appealling to the most basic of human emotions such as fear, ego, greed, jealousy, desire, narcissism and hubris. The men and women in this book were all “leaders” who illustrated these darker principles of life. I will admit that I have not read all of the book, only about 1/2 – which was enough. The principles extolled are a road map to manipulation and achievement of goals; however the method of achievement is anti-thetical to the principles of this course. The men in the book are well known; many are military conquerers such as Sun Tzu, Alexander the Great, and Napoleon as well as everyday men such as P.T. Barnum, founder of Barnum and Bailey’s Circus. Each of them did lead, but at what cost? Few if any of their empires or creations survived them; certainly those of military victory were often over-thrown themselves not long after their own bloody rise to power.
The point is not whether these men led or not, Ghengis Khan led, but was he an effective leader? That all depends on you definition of leadership which is even more dependent on your core beliefs about life in general. If the ends justify the means, in a Machiavellian sort of world view, then the definition of leadership is to get others to follow you. Under that theory, torture, fear, manipulation, bribery and demand are valid leadership skills. If however, you do not subscribe to Machiavelli’s notion, and instead ascribe to a more enlightened idea that the journey of life is as much if not more important that the destination, then the theory of leadership which involves humility, honesty, integrity, self-discipline and sacrifice are the guiding traits. “The 48 Laws of Power” book is one valid way to manipulate others and seize control; but at what cost? I would not want to be the sort of person who lived that life nor who was remembered that way. My colleagues, co-workers and friends deserve more than that. I am glad I only burned enough time to read 1/2 the book so I would know what it was about – the other 1/2 was unneccesary.
One of the guests recently on the Colbert Report commented, “The mystery of leadership is that people feel better just having this guy in charge.” She was discussing a letter written to FDR during the New Deal times; the letter was from a man who had lost everything during the stock market crash/Great Depression who told the President about his situation but felt that the President was doing the right thing even though his situation was not getting better personally. The notion that a person will have faith in a leader during dire times and will continue to follow that leader has played out in many situations in history; a perfect example is any solider who stood with his general at the surrender at Appomattox, those who stood behind Nixon during Watergate, Eva Brown and all of the German SS officers who stood behind Hitler and the Third Reich even as the Allied Forces advanced. Each of these moments were painful and lost but people followed their leaders – why? Because they believed in something greater than themselves; they believed in a cause or a vision and the leader embodied that vision.
A true leader has to understand that s/he is not just the sum of his/her own parts but can also be the embodiment of a set of ideals and vision; the vision and ideals of the company or cause the group is working toward. It seems strange and seems to be a lot of responsibility but it is true: the leader becomes the embodiment of this greater idea. This can be a daunting reality and the great leaders we read about were generally modest and humble, completely unaware of their great weight and authority. That is part of the mystery and majesty, their utter and complete dedication to the cause and the ideals which they are embodying. It is good, it is humbling to think as a leader there is so much responsibility but it is true. THe key to being a good leader is to realilze that actions are watched, demeanor is noted, personal goals and values are observed at every turn so it is critical to tend to one’s behavior and personal ideals and goals while leading.
In TA3 for the Leadership class Phil Powell said in his interview that he believes he is an effective leader of others because he can lead himself. When I was reading one of my law magazines it talked about the importance of personal appearance in working with clients. The magazine said that some people are negative about the importance of personal fitness, clean offices, putting forward a very good and attractive appearance because they think it’s shallow. The article countered by saying that clients will interpret a person’s ability to manage a case file and be disciplined and successful in his/her work by that person’s ability to be disciplined and successful managing the basic things such as personal appearnce, personal health and surroundings.
One of the underlying themes and realities of each of the effective leaders we’ve studied is the fact that the leader’s personal values and morals weren’t about being leaders but about being good people. The founder of Chick-fil-A certainly doesn’t camp out with people the night before a new store opens because he read in a business book that he should “connect with customers.” He does it because of what kind of person he is at the core. Core values and core beliefs manifest in every part of our lives; especially in our leadership style. If I want to be an effective leader and employee in my work and personal life, I need to examine my personal values and match up how those values will translate into leadership in my professional life.
I value honesty, decisiveness, education, information and good/thorough training. I believe that people are likely and willing to participate and to be successful if they know what they are expected to do and why. I also like things to be done correctly – sometimes to a fault. In my most recent performance evaluation, my boss told me to be less thorough and a little faster! These are the traits I brought to my former job where I was directly responsbile for several employees and traits I bring to my current job where my leadership opportunities are informal training and behavior modeling for my colleagues. However, I think that sometimes I fall short in the area of consistency. I value consistency and cool reactions under pressure. My former job was as a suicide prevention/crisis counselor – trust me pressure was daily. But I worry that I am not as consistent as I would like to be. I would like to take the lessons of this course and develop a way to take my known values and keep them in the forefront of my awareness so I can grow as a person and as a leader.
In my last post (the Buffy one) I noted that “Leadership is a way of life.” What I am starting to realize is that leadership happens whether you want it to or not. Instead of leadership we could talk about influence. Each of us influences those around us on a daily basis whether we consciously want to or not. For example, a negative co-worker who constantly complains about the work load, who distracts other co-workers, who is lackadaisical and uncommitted to supervisors’ efforts to motivate and encourage is leading the group; she is leading the group away from success and she is toxic. This person may not even be trying to lead because she obviously is not a “team player” who would typically want to be in charge of a group moving in the right direction; but she is leading none the less. The anti-leader/leader doesn’t have to be so overt. If a person comes in every day and just does his job, not one second more or less and puts in only the required minimum, the message he is sending is that he will only do what is required and nothing more. This attitude is just as infectious as the overtly negative attitude. These two co-workers have no overt power over their peers but they influence none the less. Leaders plant seeds and with every action, comment and gesture a person plants a seed in those around him/her. If the soil you’ve planted the seed in is already dedicated to another crop (already has ideas and motivations) then the negative seeds may not take root or make much of a difference in the face of the larger, stronger, more established crops; but in a new employee, an impressionable person who is the equivalent of a field which is not dedicated yet, it may make a lot of difference. Further, if the negative seeds bombard the healthy field, it is like an infestation of weeds or insects – the field must be defended.
That brings us to the other side of the analogy. The farmer/the leader must be diligent and watch for this sort of overtly negative or seemingly neutral team member who may be working against the efforts of the leader. This could be called “getting the right people on the bus” but it may be more than that. Some managers/leaders don’t have the power or opportunity to fire staff or to have full control of who is hired. In these cases a manager may have to be more aware of those on the bus who are working against the team and proactively manage that person. Without realizing it, each member of the team is leading/influencing the others on some level so a good manager/leader must be aware of the influences each is having and attempt to manage them when necessary.
Buffy…yes I said Buffy. As in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. This class has prompted me to look at leadership around me at every opportunity and frequently pop culture gives great examples. We have already discussed some Star Trek references, now we are moving into the modern time. Pop culture attempts to mirror reality which is why people identify with it. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, for those un-indoctrinated, was a show based on the premise that a blonde, popular cheerleader-type girl is bestowed super-natural powers of stregnth and agility so she can fight and save the world from vampires and demons. Strange I know. Here is the leadership lesson. In the mythology of the show other girls who carried this same burden/gift died very quickly in their battle – part of the show is that Buffy is different. She survives time after time despite actually being killed a couple of times in the course of the show. How does she do it, what is different? All of the other “Slayers” are loners; they are isloated and have only one ally who even knows their secret. Buffy on the other hand has friends and she leads them into battle with her even though they have no “super powers”. Because of her team, her support system and the way she leads her group, she surpasses any girl before her and defeats more evil than anyone ever could. How does she do it? First, she trusts her team. Time after time she goes to them for advice, research, support, she trains them, gives them jobs and fighting responsibilities and she cries on their shoulders when needed. Yet at the same time she understands her burden and responsibility to keep others safe. In the show she is the “choosen one” the one with the responsibility but also with the special gifts to make it possible for her to accomplish the goal. The other team members do not have her ‘special’ gifts but they follow her into life/death situations everyday. She acted as a shepard to her team relying on them trusting them and then also never forgeting her obligation to lead them.
The show introduces another character, Faith, who is also a Slayer but has a totally different outlook on life. Faith is very emotional, rageful, selfish and is very much the “loner” type. She has had a hard up-bringing and does not trust people at all. These two women are both capable of being the leaders, of defeating the bad guys and saving the world. But in the end, Buffy is the one who accopmlishes the goal. At one point in the show Faith takes control and tries to lead but fails. For those familiar with the show you’ll see how when you reflect how Buffy’s style of leadership makes it possible for her to accopmlish her goals and more. She was dedicated to the task, she was moral, she puts the needs of others ahead of her self at nearly all turns. She developed a cohort of people around her she could trust and during times when she was absent from the group for months at a time sometimes, the group was able to continue fighting and winning to the best of their ability.
It may seem silly to refer to these science-fiction based pop-culture references but what this class has done for me is emphasize that leadership is a way of life and what is important is to look for examples of leadership all around. If I am conscious of leadership models around me, I will be more conscious of leadership in my own life and efforts.
A few nights ago I was watching one of the original Star Trek episodes – but don’t stop reading, you don’t need to have a sci-fi background to get this blog. However, I do need to set the stage. In this particular episode, the transporter beam malfunctioned and instead of one Captain Kirk arriving from the planet’s surface to the ship, he was split into two people; think Jekyll and Hyde. One person contained all of the passion and aggression of Capt. Kirk and the other all of the reason and philosophy. The philosohpic one was portrayed as weak, indecisive and crumbling.
Now here is where the management lesson and tie in becomes apparent. The Captain wanted to tell the crew exactly what happened so they would understand and help him solve the problem; his first officer, Mr. Spock told him not to. Spock explained to the philosophic Capt. Kirk that the ships crew must not know what happened. He said that the ship’s crew could not see the Captain as weak or compromised in any way; that to allow them to see him as anything less than perfect or infallible would be devastating to morale and confidence. Essentially that it would undermine his ability to lead the people. Spock told Kirk to lie so that the ship’s crew would be protected.
There are two main points this makes me think about – first is the issue of leadership persona and the second is the question of transparency and honesty in leadership. (I’ll only discuss the first in this blog for brevity’s sake)
The issue of persona is tied very much to timeless ideals like the ones we’ve discussed in Good to Great, but also to sociological ideas of basic interactions. The “man” of today looks staunchly different than the “man” of 1965. Just as the leader of today cannot be the patriarchal authoritarian that may have functioned in 1965. Another great example of pop-culture showing these distinctions is the television show, “Mad Men.” This dramatic series chronicles the days of Madison Ave, NY advertising executives in the early 1960s. The writers went to great lengths to ensure historic accuracy in the characters’ scripts and behavior. Those men and women were socially stifled and regimented, were dictated to by administration above them and lead, not through any power given freely because of worth and efforts but through manipulation, and socially granted status.
To return to the science-fiction, there are Star Trek episodes with more current captains. Jean-Luc Piccard is the modern incarnation of the Enterprise’s Captain and these shows were written/seen in the last 10 years. This Captain, while remaining strong, clear and authoritative was much more vulnerable and open to his ship’s crew. He himself was more of a poet/philosopher as well as a tactician. His leadership style was more like the Good to Great leaders embodying the role of one who needs to create a group of strong and capable crew members who can manage on their own if necessary and who are dedicated to a common goal. The early shows of Kirk were basically about, well, Kirk and how great he was and what good decisions he made despite the constant bickering and disagreement he got from his crew. His character was a maverick and there weren’t many scenes where the crew rallied around him; they basically followed him. Piccard though, would generally work for the buy-in and rarely invoked his mantle of authority.
Leadership is about the timeless traits and understanding your current world and society.
Jdmbagirl's Blog 