>Andrew Moreno mentioned Lincoln's skill in keeping sensitive matters
>implicit. I think Vaclav Havel understood [understands] this equally well.
>He wrote about it brilliantly in his October 27, 1991, speech at New York
>University.
Hi,
Just for clarification, what does Vaclav Havel understand?
Lincoln's skill in keeping sensitive matters implicit or
how to keep sensitive matters implicit?
With me, there is a distinction between understanding that
Lincoln did this and understanding how he did this. I'm far from
being able to keep sensitive matters implicit myself.
Since the subject of this message is "Leadership Can Be Taught?"
I think that whatever "leadership" is, the people teaching it
could take the responsibility of being able to do it themselves
first.
My opinion is that leadership is another form of adaptation.
Adaptation to me means being able to get what one wants without
focusing ones attention on control of things external. Control
of things external could be a by-product of what one focus on,
but it isn't what one focuses on in my model.
Most of the so-called leadership I've seen revolves and is
focused on or around control of things external. Control of
natural resources. Control of people. Control of information.
When another "group" values whatever is being controlled, wars
begin. Sometimes they never end.
What I've noticed is that George Soros and Sir Templeton,
ultra-successful investors, are able to use the phenomenon of
changes in what groups value to gain a certain level of control.
They buy securities when very few people want them and sell them
when everybody wants them. If someone wants to fight them for
what they have, that's the time to sell. Maybe my understanding
is a bit simplistic.
Maybe this could be a key to what leaders can focus on. Lincoln
had slavery to change. Maybe leaders like Clinton could figure
out how to be like George Soros and Sir Templeton. Instead of
having the enemy "out there" in the form of "the communist
threat," or whatever, they could realize, just like Walt Kelly
wrote in his comic strip, "Pogo", that "the enemy is us."
I figure that George Soros's biggest enemy are his values
beliefs and attitudes at any point in time. Whenever he makes a
decision, those values, beliefs and attitudes either stand in
the way or help push things forward. For related reasons, I
think Carol Anne Ogdin is right in stating that sometimes it's
best not to listen to one's customers. I doubt customers are
aware of the changes that happen in their values and what they
want to buy.
An example would be,
In the 60's, the dream was a big house in the suburbs.
In the 90's, the dream seems to be a big log cabin on 1000 acres of land
in the mountain states.
-- Andrew Moreno amoreno@broken.ranch.org