The Critical Need of True Leadership

I think "leadership" is such an important thing and can make organizations, or break organizations and whatever else is around to break.

The impact of it all comes into my mind increasingly each and every year of my (short?) life. Especially seeing the gone-wrong political candidacy, resulting in a childish drunk driver in government. 

I think that true leadership is a very critical and little known thing. 

Leadership is not just directing; it is not just being a whiz kid at something and telling others what to do.  The first thing too many think of is "now I am the boss, and need to take hold briskly".  

Yes, it does include managing the fabric of the group, identifying goals, bringing needed relevant information to the group, facilitating the operations, basic decisions of organizational and prudent financial management, etc. Managing people, with their differences of experience and basic nature. 

All that while recognizing and respecting that some of those people know things, principles, and methods the manager doesn't. And maybe the manager need not know those things; just respect that the follower does.

True leadership helps the followers become NOT JUST doers of that tasks they are directed to do (and the detailed way the leader thinks it must be done); not just becoming competent, but also confident. Not just obedience, and not just asking "how high" when told to jump. Inspiration, motivation, respect, and human growth potential is all part of the equation.

A sector of Covey's Eight Habit deals with our responsibility each of us to help others grow, in their decision making confidence, to grow spiritually, and to grow in competence, confidence, and ability to THEMSELVES (as followers of said leader) to lead others. Every man, woman, and child has an immense potential (and is a leader by example and performance) and has a God-given responsibility to help uplift tlhat in others, toward and in an eternal growth upward perspective.....  

Over the years I have  lived, I have seen so many promoted in accordance with the Peter principle(**see paragraph below**). The person has a great deal of competence in some area: technical, influential speaking, inspirational, bossiness, or... simply given a pot of money and silver spoon to play with.  (Seen that in recent times?)  But they haven't learned to delegate the thinking power, they haven't learned to develop (other than to say, "I'm the Boss, and if you just do what I say, you will be OK, this and that is what I want you to do.")

The Peter principle ... published in 1969... states that the selection of a candidate for a position is based on the candidate's performance in their current role, rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role. [In my years of observation, we should add  "; a role of  leadership, management, etc." because there is where the big difference is; help people in their upward progress, or destroy them. ]

If you've been promoted, selected, elected, or called as a leader, one of the greatest gifts you can give - to yourself, to the organization, to the followers, and to mankind in general, is to decide you need to learn about how to be the best leader. Go, learn; many sources. Here are two THIN books with the right message  - in title and in content: (1) "Pushing Up People", and (2) "The Leadership Pill: the missing Ingredient in Motivating People Today".

A good leader inspires, motivates, encourages someone to think, to be their very best, to serve with all their heart, mind and strength. 
A good leader trains his/her replacement to be a leader. [How? Think about it.] 
"Hire a good man, and get out of his way."  
Another expression (if you know the initials "JS") is to teach them correct principles, and let them manage themself.  No, that is not a 100% thing, but the principle...

Things don't have to be exactly the way your genius mind or whatever has imagined.  Work toward the desired outcome, the results.  

That's where the value of a book that had a favorite comes in: "Getting to Yes".  It's about there are more than one way to get the desired result, and if someone has a different way of doing that, the best manager will thank the person and respect it, maybe use it.  (You encourage growth and uplift, right there and then!) That does not take away from the leader's or manager's position; it uplifts the position, in a spiritual sense.

Have I done this, can/have I practiced what I preach? 

Yes, I have managed a few great groups, although not in my writing career. One always comes in mind: a great group in the Navy, at Whidbey Island, who knew what they were doing, reported what they were doing, and did it in the best way; they just looked for the fabric of the group to be held together in a cohesive manner, and information and guidance if and when needed. They were happy to report, sometimes sharing proudly. Another was keeping organized a great group who uplifted others and each other, in a spiritual sense, on the Kitty Hawk. And some other times.  After the USN, most of my time (nearly 40 years) was writing, and the Peter Principle never got me into management.

My best three managers were in telecom.  In common, they asked how I would approach a problem (a need).  Then, after that, they would just ask that I would review what I was doing, the progress, what was going on, they just listened, primarily with ears open and mouth closed. Good listening......

And... very importantly... they ASKED is there anything they can do to remove roadblocks?  Oh, how sweet that was. In tech writing, road blocks are found in very great abundance. At times, they displayed the needed humility a leader should have by learning from me in my developed area of understanding. Those good three managers didn't operate as if they had all the answers, as if they were the innovators, as if they knew everything, as if they had so much pride and "I am the Boss" that you couldn't tell them anything.

It was really really great working for them. Great, good things were done. 
The biggest issues have always been ego, territorialism, and competition - but not between those managers and myself.

True leadership is based on the spiritual nature of mankind, who were created in the image of God, according to the good book. There was a Covey book that was popular in the '70s: "Spiritual Roots of Human Behavior".  One that I liked a bit better but didn't sell as well because it didn't have "Spiritual" or something like that in the title, is "Leadership and Human Relations".  But it dealt with marriage/human relationships, leadership, decision-making with real good feet on the ground approach, understanding our spiritual nature - the way God made us - at least as well as that other one.  Again, though, Covey's Eighth has that section and is still in the bookstores - I think.

Good Leaders are Good Followers

This is nothing new. There are a number of articles, and may web references referring to one or two of those articles.  So mainly this is a collection of links to good articles.

One that can be my favorite is a Homily By Father James C. Meena.  It comes from Word Magazine October 1984.   http://almoutran.com/2011/03/466.  After decades of time in the military, workforce, organizations, observance of certain "political" figures, and with certain family members, I have come up with some particular points that I like to see acknowledged. There is much dialog about (correct) lofty leadership ideals, such as inspiring confidence, knowing clearly where the organization is going, never losing sight of goals, etc.

But I have seen many persons in leadership or management positions basically due to the "Peter Principle"; there was a lot about that in the 1960's or so; there is much found on the web about it yet.  Essentially it is that a person can impress and dazzle people in one context but not really have the ability or traits needed for the intended role. As people are promoted, they become progressively less-effective because good performance in one job does not guarantee similar performance in another. Or maybe it's simply that a person can dazzle as a worker and innovator but doesn't know beans about leadership.

I think a couple buzz words that could sum things up are "autocratic" and "authoritative" about some leaders who lead pretty much by virtual of position; "I am the boss" but there can be much more to a truly good leader. 

The following paragraph area (from the URL at the start of this writing) scratches my particular itch well; it speaks of something that is sometimes missing.

A good leader is one who is slow to judge others, quick to evaluate and criticize himself in order that he might benefit from his own self analysis and improve himself constantly. A good leader is one who listens to constructive criticism and who hears honest complaints and evaluates them with good judgment in order that he might apply that which is positive and affirmative to the attainment of the goals to which he is dedicated. A good leader is one who remembers that without followers he has no one to lead; therefore, he shows respect for his followers.

 Moving on, there is this article:  https://www.fastcompany.com/3029840/5-ways-being-a-good-follower-makes-you-a-better-leader. 

The below except the italicized parts are some extracts
:
“[Good followers] support and aid the leader when he or she is doing the right thing, and stand up to the leader–having the courage to let the leader know when he or she is doing something wrong or headed in the wrong direction.”


When good followers encounter a co-worker with conflicting ideas or a disagreeable manager, they’re probably not going to fight every battle. Playing the part of the follower is easier, simpler, and often less risky. But being a good follower means having the courage to dissent if you think your leader, manager, or superior, is doing something wrong-headed. That’s not always easy, but it requires the guts and strength of conviction that are essential to good leadership.

In order to be a good follower, you need to be able to think for yourself. The best followers support and aid the leader when he or she is doing the right thing, and stand up to the leader when he or she is headed in the wrong direction.

Many of the same qualities that we admire in leaders–competence, motivation, intelligence–are the same qualities that we want in the very best followers. Moreover, leaders, regardless of their level, also need to follow.

There is a book on my shelf written by an x-GI about experiences through two or three military conflicts. The author speaks of need of quick definite decisions, yes. But he speaks of having had a couple junior officers in charge who made planning decisions and wouldn't listen to experience, resulting in unnecessary loss of life and achievement. I've reported to a couple officers like that, a couple others who knew they might need to learn something about the specific turf, and to senior officers who really did know what they were doing and were wonderful. 

I reported to one leader in the corporate environment who took his crew on a service afternoon in a food bank.  The food bank person in charge gave me specific instructions; take these things to this particular place.  But the corporate leader gave me specific conflicting instructions; it was not his role to do so, but he had not caught on to the fact that he was giving orders outside his appropriate environment.

Moving on:   http://www.planetshifter.com/node/1695
A good list of qualities and factors.

This one ties into some biblical examples and principles:  https://michaelhyatt.com/why-the-best-leaders-are-great-followers.html

 This one summarizes a great talk given in the LDS realm.  http://www.gcgems.com/2016/08/the-greatest-leaders-are-the-greatest-followers-stephen-w-owen.html

Unrighteous Dominion D&C 121

 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?

 35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—

 36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

 37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

 38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

 39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

 40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

 41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

 42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

 43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

 44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

 45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.

Workplace/Business, Gender, Organization non-specific

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1989/07/unrighteous-dominion

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1990/09/avoiding-unrighteous-dominion

https://www.lds.org/liahona/1990/06/unrighteous-dominion-in-marriage

"In almost every situation in which correction is required, private reproof is superior to public reproof. Unless the whole ward is in need of a reprimand, it is better …  to speak to the individual rather than to use the collective approach. Similarly, a child or spouse has the right to be told privately of mistakes. Public correction is often cruel or at the least misguided."   

        By Elder H. Burke Peterson  Of the First Quorum of the Seventy 1990

https://bycommonconsent.com/2010/09/20/courage-revelation-and-unrighteous-dominion/

https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/6568-what-is-unrighteous-dominion/

https://www.families.com/blog/unrighteous-dominion-spouse-to-spouse-parent-to-child-child-to-parent

Today's administration: the Whites and the Blacks of it.

Tim Wise
6 hrs ·
Pandering to white workng folks post-election is fascinating. When white people are hurting economically we're supposed to feel their pain and "bring the jobs back" to their dying rural towns. But when people of color lack jobs in the cities (in large part because of the decline of manufacturing over 40 plus years, as well as discrimination) we tell them to "move," to go to school and gain new skills, and we lecture them on pulling themselves up by their bootstraps because the government doesn't owe them anything. But apparently we DO owe white coal miners and assembly line workers their jobs back because remember, out of work white men are "salt of the earth" while out of work people of color are lazy.

Yeah, to hell with that. Why aren't we asking white people to aspire to more? Maybe white West Virginians should demand something better than shitty mine jobs that give them black lung and kill them by 55. Maybe they should aim for higher than doing the same thing their great-grandaddy did...notice, people of color strive to better their situation from generation to generation, but we're supposed to praise white rural folks when they don't? And we condemn BLACK culture for being pathological and dysfunctional? Hell, no black parent back in the day ever said "I really hope that my grandchildren are doing the same thing I'm doing, because 'tradition'!" But it appears that's how some white folks think, and the rest of us are supposed to applaud that as heartwarming Americana, or evidence of strong families, or some such thing.

Make no mistake, we should make sure that everyone has access to remunerative employment or a guaranteed wage or guaranteed food/shelter and medicine. So I'm not saying we turn our backs on these white folks. We DO owe them for a lifetime of service in dangerous professions. But we have no obligation to pander to their desire to do anachronistic jobs just because they want them. Some jobs just aren't coming back, and some jobs shouldn't come back even if they could, given the ecological and health-related costs. These folks are no more entitled to "the way things were" than horse and buggy operators, or the folks who once worked in a typewriter ribbon plant, or the Liquid Paper factory. White male entitlement and expectationalism are what drive this white rage and Trumpist bullshit, and we need not indulge it for one more minute...

it is long past the time when white men are going to have to learn something that folks of color have always known: nothing is certain and nothing can be taken for granted; life is about change and disruption. And the minute you get comfortable and sleep on the way the world works, is the minute you go under. The privilege of not having to KNOW that -- and a long damned time ago -- is what has so many white folks shook right now.

The Ban

Most of this is from an old fellow Kitty Hawk sailor, Michael D. Lawrence.
He has nailed it well. I just wanted to keep it for good reference.
Scroll down to the five points, if nothing else.

This is from Michael.
As far as caring for others, I would suggest that it is not an "either or" situation. We can care for our own AND care for others simultaneously. When another nation suffers a disaster of some sort, we don't say "We'll help you as soon as we finish taking care of our own problems". No, we do both. And sometimes that means we sacrifice. I can care for my own family AND help out a stranger in need. As far as the risk posed by immigrants, there is always some risk in helping others to escape the threat to life that exists in their current situation.

We can accept refugees AND still not have to fear that some immigrant that looks, dresses, speaks, or worships differently than us is going to kill us and try to destroy America. There has always been a fear of immigrants and we have tried to stop them coming to America. The Chinese, the Catholics, the Jews, the Irish, the Mexicans, etc., etc., It's true there are extremists that see America as their enemy, and we should indeed take measures to ensure we don't allow them to come to America (although no process will be perfect and there will always be a chance of someone wanting to do harm to slip through). As it stands, the process for someone to come to America from the nations that the recent executive order intended to stop takes from 1 1/2 to 2 years to clear them for entry. If we feel it's necessary to make that process even more stringent, then we can do that. But clearly the way that EO tried to do so did not work and another process will need to be tried

There are at least five enormous differences between Trump’s executive order and what the Obama administration did.

1. Much narrower focus. The Obama administration conducted a review in 2011 of the vetting procedures applied to citizens of a single country (Iraq) and then only to refugees and applicants for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), created by Congress to help Iraqis (and later Afghans) who supported the United States in those conflicts. The Trump executive order, on the other hand, applies to seven countries with total population more than 130 million and to virtually every category of immigrant other than diplomats, including tourists and business travelers.

2. Not a ban. Contrary to Trump’s statement and the repeated claims of his defenders, the Obama administration did not “ban visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.” For one thing, refugees don’t travel on visas. More importantly, while the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here. In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.

3. Grounded in specific threat. The Obama administration’s 2011 review came in response to specific threat information, including the arrest in Kentucky of two Iraqi refugees, still the only terrorism-related arrests out of about 130,000 Iraqi refugees and SIV holders admitted to the United States. Thus far, the Trump administration has provided no evidence, nor even asserted, that any specific information or intelligence led to its draconian order.

4. Orderly, organized process. The Obama administration’s review was conducted over roughly a dozen deputies and principals committee meetings, involving cabinet and deputy cabinet-level officials from all of the relevant departments and agencies — including the State, Homeland Security, and Justice departments — and the intelligence community. The Trump executive order was reportedly drafted by White House political officials and then presented to the implementing agencies after the fact. This is not just bad policymaking practice; it led directly to the confusion, bordering on chaos, that has attended implementation of the order by agencies that could only start asking questions (such as: “Does this apply to green card holders?”) once the train had left the station.

5. Far stronger vetting today. Much has been made of Trump’s call for “extreme vetting” for citizens of certain countries. The entire purpose of the Obama administration’s 2011 review was to enhance the already stringent vetting to which refugees and SIV applicants were subjected. While many of the details are classified, those rigorous procedures, which lead to waiting times of 18-24 months for many Iraqi and Syrian refugees, remain in place today and are continually reviewed by interagency officials. The Trump administration is, therefore, taking on a problem that has already been (and is continually being) addressed.

The Bottom line is: No immigration vetting system is perfect, no matter how “extreme.” President Obama often said his highest priority was keeping Americans safe. In keeping with America’s tradition and ideals, he also worked to establish a vetting system that worked more fairly and efficiently, particularly for refugees who are, by definition, in harm’s way. President Trump should defend his approach on its merits, if he can. We should not compare it to his predecessor’s.

The Trump administration wants us to be fearful. This is precisely how all authoritarian regimes of the past have controlled the people and forced their agenda through. That fear divides us and leads to distrust and hatred for each other. I would suggest that we not fall prey to these fear tactics that we have seen so many, many times in history.

This is from me:
As to the Ban? my thought is that it was conducted so utterly sloppily, by people who are not detail oriented but just wanted to make a big bang. Working on fear.

It screwed up a lot of good people who had already been thoroughly, effectively, vetted, and or had been contributing to our nation's welfare, it just affected a lot of people it shouldn't have. You would be hollering if you were walking in the moccasins of some of them.

There was already a thorough vetting process, rigorous and taking a long time, being used.

As to those from south of the border: Rubio's plan was ions more humane. But the current administration cares not who they hurt. You will see. I have never seen the like.


Steve Heller - captured for reference

Just glanced at the CNN news notifications on my iPad and they were as follows:

1:46pm: President Trump has "full confidence" in national security advisor Michael Flynn, according to top adviser Kellyanne Conway.

2:51pm: In new statement Sean Spicer says President Trump is "evaluating the situation" around security adviser Michael Flynn.

7:04pm: Source: DOJ warned Trump administration that Michael Flynn was potentially vulnerable to blackmail from Russia.

8:56pm: Michael Flynn has resigned as President Trump's national security adviser, two sources tell CNN.

Interesting and turbulent times, indeed.