Quote:
Originally Posted by Flint
I had a long through process in the shower this morning, let me try to reiterate it here:
What is leadership? I've been studying leadership (business leadership) in depth, especially 'Servant Leadership' and related schools of thought. The main point here is that leadership is not management. Leadership is influence. Leaders don't mico-manage what is happening at the departmental level; rather they influence the culture of the organization, creating an atmosphere where decisions lead in a general direction.
|
I disagree. Leadership involves different things, for different situations, and also varies with the aptitude and expertise, of the leader. Some lead quite effectively, with a "hire good people, sell them on the goals, and let 'em go!" management style. Others, (most), use a combination of management, and personal involvement, style. Steven Jobs was VERY personally involved at Apple, for instance - most would say somewhat obsessively. He made it work very well, nonetheless.
Quote:
This is what is happening with the 'mission and vison statements' widely recognized as a part of corporate culture. These things aren't a joke--when Google tells itself "Don't be evil," this is the guiding principle that allows an entity with so much control over our personal data to continue to expand without being mistrusted and repudiated.
This is what business leaders do, and it is something that I'm not sure is very well understood (I myself didn't understand, until I engaged in extensive studies)--essentially, people ask, "What exactly does that high-paid executive who walks around the building in the expensive suit, what exactly does he do?" Leadership isn't building widgets, or being the boss of widget builders, it is something much more esoteric--getting people to want to do what you think they should do, without having to ask them to perform specific actions. Prescriptive mandates are what middle-management worries about. Leaders have that vague concept called a "vision" which is defined by their moral compass and informs the culture of the organization.
|
Quite right - you nailed it. Good discussion, glad you posted it.
We know that unless you're aggressive, your voice will generally be given less attention, in some venues. You don't want your candidate to be too passive in a debate, for example. While positive political ads are generally best, negative ads, can be effective, especially near the end of a campaign. Try and leave an undecided voter with a bad impression of the opponent, just before they go to the polls.
We've been lazy with our election laws, our tax loopholes, and the influence we allow all manner of special interest groups. It brings in a lot of $$$ into the political process, that gov't then doesn't have to provide to the candidates, but it forces the candidates to "court" their $$$ contributors, when they reach office.
As Representative Charlie Wilson's character said in the movie "Charlie Wilson's War":
"I'm Israel's guy on the hill"
"Charlie, how many Jews do you have in your Texas district anyway?"
"Six, I believe. But you don't win elections with just voters, you win elections with campaign donors, and mine are the Jews in New York City."
And that, (almost word for word), is exactly why our political process is far from what it should be. It's $money$, buying influence, making sure that the gov't, in choosing it's winners and losers in business, chooses THEM/THEIR cause, as one of the winners.