Don writes:
>I agree that leadership traits do not come naturally, but do believe that
they can come to a person over time, either through conscious effort or by
osmosis. For some it comes easier than for others. I agree with this
statement attributed to Admiral Arleigh Burke:
Leadership is a difficult, but not impossible, quality to
acquire. Any individual who really wants to be a leader
can be one. It takes hard work. It takes knowledge. It
takes enthusiasm. But it can be done.<
The question I would pose here is, if leadership does not come
'naturally', how does it come at all? If the potential is not present,
how does it arise?
Overcoming our presuppositions about leadership requires the development
of insight-the willingness to inquire into our 'selves' or whatever we
call the bodymind {bodhimind?} complex. .
As the Admiral points out: Hard work-yes, it takes commitment and energy;
knowledge-it takes mindful awareness of thoughts, a reflective knowledge;
enthusiasm-it takes a willingness to dance with ambiguity-somewhere
between faith and doubt. And then you get to know that it (the dance)
never ends. One enlightened action and one is leader, one unenlightened
action and one is once again a normal person. Moment by moment.
These characteristics don't begin 'outside' and get 'inside', but are
accessable always. What we attribute to osmosis was already there as the
potential for the plant resides in the seed yet needs water sun, and some
loving cultivation to ensure its full flowering.
Like seeds (in that we cannot control the aspects of our births, given
talents & skills, and our choices) we end up in an environments
(corporation) that are more or less hospitable, and are more or less
likely to develop fully. I'm thinking in terms of a learning vs
non-learning org. where the spirit of inquiry serves to nourish the
leadership seed in us all, or the prevailing theories in use stifle that
opportunity through defensive routines and skilled incompetence (avoiding
looking or feeling mucked up-its kind of like making sure that no manure
gets anywhere near your plants).
If we could more easily 'cut through' our attachments to looking and
smelling good, moving beyond our personal isolationism and its attendant
fear, we might more easily see the 'web' that Barry and others have
mentioned. How liberating to inquire then, unafraid of this or that
outcome? What a great model (benefit) for others. What a great leap of
faith to trust in our (and other's) innate potential for wise
action--action that transforms power and politics from the sordid to the
sublime.
My reading of Argyris takes me in this direction-that the root of
attachment to 'self' (face saving) preservation' must be uncovered and cut
before we can expect results (personal or organizational) to improve.
As a consultant to leaders and managers at all levels, I am always looking
for effective ways to create or extend this dialogue. Look forward to
doing it here.
-- Tim Smith Shillitoe@aol.com