Ists-Ans-Ics

Communists
Bostonians
Alcoholics
Capitalists
Vegetarians
Academics

Labeling is a handy convention we use to plop people in groups.  We can then jump to some conclusions about that person, or those people (or, canonize/demonize them according to their grouping).

Problem is, the labels don't define us.  Making assumptions based on labels is like walking through a minefield.

If we want to know another person, perhaps it's best to get to KNOW them, personally.

MultiGuided

The best leaders I know do their research, consuming and metabolizing wide-ranging content and perspectives.

These leaders understand that, since they are servants beholden to those who choose to follow them, they own the responsibility to be well-informed, to be addictive consumers of knowledge, to be keen observers of human dynamics, and to be macro-learners.

These wise leaders avoid mightily organizational insulation and echo-chamber-like sources/resources that tend to foster very narrow world views, that limit innovative thinking, and that affect short-sighted decisions.

In short, the wisest leaders intentionally choose to be MultiGuided, rather than MisGuided. 

YouThey

A lot of folks in leadership positions seem to start sentences/speeches/diatribes/soundbytes with a couple of key words:

"You.............." or "They.............."

In most cases both of those words put the hearers somewhat in defensive mode, from the git-go.  

With the "You" stem, it feels a little like there's a finger being pointed at us, like we're being accused of something, as if we're in for a good scolding, like we've done something wrong.

With "They," it feels as if we need to gear up for some fight against an evil entity deserving of our wrath/scorn/hatred, yet the pronoun doesn't even clearly tell us who we should fear or despise.  "They" is just the enemy (for this moment, or this speech), so get ready to wage war.  (Expect casualties.)

The leaders I most admire, and who seem to me the most worthy of my attention, use a lot of sentence stems with these words:

"We.............." or "Our.............."

Just feels a little more like we're being invited into something bigger than ourselves.

ChristModel

I rarely discuss religion in this blog, only making tangential reference occasionally (and I avoid politics like the plague - perhaps it is one???).

My faith is in fact just that -- FAITH.  Faith that what I currently believe is even in the right ballpark, or universe.  My views of the Christian faith and the efficacy of my attempts at adherence to its tenets have changed over time.  I assume they will continue to do so.  

In the discussions, debates, and arguments about right practice of that faith (and, boy, do we Christians have wide-ranging understandings and applications), I continually find myself trying to listen/read with an open mind.  I seek to understand if there is something I am missing, or have missed, in my faith learning along the way.  Some of the nuances and ambiguities seem intractable, even irreconcilable. 

Always, I find myself thinking about what I know of Christ himself, and wondering how he might behave and react, were he in my boots.  I never bought one of those "WWJD - What would Jesus do?" bracelets, but I find myself asking that question quite a lot.  

Against that standard, I consistently find myself unworthy.  Jesus seemed to embody and express LOVE in ways that I am not yet able.  

I am eternally grateful for that "grace" component embedded in the Christian faith.  It seems that may be my only salvation.  

Spicy

I've always preferred spicy over bland.  That preference goes for food, and for people.

Here's why:

• Spicy "feels" vibrant.
• Spicy is a little surprising, even when expected.
• Spicy lingers in my brain long after the initial effect.
• Spicy clearly differentiates itself from "the crowd."
• Spicy piques my interest, garners my attention.

I know!  It's just my personal preference.  I'm not trying to persuade you.

Bland just feels too............mushy, too average.  In every way.

(p)ReAct

The wisest leaders I know implement a number of strategies that position them well to

Preact rather than React.

What are some of the things they do?

• They refuse to insulate themselves.  They have a wide network of connections, both inside and outside their organization.  They purposely gather many viewpoints and opinions, refusing to live in an echo chamber.
• They exhibit extremely high levels of trust in the people that work with/for them, intentionally distributing the decision making responsibilities.  (When team members prove unworthy of that trust they are marginalized quickly, with dignity.)
• They deliberately and with great discipline keep as much attention/discussion/effort on the long-view decisions as they do the short-view stuff.  Agenda items usually appear in that very order - farsighted precedes shortsighted.  

I've worked for a few of those leaders.  

Too few.

AntiExample

As a lifelong educator I have spent a lot of time learning about LEARNING.

There are bazillion moves we can make that cause learning to happen, with varying degrees of effectiveness.

One of the certainties is that Anti-Example is a powerful learning tool. 

Case in point:  Ineffective leaders frequently do these things...

• Devalue others (let us count the ways).
• Seldom LISTEN (mostly because they're talking).
• Always think they know.
• Micromanage.
• Expect to be served, rather than serve.

Lesson learned.  

Pass the pop-quiz please.