Category Archives: politicians
“The fundamental rule for any team is to place the interests of the team above the interests of any of the individual team members.” (“Absolute Leadership” by Joseph Tigani, page 147.)
He goes on to say, “An Absolute Team comprises of individuals who are guided and united to willingly act to achieve collectively shared and valued outcomes.”
There is a story that suggests that one of Australia‘s greats in Rugby league saw himself above fitting in with the Team process and was let go, much to the disgust of the followers, yet the team performed far better when all agreed to conform to the team requirements.
As I watch the processes of Federal politics, I can’t help question what true Leadership is all about and how a real team performs in the present scenario.
The role of the opposition in a game of putting the main team off their game.
We will in the actual game, usually quite near the beginning, both teams rough each other up to attempt to force them to lose focus from the game in hand.
The art form of the team is to work together to prevent the loss of focus. To continue to keep fully focused on the task at hand:- to win the game.
It was quoted by a politician that: “Divided we fall” . If only the individuals within the team could defocus from their own personal agendas and unite behind the teams singular objective.
Unfortunately, I am not in the position of being able to coach any of the politicians in Federal politics. It would be a great challenge to have that opportunity, the only issue is whether any of them would listen.
Coaching can only occur when the person who is in need of the coaching is open to being coached. How willing are you to be open to changing the way you do things.
How well does your team actually work together? Are you truly focused on the teams agenda or on your own?
In politics it seems like a dog eat dog world. The team seems to only have validity when it serves the individuals needs, rather than the other way when the individual serves the teams needs.
Maybe we are not able to instantly change our political system, even though it is worth attempting to do so. Similarly it may have value to convince the team not to succumb to the media’s attempt to disrupt the team. Or even to flag to the media that we question their agenda.
However, the most important lesson to me is that we focus on the teams that we are part of in our daily life and work. Ensuring that our major focus is on bringing about the agenda of the team, rather than our own personal agenda.
If your team is not working as it ought, contact me, there are a variety of things that can be done to get the team running as it ought.
If you have the chance to influence the political team similarly, go for it.
Thanks for listening. Catch you soon.
Peter Drucker, in his book “The Leader of the Future”, sums up leadership as “the only definition of a leader is someone who has followers.”
Warren Bennis’ definition of leadership focusses much more on the individual capability of the leader: “Leadership is a function of knowing yourself, having a vision that is well communicated, building trust among colleagues, and taking effective action to realise your own leadership potential.”
Joe Tigani in “Absolute Leadership“, says, “The starting point is to be able to lead yourself. Once you gain clarity about what really matters to you and the direction you would like to take, then that serves as the basis to develop the necessary skills to inspire other people to willingly follow you as a leaders”.
Leadership is getting people to do things they have never thought of doing, do not believe are possible or that they do not want to do. This suggests that the leader needs to have pushed them-self to do things they initially did not believe were possible.
Effective leadership means influencing people to get things done to a standard and quality above their norm – and doing it willingly. However, there needs to be in the leader the awareness of what it takes to stretch beyond the norm, they need to have gone there.
In an organisation, leadership is the action of committing employees to contribute their best to the purpose of the company. This requires the leader to have committed their best to that same purpose.
Real, genuine leadership is always prefaced by the leader knowing what is required by through their own personal journey. There is a need to have walked the talk.
Leadership is a way of focusing and motivating a group to enable them to achieve their aims. Leadership is imperative for moulding a group of people into a team. Great leaders know how to make people function in a collaborative fashion, and how to motivate them to perform at their peak. Leaders also know how to balance the individual team member’s needs and goals with that of the team.
Unless the territory is known. Unless the map has been sighted. Unless the leader already has an awareness of the obstacles ahead then their ability as a leader is lacking.
The true leader knows the generic hurdles that will be encountered and that their followers will be able to deal with those hurdles. Not necessarily easily, but they will be surmountable.
And Combining all these definition, we can see leadership is a complex activity involving:
ü A process of influence;
ü People who are both leaders and followers;
ü Integrity, trust, commitment and communication; and
ü A range of possible outcomes – the achievement of goals, but also the commitment of individuals to such goals, the enhancement of group cohesion and the reinforcement of change.
Finally, great leaders move people – they work through emotions. They find effective ways to understand and improve the way they handle their own and their followers’ emotions.
As a leader, you should act as your group’s emotional guide. When you drive emotions positively you bring out everyone’s best. You ignite people’s passion, inspire the best in them, and create resonance.
Being a leader is complicated. Being a leader is also simple.
The answer: be yourself. Trust in others. seek input. Listen. Be open to all possibilities. Challenge people lovingly. Never expect anyone to do something that you would not do yourself.
You will never know what a person can do till you give them the chance to have a go. It is only in the doing, allowing for the fact that failure may occur, that real leadership emerges.
All the genuine followers are in fact leaders, learning as the process enfolds. If they are not then they are puppets and you are pulling their strings. That is not leadership, it is manipulation.
There is a major difference, even though many religions and politicians do not understand this.
Leadership empowers people to choose their direction, their decisions, their destiny.
During last week I watch the DVD of “Robin Hood”.
I had put off getting this DVD because I ad heard doubtful comments about it.
They were wrong.
It was a powerful movie with a great deal of memorable occasions in it.
Even more though it characterized a variety of Leadership styles.
I have chosen the trait of integrity as this was a common theme.
According to the first definition I found on Google, Integrity is “The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.”
Wikipedia says this is hard to define because moral principles are subjective.
However there are some generalisations of the definition. In western society there is a broad understanding of what moral principles and moral uprightness requires.
In Robin Hood, Robin himself, answers King Richard, the Lion heart, honestly when asked, the King reneges on his promise, Honesty and keeping one’s word are truly a part of integrity. In this incided, Richard did not show integrity.
King John, Richard’s brother who inherited the throne is even more lacking in integrity.
The character of Robin Hood is painted as showing great integrity.
1. Going out of his way to keep the promises that he has chosen to make.
2. Being a person who sees the injustice, greed and inconsistency of many of the players who come from the side of politics, religion and royalty.
3. Being a person who is compassionate and understands what it is like to suffer.
4. Being someone who does not use his power primarily for his own purposes, but for the good of all. He did use subterfuge to get back to England, however, he attached it to a promise that he made to get the crown home. Profit is acceptable as long as no one is disenfranchised.
5. He does not take advantage of Marion, even though he has been virtually given permission to.
It seems that it could be said that the whole story has been written to contrast the integrity of the political and Royalty of the 11th Century BCE with Robin Hood’s integrity.
I believe the picture has done this well. Like Braveheart from a Scottish perspective. These movies portray aspects of history that could have been completely different if the powers that be had shown a much greater level of integrity in the way they dispensed the Law and Justice.
To me I believe that Integrity come high up on the list of traits, very close to actually be number one.
What are your thoughts? Let me know.
The other week I posted a question on Facebook asking what people believed were the traits of a good leader.
I received six responses which was great.
They were: humility, passion, unwavering vision, integrity, ability to lead and inclusiveness.
Each of these has very good value.
The first one mentioned is humility.
One of the biggest challenges for people working in an organization is to have a manager, an overseer, a leader who is so caught up with looking good, impressing their next level of management, needing to affirm that they know it all.
Especially when they know for certain that the decisions the person is making are totally focused in the wrong direction.
It is a bit like watching the majority of politicians of all persuasions and from most countries, so caught up in looking good, sounding definitive, appearing in control, creating assurance, yet as the observer, it being so easy to see through the bluff, through the BS, the waffle, the half truths spoken in hope, the “fingers crossed” proclamations that rely on no-one calling them to task. Their inability to admit to making a mistake.
A bit like proclaiming that black is white and then when someone categorically points out that black is black and white is white, stating that they never really meant that black was white and how they had been misrepresented.
Elusive in their dealings with the truth!
I would place this trait of humility high on the agenda. When someone is humble, there is an honesty about them. There is no BS. What you see is what you get.
If there is a stuff up, then the humble leader will acknowledge what has gone wrong. If there is misunderstanding then the humble leader will be totally open to re-expressing the concern so all understand.
Humility stands high on the requirement list for a leader. As a leader where do you stand on that specific trait? Can you in all honesty admit to being humble?