How Deep Does The Lotus Blossom's Color Run Through Your Curiosity?

How deep does the lotus blossom's color run through your curiosity?

Dalai Lama

We need to understand the inadequacy of an educational system so slanted towards material values. The solution is not to give an occasional lecture, but to integrate ethics into the educational curriculum. To do this effectively requires a secular ethics, free of religious influence, based on common sense, a realistic view and scientific findings.

-----

I don't believe that this post is from the Dalai Lama. What stands out is that the Dalai Lama is making several judgments, which he would never do. The Dalai Lama projects a vision about what education could be. The judgments are: inadequacy of an educational system, slanted towards material values, not to give an occasional lecture, and secular ethics free of religious influence based on common sense. The vision of a better education system looks at the problem of getting young minds to engage in the process of discovery. For example, how does a lotus blossom's color come to be? What minerals are needed? How do these minerals move through the flower? What role does water, mud, sun, and surrounding environment play?What sounds are made as a lotus grows? What do cross sections of the flower look like if drawn by hand?  If the child were curious about just a flower and nothing else, how could this motivation to learn as much about a flower as possible be used to shoe horn in other subjects needed to study the flower .. like reading, writing, composition, comprehension, science, art, music, competition, ecology, and so on. The vision is to improve education. How then does judging and deeming it inadequate help? This creates two, separate, and unequal parts. It is better to point towards the flower, and say, "There is only 1, when two are of the same mind".  The master guides the student's curiosity and discovery.

The Truth About Leadership - Part 4

Values Drive Commitment

“Energy is neither good nor evil, it is the intent by which it is used that determines it’s helpful or destructive force”, Dungeon Master, Dungeons and Dragons Cartoon Series. I think Albert Einstein was also quoted saying something similar to this, after his discovery that Matter and Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, they just change forms.

Page 39 lists a series of values: success, wealth, family, freedom, growth, love, power, spirituality, trust, wisdom, health, honesty, and integrity. It also asks, “What do you really care about?” This question and these categories are about where you’re willing to place your energy into. Since thought is energy, in the human context, then intentions is the proper word for our actions, which are the physical manifestations of our thoughts.

This chapter argues the case that expressed values drive commitment. This argument is false since unexpressed values can just as easily drive a person’s commitment, just as easily as can expressed values.

In addition, this argument mixes intent and integrity. Intent as I described above is the energy or thoughts we have about different aspects of the human condition. Integrity is whether or not we maintain the social contract with ourselves and others. Or to put it in a context that is closer to what this chapter is discussing, what if everyone had an unwritten, mainly spoken, contract with each other. What would that contract be about? And why would you choose to honor that contract? Now, what if the spoken contract were not the contract you are choosing to follow, but instead have a hidden agenda. Now the difference between intent and integrity becomes clear.

Commitment occurs when two or more parties agree on a verbal social contract. I will commit to working, playing, spending time, and/or being with you, if your intentions at the time are the same as mine. For example, let’s go biking. This is simple enough, until the leader finds that after 6 degrees of separation, their ex-love happens to be a member of the biking group consisting of 200 people. And for the next 5 hours they are going to be touring through some very lovely terrain. Now this is a quandary for the leader of the biking group. Should he lead the group, or leave because someone’s values he can no longer agree with is a member of the group? (Grist for the Mill, or Sauce for the Goose?)

The social contract that the bike leader agreed to was, “To lead the biking group on a tour.” However, if his intentions or positions on his judgments towards his ex-love are made known this may end the biking tour for that day. However, if he withholds these judgments, the biking tour may go forward, everyone may have a great time, and as long as there is physical distance between the two, they may both separately enjoy the tour.

In this case, it is not expressed value that is driving the decision, but unexpressed values, which allows the bike tour guide to remain in integrity to his contractual obligations. Others may be aware of his dis-ease, and feel that he is upholding a great sense of integrity as he leads the tour, all the while knowing the personal emotional strain he is under.

The case that is used here is around an employment opportunity. As “The New Leader’s 100 Day Action Plan” (2009) by George B. Bradt, et. al., ISBN 978-0-470-43984-5, location 533 states, “There are only 3 fundamental questions asked during an interview: 1) Can you do the job? 2) Will you love the job? 3) Can I tolerate working with you?” Or put in other words: Skills, Enthusiasm, and Culture, or Strengths, Motivations, and Fit. Enthusiasm and motivations are forms of intent. Why do you want to be a leader? What motivated you to become a leader? Why did this particular issue cause you to become more engaged and enthusiastic than other people?

If I were to answer my own question, “Why is it important for me to write book reviews on leadership?” I think the answer would be, “Because I found the definition of leadership. I want to share it with people. I want to help foster others who are using the correct techniques to grow and empower positive leaders. I want to help the general public recognize people who are bad, negative, and dark leaders.” This answer demonstrates the three key points George made earlier: skill, motivation and culture.

The Truth About Leadership - Part 6

You Can’t Do it Alone

This statement is half true. First there is an understanding that leadership requires others to be lead. The definition of leadership says nothing about this. While it may be implied, who leads you when you choose to push harder or not push harder to achieve certain goals? It’s you. You are your own leader. Therefore, no one else is required to lead you. However, when we look at goals beyond the personal goals, then this statement is true. Without the 100’s of 1000’s of dedicated men and women who worked on the Lunar Moon Project with NASA, we would not have achieved that goal.

On page 62, the claim is made about leadership, “How do you know someone is a leader? […] The simplest way to know is just to look to see whether that person has followers. If you think you’re a leader and you turn around and no one is following you, then you’re simply out for a walk”. This is very disparaging for personal leaders to read; since it discounts the personal growth work they are doing to improve not only themselves but also the life of others around them, who may not even be aware of it.

There are silent leaders: people who work tirelessly behind the scenes without any thanks or congratulations or even knowing how their actions will affect other people, but hope that it will have a positive effect. These leaders are just as important and powerful as the visible leaders. Buddhist monks discovered this type of leadership 1000’s of years ago and call it, “Taking action without action!” Simply by virtue of being who they are, and doing what they do, regardless of whether or not others follow them, they demonstrate how a better future could look. If someone happens to notice, they may become curious and ask how they do it, and study under them. But at no time does the Buddhist Monk become attached to their presence, how good or bad they are at mirroring their behavior, or whether or not they have achieved the goal of “Taking action without action!” They are content in knowing that the human condition for another small part of the world has been improved every so slightly.

So much of this chapter is about the human condition:

Making a human connection

Hearing what people are saying

Uniting people to solve a shared problem

Making others feel strong, capable, and empowered

Bringing it out of others

On this last point, please refer to “Total Quality or Else” (1991) by Lloyd Dobyns and Clare Crawford-Mason, ISBN 0-395-57439-0, who discuss the history and lessons learned when Dr. Demming, the creator of Total Quality Management worked with the Japanese to improve their systems. Dr. Demming realized that every worker was seeing a part of the process and knew ways that their process could be improved. He utilized this information by aggregating it into larger Quality Initiatives to build better products, stronger companies, and product improvements.

So, what “Bringing it out of others” is referring to, is that you have to listen to the men and women on the front line who are making the parts, assembling the parts, polishing the parts, and using the parts for their ideas on how their part of the process could be improved. If you ignore this information, no one will care about your product or service. And, I do mean, “NO ONE!” How many people still use a typewriter today vs a word processor, today?

In the political arena, how does Obama show positive leadership in handling the fiscal cliff for the benefit of the greater good of all, when the Republican leadership (as well as the Democratic leadership with its principles) refuses to consider any plan that involves raising taxes, or essentially breaking the Norquist Mandate. Does good leadership in this case mean compromising to meet the mandated deadline? Or does it mean sticking to one's principle? Or a combination of both? 3rdmurnau

There are a couple of different things I could talk about concerning this question.  I could talk about the different types of leadership:

Great Leadership, 

Positive Leadership,

Good Leadership,

OK Leadership,

Bad Leadership,

Negative Leadership, and

Dark Leadership

But these styles of leadership are only a method to reaching the goal, they are not the goal in itself.  

The goal as many would have you believe is to fix the fiscal cliff.  But is that really the goal, or is someone just trying to control the conversation?  What is the real problem and is that the goal?

Could the real goal be to move social security and medicare insurance into the private sector?  And what would happen if these organizations were privatized? Why do Republicans want military spending to go up? Why do Republicans believe that too many people are abusing the system - choose your system, including voter fraud. Maybe the real goal is to develop a stable economy, where everyone can prosper? But this goal would require the government to return to it's former practices of redistributing wealth, in order to benefit all, not just a few.

Compromise will come once we understand what the goals are. This is the unfortunate part, since the intent of the Democratic party and the Republican party may not be the same.  And to-date, the Republican party has been unwilling to budge on even those points which they have in common with the Democratic party. It's become an all or nothing atmosphere.

So, how should President Obama lead in this instance. The President has the ability to influence not only the Republicans and the Democrats in the House and Senate, but also those at all levels of government. While the President is charged with upholding the laws passed by Congress, he usually isn't fully funded to administrate all of them.  We saw this when is informed his personnel and the public that certain individuals would no longer be sought after for deportation. 

Another way that the President could lead in this instance is to take his case to the general public.  While most people believe that the President only influences the House and Senate, he has clearly demonstrated that he can influence the general public to "Get Out To Vote!" Through an information campaign, or as  mentioned before, take control of the conversation and reshape how the public perceives the problem, the goal, and the steps towards achieving that goal.

Since, information is power, the President can do what he has been doing all long very well: outline the facts, provide the options, and discuss his plan on how we can pressure the House and the Senate to move.  Letter writing campaigns can be very effective when it comes to getting representatives to move at all levels of government, especially when their whole party is at stake of being overturned.

Now should President Obama allow Norquist Mandate to go into effect?  While at first this might seem like a bad thing, it could also be like a parent telling their children that if they don't straighten up, then the punishment will be a night in their room without dinner.  As harsh as it may seem, children usually get the message the first time around when you stick to your strategy. So, the worst that could happen is that the American public becomes upset with their representatives and decides to vote them out of office.  

And if these groups of people don't want to wait till the next election for that representative's due date, then they can gather the necessary signatures for a petition and vote them out early using a recall election.  I, though, doubt that President Obama would publicly call for this type of grass roots action be taken, but it may be necessary in the next year to adjust the House and Senate to remove the blocks, and get the Republicans to come to the table.

I think right now the Republicans have a very hard decision to make. Stick to their principles and wants, or watch their constituents turn on them and remove them one by one or on mass.  Personally, I'm for the on mass option, as they would get the message that much faster.

The Truth About Leadership - Part 2

You Make a Difference

This truth presumes that only leaders make a difference.  The problem with this truth is that it’s too narrow.  The definition of leadership allows everyone to be a leader at one moment or another.  In addition it doesn’t recognize personal leadership, “You leading yourself.”

A simple street cleaner being asked for directions suddenly becomes is a leader, as easily as the waitress who is asked how they would prepare a dish to their liking.  Even athletes who recognize that they are giving up on their training because it’s too hot and muggy suddenly step into their own leadership roles.  Why do leaders have to be people who motivate and guide 100’s of people to do something that improves the lives of others?

There is a question posed in this chapter, “What difference will I make?”  This question opens the discussion about intent.  While this is an interesting question for someone who is actively engaged in leadership, most leaders don’t consciously realize that this question is occurring.  Take for example the street cleaner that was asked about directions.  What difference is he making in the lives of the individuals who are asking for directions?  He is not consciously thinking about how his guidance will affect anyone else, and just as easily those asking for directions may not realized the release in anxiety.  But it happens.  The difference is small.

Most of this chapter is dedicated to demonstrating how positive leadership can improve an organization’s inner levels of piece and throughput. It fails to examine the affects negative leadership has on similar organizations.  For example, several positive leadership roles are: Modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act, encouraging the heart.  While Negative Leadership would: discourage reviewing models, disparage a shared vision and focus on a singular vision, it may challenge the process only to prove that the new process is worse than the existing process, allow others to act and fail as a way to demonstrate how the current process is better, and discourage people from caring about clients and customers as a level of separation is needed in order to respond objectively.

Page 13, the discussion turns to: “Improving the Quality of Life”, “The Social Contract”, or put another way, “Whose responsibility it is anyway?”  This discussion opens into the integrity of leadership. A second question is posed on page 14, “If you are not willing to follow yourself, why would anyone else want to?”  This is a question posed in “Leadership 101” (2002) by John C Maxwell, ISBN 0-7852-6419-1, chapter 3, page 25.

As the story goes, Jerry Rice was in high school practicing football. The last exercise that his coach assigned to the team was to sprint up and down a forty yard hill 20 times. On a particularly hot and muggy Mississippi day, Rice was ready to give up after eleven trips.  As he sneaked toward the locker room, he realized what he was doing.  He returned to the hill and continued to sprint up it.  Rice realized that if he quit, he would get into the mode of quitting again and again. 

This is what personal integrity is, “Holding your self accountable.” 

Further Incites into the Definition of Leadership

Not sure how different this is from previous posts. I think I've added a few more things that help clarify leadership.

======

The definition of leadership is “Guiding Intent with Integrity”.  Leaders have followers, non-followers, outsiders, and observers.  Followers follow the leader’s guidance towards the goal / vision.  Non-followers have vehemently opposed to follow the leader or the goal / vision, and may work to undermine the group’s ability to achieve the goal. Outsiders do not care one way or the other about the leader, the groups or the visions.  An observer may be a follower, non-follower, or outsider, their role is to provide feedback on the group’s progress towards their goal / vision.

Guidance is council concerning the steps needed to achieve the goal / vision.  Intent or intentions are the reasons driving each individual to either be part of the group, not part of the group, or work against the group.  These reasons may or may not be expressed.  Integrity is based on the Social Contract or agreement held between the leader and the group.

People choose to follow a goal / vision, due to the Human Condition.  The human condition concerns the plurality of culture and personal values, the standards of evaluation, the satisfaction of basic needs, the maintenance of cultural identity, and reasonable conceptions of well being.  In conjunction with the Change Formula, humans want a better life, and are willing to overcome their dissatisfaction with the status quo, by imagining a future that is better than the present.   In this instance the challenge is convincing others that change is needed, or showing them a path through change that improves their lives. Based on their belief that they can achieve a better life, they will either become leaders of change, follow the guidance and council of others to achieve it, or become part of a movement.

“The true nature of power isn't about strength or control, it’s about relating to people”, Bleach, (Japanese Manga) episode 250.