January 21, 2008 at 2:58 am (attitude, perspective, servant leadership)
If it really is true that everyone can be a leader, then the next logical question is “where should I lead?” This question deals with leadership context.
Though all are leaders, not all are equally gifted for every situation. Sometimes in our pursuit of status we may pursue leadership opportunities that don’t match our gifts. We can easily become a fish out of water, with the natural result that we gasp desperately for air.
Let me propose a simple test. If a good leader never asks people to do more than he is willing to do, then ask, “What am I willing to do?” In the pursuit of excellence, in what area are you willing to push yourself the most? If you discover that you are willing to make the biggest sacrifices for your current context, then congratulations! You seem to have found your leadership-calling (at least for the present).
IDEA LEADER: In what areas of industry or personal life am I willing to make the most sacrifices for the sake of excellence? Does this match what I am currently doing?
Leave a Comment
January 11, 2008 at 10:16 pm (communication, perspective, servant leadership)
Though my New Year’s resolutions aren’t yet official (other than to stop procrastinating, which I’ll start working on tomorrow), I have completed my New Year’s Evaluation.
Every semester I ask my students to evaluate my teaching, and this year I used a particularly simple evaluation: stop, start, continue. Students wrote out what they thought I should stop doing, what I should start doing, and what I should continue doing. Knowing what to continue is particularly helpful.
Stop, start, continue provides 360-degree feedback because I also completed a self-evaluation before asking my students to evaluate me. Interestingly, some of the things I felt that I needed to stop or start were not mentioned by my students, so those things may not be issues after all.
If you have not made resolutions this year, why not try a stop, start, continue evaluation? If you are bold enough, have those you lead do the same as an evaluation of your leadership.
IDEA LEADER: It seems to be human nature to focus on what we should stop or start, but what do you need to continue doing as an effective servant-leader?
Leave a Comment
December 22, 2007 at 2:36 pm (attitude, perspective, productivity)
Daniel Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence asserts that IQ alone is not a predictor of success. While CEO’s may be hired for their combination of business sense and IQ, they get fired because of failures in their emotional intelligence.
His claim makes sense. Anecdotally, as a teacher I find that my personal stresses are not related to the intellectual content of my courses, but rather the relational demands of classroom management, parent interactions, etc. (I’d also like to point out that I am very fortunate to work at a school with mutually supportive staff and appreciative parents, so those stresses are much less than what other teaching peers experience). And as far as a correlation between IQ and marital success, well I won’t even go there.
So what is emotional intelligence? So far, Goleman’s definition includes “being able . . . to rein in emotional impulse; to read another’s innermost feelings; to handle relationships smoothly – as Aristotle put it, the rare skill ‘to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way’” (xxiii).
Goleman’s use of Aristotle reminds me of C. S. Lewis’s definition of temperance: “going the right length and no further” (Mere Christianity, 2001, p. 78). So emotions per se are not the problem (Goleman also discusses beneficial physiological responses to emotions), but rather emotions that are allowed to exceed proper limits.
IDEA LEADER: In what areas do you have a hard time allowing your emotions to go “the right distance and no further”? What steps could you take to correct this?
Photo: Julia Freeman-Woolpert
2 Comments
December 13, 2007 at 1:53 am (attitude, communication, perspective, servant leadership)
I’m still reflecting on Chris Lowney this week, who points out the the chasm of opinion that separates Machiavelli (famous for his book The Prince) and Loyola (founder of the Jesuits). The question: “Is it better to be feared or loved?” Machiavelli believes that people are not to be trusted, so it is better to be feared. At the other end of the spectrum, Loyola wants to create a society based on “greater love than fear.” So who is right?
Admittedly this is a false dichotomy. Both are right to a point. Yes, people are fickle. Yes, they will sometimes dissapoint you. However, my recent readings (outside of Lowney) suggest that organizations that utilize positive relationship skills are successful because (among other reasons) positive relationships do have power. Anecdotally, I’ve used both forms of management. Relying on fear was a depressing experience for me, and it certainly wasn’t much fun for those I managed.
School teachers across the nation are currently struggling with what some diagnose as an epidemic of cheating. So how should we respond? Do we punish those who are caught cheating? Certainly. But consequences alone do not change culture (as pointed out by Yukl’s discussion of coercive power in Leadership in Organizations). I suggest we not only have consequences for those guilty of cheating, but that those consequences include a restitutional element that is designed to repair the damaged relationships cheating can cause (if nothing else, a level of trust is broken). Additionally, I suggest we celebrate those students who choose not to cheat, and that we do all of this in the hopes of creating learning institutions that value love more than fear.
IDEA LEADER: Which does your leadership style utilize more – love or fear?
Leave a Comment
December 9, 2007 at 2:45 am (attitude, perspective)
I don’t celebrate enough. That’s one thing I’ve realized while reading The Leadership Challenge by Kouses and Posner. And though their advice to celebrate is not unique, it is worth heeding.
I tend to expect people to do what they are supposed to do without any notice. Though this makes sense logically, it does not work well emotionally. Let’s face it: we live in a fallen world (and yes, I am writing from a Christian worldview at this point). One implication of that fallenness is that it is really hard to do the right thing over and over, day in and day out. So why not celebrate when people consistently do good?
Today my daughter went nearly the entire day without whining. That is a major accomplishment because (1) she was not feeling well and (2) she tends to whine a lot. When I realized her accomplishment this evening, I had two choices: (1) think to myself, “Finally! It’s about time our emotions get some control,” or (2) celebrate. I chose option 2 and gave her a nickel (when you’re 6, a nickel is pretty cool).
IDEA LEADER: Do you celebrate minor successes or become disappointed by minor failures?
2 Comments
November 25, 2007 at 3:19 am (attitude, perspective)
When you face conflict, do you view it as an opportunity or a problem? Though that question may sound like a gross oversimplification, it contains a kernel of leadership truth. Leaders are solution-focused rather than problem-focused.
Please don’t misunderstand. Leaders are not oblivious to problems. Jim Collins’s both praised and maligned Good to Great explains that on the path to greatness, organizations must “confront the brutal facts.” Yes, there really are some issues that finite human beings cannot solve directly, but there may be some creative ways around these problems, or even ways to utilize these problems for other successes.
This leadership truth is an empowering truth. Being problem-focused is draining, while being solution-focused is energizing. Yes, leaders have problems like everybody else, but how they view those problems is very different.
IDEA LEADER: Are you problem-focused or solution-focused?
Leave a Comment
November 2, 2007 at 1:14 am (80-20 Rule, perspective)
Sometimes the “little things” really are important. That is one of the implications of the Pareto Principle, otherwise known as the 80-20 rule. In 1906, Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto noted that 20% of the population owned 80% of the wealth and created a mathematical formula to describe the phenomenon. Other observers made similar findings, including Dr. Joseph Juran, who observed the law of the “vital few and the trivial many.”
Now I must confess that math is not my strong point, but the 80-20 rule does seem consistent with human experience. In my own life, there are a few daily disciplines that, when ignored, have tremendous impact.
To think this means that you can achieve 80% of your results with only 20% of the effort would be to misread Pareto’s Law. Instead, consider it as a reminder that there are an important 20% of your activities that are worth 80% of your effort.
The real trick, of course, is figuring out that 20%.
IDEA LEADER: Identify the “little things” in your life that have a big impact. Take action by not ignoring them.
1 Comment
