Craigread Leadership-winavi video converter

Craigread Leadership-winavi video converter

July 24, 2018
/ / /
Comments Closed

What Constitutes Great Leadership ? Within the story of the last century we see the rise not only of the great Liberal Darwin Freud conflict over the question of human nature and human freedom, but we see towering above the masses the crags and peaks of peculiar individuals, our human ancestors and .rades, called leaders, that seemed to stand out against the background, as the catalysts of change. What then constitutes the cellular and molecular makeup of these rare characters ? Harry Truman, erstwhile President during the later and following stages of the Second World War, stated a definition of a Leader that is pithy and simple; A Leader is a man who has the ability to get other people to do what they dont want to do and like it. This was the man who had on his desk during his presidency The buck stops here., broadcasting to his people and underlings that his desk was where the last court of appeal would rest. Interestingly Truman was never thought to be much of a Leader before he acceded on the death of FDR to the highest office in the world. Yet his conviction that a Leader must take the ultimate responsibility within a clearly defined organisation and set of goals have led revisionist historians to rank Truman as one of the most influential presidents this century, with the dropping of the atomic bomb and the .mencement of the Cold War marking this era as one of the most difficult and messy in the history of modern International Relations. In discussing leadership we can state that there are a number of facets that constitute the great or at least in our current minds the mythologically large and dynamic beacon – that guides the deeds of the generation in question. Even given the human penchant for musing and invoking the ghosts of the past to fit as larger than current life immortals, we are seeing a dearth of great leadership and a definite trend towards localisation and the banalisation of political agendas. With the constraints of institutional frameworks be.ing more severe, and the fragmentation of debate more resonant, it is fair to judge not just the seeming coarseness of politicos themselves, but also to put into context the severe and un.promising legal, constitutional and at times baffling public pressures that rest on current politicians. It is not an innovation to state that the unwieldy interference in the lives of many high ranking officials by the media and the tabloids was not tolerated by the powerful before the 1980s. Yet today the web of legal, constitutional and political pressures on politicians are immense, perhaps far more severe than the worlds of yesteryear when leadership was limited to a well defined and intimate elite that knew the system and knew how to make deals and make decisions. Just ask Bill Clinton what organised witch hunts can do to a mans life. Nevertheless it is too facile to regard the dearth of real innovative leadership by blaming the institutional messes we have fabricated. Something more sinister is at work that being the end or at least the dissipation of the work ethic and the promulgation of the me syndrome; a life dedicated to easy pickings and immoral laxitude where rules and respect of hard work and civility, are replaced by underachievement, bad attitudes and quick fixes. If their governments disappoint people, and low voter turnout would reflect this then they should look at their own conduct and affairs to uncover the root of the malaise. One need to look no further than the real lack of entrepreneurs, the public fixation with sick days and vacation days, and the apathy of the general masses regarding important yet .plicated political issues, to be.e nauseated by what some utopians might term the destructive impulses of mad capitalistic – consumerism. Yet in spite of this it is also not fair to misrepresent the actual leadership skills of past heroes, or to elevate historical societies above our own. Each was singularly flawed. All were human and suffered from the frailty of human conception. But according to leadership experts and psychologists there is a pattern at work within people who are leaders and who can lead or achieve great causes, or who cast the river of life into a different course. Many studies have posited the linkage between two areas; those being character and psychology and namely; the character and actual traits embodied by the leader and his/her psychological makeup in organising their thoughts, actions and deeds. Warren Bennis, perhaps the worlds pre-eminent voice on leadership believes that the key to .petitive advantage (we can extrapolate this to be business or political centric) in the 90s and beyond will be the capacity of top leadership to create the social architecture capable of generating intellectual capital. As Bennis identifies, Leaders are people who do the right things. Managers are people who do things right. There is a profound difference. When you think about doing the right things, your mind immediately goes toward thinking about the future, thinking about dreams, missions, visions, strategic intent, and purpose. But when you think about doing things right, you think about control mechanisms.(1) But the greater point at issue is the seeming dearth of leadership skills in our public officialdom and in society and business at large. Something has gone rotten in the state. As Bennis Fortune article asked the reader, But now, try to name only one larger-than-life Leader, one who could fill the role of FDR, or Ike or De Gaulle, or Churchill. Most of our leaders today are decidedly average, and do not promote or lift us or our hopes on the wings of higher purpose and energy. They miss the leadership skills that Bennis and others are dedicated to teaching. The skills that are according to Bennis are so vital for leadership is: – Judgement and character. – Persuasive ability to get people to accept the idea. – Candour. – Constancy. – Conceptual skills – Strongly defined sense of purpose. – Potent point of view – Limited number but clearly defined objectives. – People skills. Importantly Bennis believes that leaders are not born — but are self made. All the above points are a framework of skills that .bine character traits and psychological dispositions. It is a .plicated and interesting mixture of these two concepts that seems to produce the leaders of human society. First we shall look at the issues of character and use Bennis ideas (below in Italics) to provide a framework and then we will look at Churchill and other leaders of this century. For simplicity I have grouped Bennis ideas and other concepts of leadership into the following categories; 1. Character: Judgement, Candour and I would add; Courage, energy and self-concept. These are the rallying points around which disciples will support their Leader. 2. Skills: .munication Skills, Persuasive ability to get people to accept the idea, People skills, Conceptual skills. These skills are necessary to get others to buy in. But they are not a substitute for character. 3. Intelligence, technical ability, innovation, and economic education. It is impossible to lead without adding value and intelligence. 4. Vision: Constancy, Strongly defined sense of purpose, Potent point of view Limited number but clearly defined objectives, Philosophical and Political values. The winners in history have always carried a potent vision. Without such an addiction courage of purpose can be .promised. 5. Power: Joined with the philosophical and embodies the practical use of power. Power and its realistic but hopefully moral application, is vital in a world filled with opposing and in.patible alternatives. The use of leadership in a changeable world, would involve the above. It is not that realistic to expect our human leaders to exhibit the above in toto. However, it should be expected that the qualities that constitute winning in life, should be taught and developed in our public at large, with some measure of integrity of greater moral purpose. The more we understand how great issues are faced and resolved, and the characters that lie behind these achievements, the better off we will all be, and the more able to develop the future of the human race in a direction where peace and hope prevail over conflict and deceit. 1) Character: In the catalogue of leadership, any book about this topic that sits in the local bookstore will probably begin the tale with .ments about character. But what exactly is a good character ? After all many able, secure and thoughtful men were entranced by such disreputable and venomous characters as Hitler, Mussolini, Amin, Pol Pot and the like, and to a lesser degree by such weak characters as Neville Chamberlain, Czar Romanov, Emperor Hirohito, and others. In science, in art, in technology, in fact in every walk of life we follow those we deem to have sufficient character, and reject those that do not imbue and exhibit these worthwhile characteristics. Why do people ignore such weak characters as William Clinton, whilst at the same time extolling the virtues of sound ethics every Sunday morning ? Given the inexact nature of defining character, we are left with basically assessing a persons character in two ways. First, we react to other humans on basically an emotional level. If you like me I am more apt to like you. With those we like we give a fairly large margin of error. If one of my best friends .mits a crime, I will find many plausible physical and mystical explanations as to how this miscreancy was forced into being, through no fault of my trusted ally. Second, we appraise acquaintances and those in our circle of life who are not friends by matching their actions with their words. This can be very culturally biased or premised upon pretty loose evidence or second hand information. Hence the political sensitivity to making a mistake whether in business, love, politics or sport. Nobody wants a bad or unreliable name. However even given this reticence to trust someone as a good character, we still have in the flow of history many individuals of bad character who have been able to lead, to overwhelm, to control and finally to shape the destiny of our race, convincing good, intelligent people of their validity. Character is a murky animal indeed, difficult to snare. Leaving the dispute aside of what constitutes good and evil, we should focus on identifying what character traits quantify good leadership. Great 20th century personalities are those who have taken either a direct or indirect leadership role in their chosen profession and discipline. People follow this leader in the hope of realising something greater, something that lies outside of physical existence, that can give meaning and song to the crush of earthly reality. Most times when we follow a leader, we are following at least in part some aspects of his/her character that .pel us to believe the message, the cause and the chances of either material or moral success. As well we will follow a strong and good character if we believe as well that the leader will use .mon sense to adjust to new situations hopefully following some simple moral and ethical principles (2). However, morality and ethics are determined largely by the age in which they are written and by the predominant themes that are driving forward the society at that time. Therefore we cannot in our age, project our own morals upon those who operated in another era. To do so would be to .mit the fallacy of moral superiority. If I was for example to write a tract about ancient Sumeria, I might note disapprovingly of their various primitive sexual cults, but I would not have the right as a historian to therefore make the insinuation that by extension the leaders of that era were by default, corrupt or m orally inferior those of a different era, or simply bad characters. I would be forced in this example to measure the effectiveness of Sumerian leaders within the context of their times. However I could certainly suggest that in ancient Sumeria, using basic principles of human rights and good ethics vs. bad ethics, that some rulers had better characters than others, even given the ethos of the era. I would thus suggest that the crux of character is the ability of a person to exercise and demonstrate self discipline and that this trait transcends transitory or era based ethos and differences. This concept is the basic ingredient of self control, and a foundation for self respect. People will respond to other humans who have self-discipline, confidence and a goal oriented nature. Without self-discipline a person cannot be.e a Leader. To achieve this a person must go through the rites of passage. Many great individuals spent time in the wilderness, disconnected from the mainstream of their society and the forces that shaped it. In fact it is interesting to note how many leaders spent time in either self imposed or forcible exile, going through in many cases a metamorphosis of .prehension and of intellect. The majesty of the Bible really the basic construct of Western ethics relates the story of the Hebrew Moses and his imposed exile (for killing an Egyptian), and his discovery after many years in the wilderness of his spiritual self, his own concept of God, and the working out of a plan for his life that would give him some purpose. His people responded, and though few if any of them really understood the basic idea of Moses message (they were quick for instance to break most if not all of the Ten .mandments), they did respond and after a struggle, followed his example and cause. Such stories about character formation and disciple response are .mon. The resolve of the Leaders character can only be formed in the face of failure and hardship. Otherwise the pettiness of the easy life corrupts all. How many rich, pretty boys, and girls, are really characters worth emulating ? This journey be.es for these less fortunate leaders a process of self-determination where the individual .es to grips with the fundamental issues of self confidence, his / her place in the order of the universe, and the decisions, rules and behaviours that he/she will support. Such conceptions will of course be shaped by the era in which the person lives. But ultimately the Leader emerges from the fires of this exiled existence a renewed and .mitted personality, grounded in the sound principles of self-discipline and in the interest of the good guys, some strong ethical purpose. The journey and the character then be.e merged in action. The action of the Leader whilst evincing the nominal goals of the journey must display some moral and intellectual .patibility with the desired traits and skills needed to achieve the success. As the ancient Chinese proclaimed do not attempt to deceive yourself. A Leader cannot pronounce one set of goals and rules, and in another .partment of life, enact other less stringent levels of conduct. In fact inconsistent actions based on an inconsistent character rarely extract loyalty for the long duration, in which most successes are achieved. For the Leader in the longer term struggle employing the right followers will be vital. A Leader must be aware of the character of his followers since he will eventually be.e like them. In discussing the interaction of the Leader and the follower, somewhere in the human subconscious is our image of our immaculate Leader beautiful, proud, disciplined, dynamic and always correct. Reality is more prosaic. In our culture where for the most part individualism and toughness to some degree are eulogised, it is easy for people to fall into the trap of appearing to be in control and correct. However for many this be.es arrogance which has nothing to do with courage or proper leadership. From my simple observations in the world I would categorise arrogance as a lack of confidence, and a lack of refineness in the manners of leadership, more akin to the baser quality of the masses. Arrogance is usually buttressed by the fact that the person in question is rarely willing to demand excellence from him or her self. It is much easier to demand it from others. In order to deal with chaos and fluidity, arrogance and the principles of .plete control or direction are not at all necessary. What is necessary in terms of character traits are what we have discussed above, which if properly translated into action, will produce someone who is open and flexible and adaptable. As a notable military strategist once said, No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy. Only the layman sees in the course of a campaign a consistent execution of a preconceived and highly detailed original concept How true. Even the most well thought out and scientifically calibrated plan will only be valid in a vacuum. Events and people change. Besides stupid arrogance, weak leaders or those with weak or flawed characters have tended to exhibit four dangerous faults that lead to problems or destruction, namely: cowardice which leads to capitulation; a hasty temper which can be provoked by insults; unwarranted fixation on general public opinion which will lead to opportunism; and over-solicitude for followers which can expose a Leader to needless worry and trouble. Many failed leaders did not have the strength of character needed to balance the above, and drive through the storms of trial, to achieve their missions. A strong character will avoid these and bring people together in response to a challenge. A chief characteristic of a good Leader is the ability to get the job done without destroying everyone around him, and utilising in a proper way, the tools that people can offer. A strong character based Leader recognises that systems do not matter but people and that only people make the systems effective and liveable. This is true as organisms businesses or units of people grow, thrive, mature, and die. The rise and fall of organisms, be it nation states or the local teachers union, will be based upon the .petence of their leaders and their leaders recognition about providing responsible character traits to address the changing issues at hand. Yet great character while vital is usually not sufficient for someone to be a leader. There must also be a demonstration of subliminal skills, and value added technique that mark the individual out from the madding crowd, as a person of interest and distinction. 2. Skills: As CS Lewis 60 years ago in The Abolition of Ma 相关的主题文章:

Comments are closed.