When my sister gave me Tina Fey’s book “Bossypants” a couple of years ago for my birthday, all in jest of course, it reminded me of the forces that shape us and how difficult it is to change a habit. As the eldest, I took life far too seriously. To this day, my sisters frequently kid me about my relentless messaging to them. In my view, they always seemed to be fooling around, slacking off. “Work hard”, I told them, so they could take care of themselves as adults, not depend on a man for their well-being.
Not surprisingly I have made a career out of the value (or not) of working hard. It’s much more nuanced than I imagined. Good coaching has many facets and lecturing is not necessarily an effective strategy. Maybe it works temporarily to change behaviour quickly in a risky situation. For the long-term though and to encourage self-momentum, it has diminishing returns.
Lately the power of a single question when problem-solving with others has reminded me of a way to shed the “bossy pants” habit. “What do you think?” is one major personal transformation theme I hear when I follow up with managers who have graduated from our leadership development programs. They don’t jump in to provide the answers, as was their habit too often. Although difficult to withhold their opinions, the managers are amazed at the creativity and enthusiasm that follows.
But does such a simple question make a real difference in achieving results? Anson Dorrance is a university soccer coach legend, having led his women’s soccer team at the University of North Carolina to 21 national championships over 33 seasons. According to Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman, who have written a fascinating book on the science of winning and losing (“Top Dog), Dorrance learned not to berate or lecture the women after a game played poorly. He simply asked, “What do you think?” The women capably provided the answers.
Fortunately for me my sisters knew that I was just looking out for them. They have both done well. Their playful feedback resonates though. I continue to work on letting go of my “bossy pants” persona to allow the “What do you think?” me to emerge.
Showing posts with label inspiring leadership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label inspiring leadership. Show all posts
Monday, August 05, 2013
Monday, June 13, 2011
Be Interested. Works Wonders
A long time ago I took a pile of personal growth courses. Most of what I learned is a blur to this day but a few ideas stuck. One of them is to be interested rather than interesting. Now many moons later, the phrase keeps cropping up in various articles, books and videos as one antidote to the dangers of narcissism, rugged individualism, self-delusion and poor decision-making.
In the context of leadership, it’s a no-brainer. Bill Taylor in a June 6, 2011 Harvard Business Review blog quoting Randy Nelson, former dean of Pixar University, puts it this way:
But how many bosses and team-mates are this way? It takes a lot of work to get outside of our own concerns and achievements to focus on another.
If you manage to be interested it’s a sign of respect for the value of another human being. Respect is something we all want. I hear this over and over again from people at the front line and up no matter what the business of an organization. When I ask people what they mean by “respect”, they invariably describe it as others listening to them, helping them with their problems and showing they care in some way.
Maybe “caring” is the message of “being interested”. It affirms us. It levels the playing field across titles and roles. It says: “You count”. Powerful.
In the context of leadership, it’s a no-brainer. Bill Taylor in a June 6, 2011 Harvard Business Review blog quoting Randy Nelson, former dean of Pixar University, puts it this way:
It’s no trick for talented people to be interesting. But, it’s a gift to be interested – interested in big problems, interested in the talents and struggles of your colleagues, interested in the enduring mission of an enterprise and in new ways of bringing that mission to life.
But how many bosses and team-mates are this way? It takes a lot of work to get outside of our own concerns and achievements to focus on another.
If you manage to be interested it’s a sign of respect for the value of another human being. Respect is something we all want. I hear this over and over again from people at the front line and up no matter what the business of an organization. When I ask people what they mean by “respect”, they invariably describe it as others listening to them, helping them with their problems and showing they care in some way.
Maybe “caring” is the message of “being interested”. It affirms us. It levels the playing field across titles and roles. It says: “You count”. Powerful.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Message to Any Leader Anywhere: Neglect Retail Leadership at Your Peril
No bond, no trust
No trust, no credit
No credit, no progress
---Andrew Romano, (January 22, 2010). The Trouble with Barack. Newsweek.
Scott Brown brought retail leadership to Massachusetts. Despite her solid track record and capabilities, it appears that Martha Coakley did not. Legions of political scientists, pollsters and pundits know this well. So do employees everywhere who wish their managers would really connect with them at the visceral level. A few years ago, I interacted with about 400 employees engaged in a merger. My role was to help the transition, build cultural bridges, get them talking with each other to kick start relationships. At every session, the voice and presence of a president past arose to haunt us. “Dave” was most beloved by all in one of the organizations. His kind of leadership was what they valued.
“What was it about Dave that you really liked?” I asked. The answer was always the same: “He cared”.
I continued probing: “What did that look like?”
“Well”, they replied, “every morning, he walked through the office and said hello, asked us about our families and work.”
“Tell me more”, I said. I wanted to better understand how Dave ticked. Almost in unison, they recited that he was not always in meetings, as was the case now with the new leaders. Furthermore, he listened to them and took action.
I don’t think it mattered that Dave could not act on every issue, every “whim” of employees. They knew that Dave had to consider many factors. But, they gave him a fair amount of slack on “substance” because he connected with them emotionally.
Ironically, if Dave had just connected and not taken action, he would not have been revered and missed. There are limits to “retail” leadership.
The expectations are high for Scott Brown, a newly minted Republican senator. So are they for Barack Obama to take lessons from Mr. Brown. Both, however, are in the same boat. People want to see and feel progress at the every day life level. In the end, substance does matter.
Sunday, December 06, 2009
Michael Ignatieff is Appealing to the Wrong Part of Our Brains
If the media reports are any indication, the “get rid of Michael Ignatieff” sounds are becoming louder within the Liberal party. Bring in Bob Rae is the refrain. Will this fix the Liberals dismal showing in the polls?
In that Bob Rae is more “warm and cuddly” than Michael Ignatieff, this might work. Our brains prefer such warmth. But the cost to the Liberal party could be worse. Changing leadership three times in as many years does not sit well with the electorate (“Do these guys know what they are doing?”).
A better strategy would be to work on Ignatieff’s emotional messaging before giving up the ship. He’s not tugging at our hearts enough. That stern look and holding the government accountable for a report card don’t appeal to issues that are at the heart of our evolution like survival, the care of our children and extended families and the well-being of our local communities.
Too much reason from Michael Ignatieff, not enough emotion. He’s little different from Stephen Harper who, in fact, is warming up his image and delivery and distancing himself further from the opposition. We now have a strong image of Harper “letting his hair down” playing a Beatles song on the piano with some decent singing. The Liberals have been outmaneuvered by the Conservatives on reaching the right part of our brains first---that which appeals to our emotions.
From an evolutionary perspective, we reason with our emotions first then make choices based on facts, and figures. “Emotions provide a compass that leads us toward or away from things” as psychologist Drew Westen explains in The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.
“Feelings” according to Westen are millions of years older than “reason” or conscious thought processes. They are hard-wired into human brains across all cultures. The evolution of our species has predisposed us to being moved by leaders with whom we feel “an emotional resonance”.
There is a caveat. We can easily become turned off by “bad” governance---again an emotional action supported by evidence (or quasi-evidence). The morality of not having the electorate’s best interests in mind eventually costs a political leader. So too in any organization.
In that Bob Rae is more “warm and cuddly” than Michael Ignatieff, this might work. Our brains prefer such warmth. But the cost to the Liberal party could be worse. Changing leadership three times in as many years does not sit well with the electorate (“Do these guys know what they are doing?”).
A better strategy would be to work on Ignatieff’s emotional messaging before giving up the ship. He’s not tugging at our hearts enough. That stern look and holding the government accountable for a report card don’t appeal to issues that are at the heart of our evolution like survival, the care of our children and extended families and the well-being of our local communities.
Too much reason from Michael Ignatieff, not enough emotion. He’s little different from Stephen Harper who, in fact, is warming up his image and delivery and distancing himself further from the opposition. We now have a strong image of Harper “letting his hair down” playing a Beatles song on the piano with some decent singing. The Liberals have been outmaneuvered by the Conservatives on reaching the right part of our brains first---that which appeals to our emotions.
From an evolutionary perspective, we reason with our emotions first then make choices based on facts, and figures. “Emotions provide a compass that leads us toward or away from things” as psychologist Drew Westen explains in The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.
“Feelings” according to Westen are millions of years older than “reason” or conscious thought processes. They are hard-wired into human brains across all cultures. The evolution of our species has predisposed us to being moved by leaders with whom we feel “an emotional resonance”.
There is a caveat. We can easily become turned off by “bad” governance---again an emotional action supported by evidence (or quasi-evidence). The morality of not having the electorate’s best interests in mind eventually costs a political leader. So too in any organization.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Attack Ads are a Coward's Way to "Lead"
Attack ads work, so say marketing researchers. Like the movie “Doubt”, they inject a little unease about the person being attacked into the minds of some or many. We are assumed to be like Pavlov’s dog open to having our minds programmed. Is this OK with us? Do we accept this as par for the course to advance our society?
Evolutionary psychologists might know why. Could it be that attack ads, of which many poke cruel fun at the person not the issues, appeal automatically to our more primal instincts associated with rage, terror and self-preservation?
This is one way to lead. Create fear and doubt. But, to what end? Where’s the beef, as the saying goes?
Since the top universal valued leadership skill is to be inspiring, leaders who use negativity as a key strategy to govern are severely limiting their effectiveness. When we have huge issues requiring smart political attention, attack ads seem frivolous and a waste of money.
It takes courage for any leader to table an ambitious agenda and then steer it through the muddy waters. A wise and comfortable within self leader understands and encourages rigorous debate because it is part of finding good solutions. Understandably, tossing around ideas is messy and oftentimes lengthy. But, it sure beats perpetuating street fighting for no other reason than to create havoc in our minds without a higher purpose.
Evolutionary psychologists might know why. Could it be that attack ads, of which many poke cruel fun at the person not the issues, appeal automatically to our more primal instincts associated with rage, terror and self-preservation?
This is one way to lead. Create fear and doubt. But, to what end? Where’s the beef, as the saying goes?
Since the top universal valued leadership skill is to be inspiring, leaders who use negativity as a key strategy to govern are severely limiting their effectiveness. When we have huge issues requiring smart political attention, attack ads seem frivolous and a waste of money.
It takes courage for any leader to table an ambitious agenda and then steer it through the muddy waters. A wise and comfortable within self leader understands and encourages rigorous debate because it is part of finding good solutions. Understandably, tossing around ideas is messy and oftentimes lengthy. But, it sure beats perpetuating street fighting for no other reason than to create havoc in our minds without a higher purpose.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Antidotes to Uncertainty: Adapt and Innovate
Financial history is a roller-coaster ride of ups and downs, bubbles and bursts, manias and panics, shocks and crashes.
---Niall Ferguson, The Ascent of Money
We are learning from our current worldwide financial crisis that the assessment of risk and uncertainty are two different concepts, two different thinking modes. Risk relates more to what we already know projected onto a number of future scenarios. As Niall Ferguson explains, risk is measureable uncertainty. That leaves real uncertainty as unmeasureable and thus as unknowable. Ferguson quotes John Maynard Keynes from his 1937 book General Theory: “There is no scientific basis upon which to form any calculable probability whatever. We simply do not know.” If only more of us were Ph.D. trained mathematicians!
Because surprises do happen despite our best efforts, leaders are in a bind. If the “long view” generated through strategic and scenario planning is limited (yet still relevant for mitigating risk), what can a leader do to off set disaster (uncertainty)? Darwin long ago gave us hints—adapt to our environment or perish. “The wild rewards the capable, adaptable and instinctive” explains Gino Ferri, professor at Laurentian University author of The Psychology of Wilderness Survival.
Anyone who has taken survival training knows that adapting is no easy matter. It’s down right scary. Leaders need some help!
Given the difficulty of figuring our how to adapt, one predominant message for leaders is to surround ourselves with great people who are diverse in expertise and who do not necessarily share our point-of-view. If “a team of rivals” worked well for Abraham Lincoln, as historian Doris Kearns Goodwin contends, then it should work now. This means reaching out to one’s broader network and replicating the “team of rivals” at other key nodes.
A second important message is to set up an environment for innovation. But, people can’t innovate well in an environment of fear. With daily job losses everywhere in the world, it’s hard not to feel anxious. The “team of rivals” approach fits well with setting the stage for novelty in thinking according to creativity researchers. The depth and breadth of knowledge elements available with minds from different disciplines and experiences increase the opportunity for unusual possibilities from which to choose---for real innovations. They suggest, in addition, that leaders consciously develop a positive emotional environment of surviving and thriving despite uncertainty to foster the creative spirit.
According to Teresa Amabile and others, there are spin-off bonuses to an emotionally positive work environment. The effect lasts for days. If the leader works at stoking the fires of hope and possibility, the positive feelings can last indefinitely, as well-documented in current brain research. These are greatly assisted by the joy individuals feel when generating ideas. It seems our brains and our beings thrive in such environments.
There is ample evidence from the history of long-lived organizations that adapting and innovating are central to survival. This is encouraging for all leaders grappling with the chaos we are facing.
Arie de Geus’s template for survival in a turbulent business environment provides further guidance. In his study of long-lived organizations (The Living Company), some more than 400 years old, he found four “habits”:
1. Sensitivity to the environment (learning and adapting)
2. Cohesion and identity (building a community with a cause)
3. Tolerance (ability to build constructive relationships with other entities within and outside itself)
4. Conservative financing (ability to govern its own growth and evolution effectively)
If, as Ferguson observes from his study of the history of money, that booms and busts are products, at root, of our emotional volatility, then, the lessons from surviving the “wild” can temper such ups and downs in our favour. This takes leadership of the right kind. Not greed. Not self interest. Not every “man” for himself. Instead, it heralds leadership which trumpets teamwork, respect for each other, including divergent views, and the certainty that together we can adapt, innovate, survive and prosper.
---Niall Ferguson, The Ascent of Money
We are learning from our current worldwide financial crisis that the assessment of risk and uncertainty are two different concepts, two different thinking modes. Risk relates more to what we already know projected onto a number of future scenarios. As Niall Ferguson explains, risk is measureable uncertainty. That leaves real uncertainty as unmeasureable and thus as unknowable. Ferguson quotes John Maynard Keynes from his 1937 book General Theory: “There is no scientific basis upon which to form any calculable probability whatever. We simply do not know.” If only more of us were Ph.D. trained mathematicians!
Because surprises do happen despite our best efforts, leaders are in a bind. If the “long view” generated through strategic and scenario planning is limited (yet still relevant for mitigating risk), what can a leader do to off set disaster (uncertainty)? Darwin long ago gave us hints—adapt to our environment or perish. “The wild rewards the capable, adaptable and instinctive” explains Gino Ferri, professor at Laurentian University author of The Psychology of Wilderness Survival.
Anyone who has taken survival training knows that adapting is no easy matter. It’s down right scary. Leaders need some help!
Given the difficulty of figuring our how to adapt, one predominant message for leaders is to surround ourselves with great people who are diverse in expertise and who do not necessarily share our point-of-view. If “a team of rivals” worked well for Abraham Lincoln, as historian Doris Kearns Goodwin contends, then it should work now. This means reaching out to one’s broader network and replicating the “team of rivals” at other key nodes.
A second important message is to set up an environment for innovation. But, people can’t innovate well in an environment of fear. With daily job losses everywhere in the world, it’s hard not to feel anxious. The “team of rivals” approach fits well with setting the stage for novelty in thinking according to creativity researchers. The depth and breadth of knowledge elements available with minds from different disciplines and experiences increase the opportunity for unusual possibilities from which to choose---for real innovations. They suggest, in addition, that leaders consciously develop a positive emotional environment of surviving and thriving despite uncertainty to foster the creative spirit.
According to Teresa Amabile and others, there are spin-off bonuses to an emotionally positive work environment. The effect lasts for days. If the leader works at stoking the fires of hope and possibility, the positive feelings can last indefinitely, as well-documented in current brain research. These are greatly assisted by the joy individuals feel when generating ideas. It seems our brains and our beings thrive in such environments.
There is ample evidence from the history of long-lived organizations that adapting and innovating are central to survival. This is encouraging for all leaders grappling with the chaos we are facing.
Arie de Geus’s template for survival in a turbulent business environment provides further guidance. In his study of long-lived organizations (The Living Company), some more than 400 years old, he found four “habits”:
1. Sensitivity to the environment (learning and adapting)
2. Cohesion and identity (building a community with a cause)
3. Tolerance (ability to build constructive relationships with other entities within and outside itself)
4. Conservative financing (ability to govern its own growth and evolution effectively)
If, as Ferguson observes from his study of the history of money, that booms and busts are products, at root, of our emotional volatility, then, the lessons from surviving the “wild” can temper such ups and downs in our favour. This takes leadership of the right kind. Not greed. Not self interest. Not every “man” for himself. Instead, it heralds leadership which trumpets teamwork, respect for each other, including divergent views, and the certainty that together we can adapt, innovate, survive and prosper.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Barack Obama's Spirit Has Taken Hold of Me
The world’s in a big dance. Everyone is a belle at the ball of an unprecedented historical event. For those that get suspicious when walking into a room of smiling people, this must be unnerving. Yet, the warmth and goodwill swirling around our feet and heads seems infectious. Is it possible that the more generous feelings towards each other catalyzed by the arrival of Obama at our doorstep are manifesting themselves in all manner of acts of kindness?
As a sample of one, I have found myself taking unusual steps towards helping others. The acts of kindness have come out of the blue as if they landed on me from afar and I just had to pass them on. These actions are in addition to my normal pattern of “being there” for others. I suspect that millions upon millions of others are also finding themselves leaning more towards others than is typical.
We appear to be witnessing the favorable impact of an inspiring leader. This is encouraging. Although we face extremely difficult times, just maybe our collective willpower will enable us to get ahead of the curve.
Historian Niall Ferguson who has been on a round of interviews about his new book The Ascent of Money paints different scenarios for the future, some quite grim. But he does believe that innovation and collaboration globally can get us through.
These we know are powered by our imaginations and feelings of goodwill. Barack Obama has given us a nudge. Provided he keeps up his end of the bargain, and we have no reason not to believe he means what he says, we may find that the flywheel of change and transformation gains traction and speed quickly.
As a sample of one, I have found myself taking unusual steps towards helping others. The acts of kindness have come out of the blue as if they landed on me from afar and I just had to pass them on. These actions are in addition to my normal pattern of “being there” for others. I suspect that millions upon millions of others are also finding themselves leaning more towards others than is typical.
We appear to be witnessing the favorable impact of an inspiring leader. This is encouraging. Although we face extremely difficult times, just maybe our collective willpower will enable us to get ahead of the curve.
Historian Niall Ferguson who has been on a round of interviews about his new book The Ascent of Money paints different scenarios for the future, some quite grim. But he does believe that innovation and collaboration globally can get us through.
These we know are powered by our imaginations and feelings of goodwill. Barack Obama has given us a nudge. Provided he keeps up his end of the bargain, and we have no reason not to believe he means what he says, we may find that the flywheel of change and transformation gains traction and speed quickly.
Monday, January 05, 2009
"I'm here to listen and learn" is an Obama refrain: Is he for real?
When I happened upon a CBC documentary on Barack Obama’s visit to Africa in August 2006, I couldn’t help think---is he for real? Over and over again he said to the ordinary folks, “I am here to listen and learn.” Frankly, I couldn’t believe my ears. The words almost sounded strange because they have not been commonly used by George W. Bush. “I’m the decider” has been more his style and phraseology.
After too many years of that kind of rigid leadership, I view Barack Obama through slightly jaded eyes. It is not that I don’t want to believe in what he is saying and how well he has put together a transition team. It’s just going to take some getting used to. The natural tendency is to not let one’s expectations rise too high in case they are dashed!
But, to use the well-worn phrase, I am “cautiously optimistic”. Scientists likely identify with my feelings. When President-elect Obama announced Steven Chu, a Nobel-prize winning physicist as his Energy Secretary, according to various media reports, most let out a collective sigh of relief.
Obama’s words on the role of science in his administration no doubt came as a happy shock. “My administration will value science.” “We will make decisions based on facts and we understand that the facts demand bold action.” Yikes! Can he really mean this? After years of ideology trumping science and non-scientists over-ruling scientists, is Obama really going to stay the course of not omitting inconvenient facts if they don’t suit his position?
A look back into Obama’s history yields some hope, literally. His book Dreams from My Father is chock full of clues. Barack Obama’s mother set the stage for his values. Obama describes his mother as “a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for the New Deal, Peace Corps, (and) position-paper liberalism.” His father’s birthplace in Kenya provided concrete evidence of the struggles of ordinary folks. He also witnessed the poverty, the corruption and the constant battle for security in Indonesia where he lived for a while with his mother and her second husband. Empathy for the little people appears to have been “bred in his bones”.
Obama tells story after story of observing the challenges of people in his travels and most significantly through his efforts at becoming an effective community organizer. This is a guy who went around interviewing people in a down and out area of Chicago to find out what they wanted to change to make their lives better. Various mentors took Barack Obama under their wings and slowly but surely helped him through the extremely frustrating challenge of community development. My head tells me that no one would hang in for as long as Obama did without being truly sincere in his quest to help, to listen and learn.
In his words, he describes the apathy he encountered in a neighborhood and the insights that arose from such an experience: “As it was, many had already given up the hope that politics could actually improve their lives…” “Yet what concerned me wasn’t just the damage loose talked caused efforts at coalition building, or the emotional pain it caused others. It was the distance between our talk and our action, the effect it was having on us as individuals and as a people.” “The continuing struggle to align word and action” and the role of self-esteem in rising out of despair, “led me into organizing.”
Now, he has been given a chance to align word with action on the world stage. This deeply curious and reflective leader has a huge agenda and also a strong foundation where he has learned what matters at the feet of ordinary/extraordinary people.
I will watch with great anticipation. His lessons of triumph and failure will be a backdrop for learning more about how to succeed as a leader in our current world of chaos and opportunity.
After too many years of that kind of rigid leadership, I view Barack Obama through slightly jaded eyes. It is not that I don’t want to believe in what he is saying and how well he has put together a transition team. It’s just going to take some getting used to. The natural tendency is to not let one’s expectations rise too high in case they are dashed!
But, to use the well-worn phrase, I am “cautiously optimistic”. Scientists likely identify with my feelings. When President-elect Obama announced Steven Chu, a Nobel-prize winning physicist as his Energy Secretary, according to various media reports, most let out a collective sigh of relief.
Obama’s words on the role of science in his administration no doubt came as a happy shock. “My administration will value science.” “We will make decisions based on facts and we understand that the facts demand bold action.” Yikes! Can he really mean this? After years of ideology trumping science and non-scientists over-ruling scientists, is Obama really going to stay the course of not omitting inconvenient facts if they don’t suit his position?
A look back into Obama’s history yields some hope, literally. His book Dreams from My Father is chock full of clues. Barack Obama’s mother set the stage for his values. Obama describes his mother as “a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for the New Deal, Peace Corps, (and) position-paper liberalism.” His father’s birthplace in Kenya provided concrete evidence of the struggles of ordinary folks. He also witnessed the poverty, the corruption and the constant battle for security in Indonesia where he lived for a while with his mother and her second husband. Empathy for the little people appears to have been “bred in his bones”.
Obama tells story after story of observing the challenges of people in his travels and most significantly through his efforts at becoming an effective community organizer. This is a guy who went around interviewing people in a down and out area of Chicago to find out what they wanted to change to make their lives better. Various mentors took Barack Obama under their wings and slowly but surely helped him through the extremely frustrating challenge of community development. My head tells me that no one would hang in for as long as Obama did without being truly sincere in his quest to help, to listen and learn.
In his words, he describes the apathy he encountered in a neighborhood and the insights that arose from such an experience: “As it was, many had already given up the hope that politics could actually improve their lives…” “Yet what concerned me wasn’t just the damage loose talked caused efforts at coalition building, or the emotional pain it caused others. It was the distance between our talk and our action, the effect it was having on us as individuals and as a people.” “The continuing struggle to align word and action” and the role of self-esteem in rising out of despair, “led me into organizing.”
Now, he has been given a chance to align word with action on the world stage. This deeply curious and reflective leader has a huge agenda and also a strong foundation where he has learned what matters at the feet of ordinary/extraordinary people.
I will watch with great anticipation. His lessons of triumph and failure will be a backdrop for learning more about how to succeed as a leader in our current world of chaos and opportunity.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Dion lost on emotions not substance
Our fascination with Barack Obama and Sarah Palin underscores the power of emotions in a leader’s “ratings”. That ability to connect is gate number one. Substance comes later as we ponder who will step up to the leadership challenge. Stephane Dion never had a chance as he could not open his emotional gate enough.
A story by Peter Newman in the October 22, 2008 Globe and Mail brought the mystery of Dion’s disappointing results at the polls into perspective. He recounts meeting up with Dion during the election campaign and proposing how he could win nearly every vote in the country: “Instead of Stephane, call your self Celine.” “You will win by a landslide.”
Although meant clearly as “tongue in cheek”, Dion did not react by making a witty comment or gesture. He simply looked puzzled.
Maybe he thinks too much which causes hesitation rather than spontaneity. In this instance, it is quite possible he truly did not understand because of the nuance of the joke in English. This is a problem when people want to connect first and foremost and that comes from the heart.
Based on his research on leadership, Daniel Goleman considers the emotional task of the leader as primal. “It is both the original and the most important part of leadership.” “Tribal chieftains or shamanesses earned their place in large part because their leadership was emotionally compelling.” The great French philosopher Diderot would concur as he exclaimed that “only passions, great passions can elevate the soul to great things.” Stephane Dion’s passion (which he has) could not be expressed in the right notes to be felt and heard.
This primordial emotional role cuts across cultures. The Globe Project on leadership (http://www.grovewell.com/) found three primary leadership dimensions that are universally regarded as positives in leadership:
First is “charismatic/inspirational”. The most strongly endorsed contributor to good leadership worldwide, it is linked to being positive, dynamic, encouraging, motivating and someone who is a confidence-builder.
Next is “team integrator”. It means being communicative, informed and a good coordinator.
The third top universal leadership dimension viewed around the world as desirable is “integrity”. It relates to leaders being trustworthy, just and honest.
Judging from the media accounts of Dion and certainly from the comments to the editor pages, Dion scored well on “integrity” only. He was often quoted by critics as being a “lone wolf”, ignoring or rejecting the opinions of his advisors and caucus (for example, to play down the “green shift” and to counter Stephen Harper’s negative advertisements with some of the same). Reason seems to have won the day with Mr. Dion at his peril.
At the end of the day, reason and solid evidence must prevail for effective leadership. But our humanness demands connection first through “the audacity of hope” as Barack Obama so eloquently describes in his book of the same name and through assurances and clarity when we face threats and uncertainties. That’s why Stephen Harper still has his minority and Barack Obama is poised to become the next President of the United States by a landslide.
A story by Peter Newman in the October 22, 2008 Globe and Mail brought the mystery of Dion’s disappointing results at the polls into perspective. He recounts meeting up with Dion during the election campaign and proposing how he could win nearly every vote in the country: “Instead of Stephane, call your self Celine.” “You will win by a landslide.”
Although meant clearly as “tongue in cheek”, Dion did not react by making a witty comment or gesture. He simply looked puzzled.
Maybe he thinks too much which causes hesitation rather than spontaneity. In this instance, it is quite possible he truly did not understand because of the nuance of the joke in English. This is a problem when people want to connect first and foremost and that comes from the heart.
Based on his research on leadership, Daniel Goleman considers the emotional task of the leader as primal. “It is both the original and the most important part of leadership.” “Tribal chieftains or shamanesses earned their place in large part because their leadership was emotionally compelling.” The great French philosopher Diderot would concur as he exclaimed that “only passions, great passions can elevate the soul to great things.” Stephane Dion’s passion (which he has) could not be expressed in the right notes to be felt and heard.
This primordial emotional role cuts across cultures. The Globe Project on leadership (http://www.grovewell.com/) found three primary leadership dimensions that are universally regarded as positives in leadership:
First is “charismatic/inspirational”. The most strongly endorsed contributor to good leadership worldwide, it is linked to being positive, dynamic, encouraging, motivating and someone who is a confidence-builder.
Next is “team integrator”. It means being communicative, informed and a good coordinator.
The third top universal leadership dimension viewed around the world as desirable is “integrity”. It relates to leaders being trustworthy, just and honest.
Judging from the media accounts of Dion and certainly from the comments to the editor pages, Dion scored well on “integrity” only. He was often quoted by critics as being a “lone wolf”, ignoring or rejecting the opinions of his advisors and caucus (for example, to play down the “green shift” and to counter Stephen Harper’s negative advertisements with some of the same). Reason seems to have won the day with Mr. Dion at his peril.
At the end of the day, reason and solid evidence must prevail for effective leadership. But our humanness demands connection first through “the audacity of hope” as Barack Obama so eloquently describes in his book of the same name and through assurances and clarity when we face threats and uncertainties. That’s why Stephen Harper still has his minority and Barack Obama is poised to become the next President of the United States by a landslide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
