Tag Archives: #prismphilosophy

DREAM BIG

Standard

Maxwell suggests that the first vital step to fulfilling a dream is to take firm ownership of it. In his experience, he has found that there are three common reasons why people do not pursue their dreams:

Screen Shot 2015-11-13 at 7.04.24 pm1. Dreams do not come true for ordinary people. Although it is a widespread belief that dreams are only for special people, the author is convinced that everyone can pursue a dream. A dream can serve as a catalyst for making important life changes, no matter how big or small those changes.

2. If a dream is not big, it is not worth pursuing. The size of a dream does not determine its worth. While a dream does not have to be big, it should be bigger than the dreamer.

3. Now is not the right time to pursue the dream. Some feel it is never the right time to pursue a dream, and instead wait for permission from someone else. In fact, only the dreamer can grant permission to follow a dream. Alternatively, people think it is too late to pursue a dream and they give up.

Rather than falling victim to these pitfalls, Maxwell offers five tips for taking ownership of a dream:

  1. Individuals must be willing to bet on themselves. Owning a dream requires people to believe in themselves in a way that outweighs their fears.
  2. It is necessary to lead one’s life, rather than just accepting it. Attaining true personal potential means taking responsibility, and taking an active leadership role in life.
  3. People who own their dreams love what they do and do what they love. Individuals who take ownership of their dreams allow their passion and talent to guide them.
  4. It is not productive to compare a personal dream to others. When people focus too much attention on others, they lose sight of their dreams and what they need to attain it.
  5. Even if others do not understand, it is important to believe in a vision. Dreams often seem outrageous to others. To pursue a dream it is necessary to go beyond limitations, whether they are imposed from within or by others.
Advertisements

Fear-Based Leadership

Standard

Successful leaders who practice fear-based leadership are common, according to Bryant.

Henry Ford’s employees lived in fear of losing their jobs and knew they had been fired when they arrived for work to an empty office or destroyed furniture. The dotcom stock market crash of the 2000s took down the greedy and fear-based leadership of once-invincible companies like Enron and WorldCom. Today, “Boss-Zillas” who use fear to intimidate their employees are not alone; a large survey concluded that 37 percent of American workers report being bullied at work. A 2000 survey reported persistent psychological abuse at work. Bosses are viewed as the main problem.

Fear based leadership shares the following tactics:

  • Using aggressive language and eye contact
  • Criticizing unfairly
  • Blaming without offering reasonable recourse
  • Applying rules inconsistently
  • Stealing credit
  • Making unreasonable demands
  • Issuing threats, insults, and accusations
  • Denying accomplishments
  • Excluding others from opportunities
  • Assigning pointless tasks
  • Personalizing problems
  • Breaching confidentiality
  • Spreading rumors

Great Leaders from Loss

Standard

Many of the world’s great leaders have gained their wisdom and strength by experiencing personal loss. Bryant describes his favorite leaders, those who have weathered the storm and succeeded.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s perseverance through crippling polio led him to a four-term presidency. He steered America through the toughest times of economic depression and fascism.

Screen Shot 2015-11-13 at 5.44.10 pm
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) founder Candice Lightner founded her life-saving cause after the loss of her teenage daughter to a drunk driver.

As a student leader during the South African apartheid regime, Leslie Maasdorp spent 13 months in jail. He managed to earn his degree and later lead post-apartheid South Africa in restructuring and privatizing state-owned enterprises.

Brazilian Rodrigo Hubner Mendes founded the Rodrigo Mendes Institute, a visual arts school dedicated to helping low-income minorities and people with disabilities. Mendes’ own loss of mobility after being shot drove his passion to help others.

Former President Bill Clinton’s well-publicized personal and political setbacks made him a strong and extraordinary global humanitarian leader post-presidency.

Dr. Martin Luther King never gave up, even when threatened personally. “Once you cope with that fear of death, you don’t have to fear nothing else.” He gave his “I Have a Dream” speech 100 times before the historical march on Washington, D.C.

WHY Leaders FAIL

Standard

Leadership and leadership failure are frequently covered topics in today’s business  Screen Shot 2015-11-13 at 5.43.54 pmpress. In Why CEOs Fail , Dotlich and Cairo state leadership failure is generally tied to individual behavior. CEO’s are generally bright, savvy individuals with experience and a good record of success. The authors believe CEO failures occur, not because of insufficient intelligence, but because leaders often act in illogical, irrational ways, usually unconsciously. This poses a vexing question. “Why do such obviously talented leaders also make poor decisions, alienate key people, miss opportunities, and overlook obvious trends and developments?” Do CEO’s have a weak moment, a loss of judgment, or is it something more fundamental?

Dotlich and Cairo identify eleven “derailers”, deeply ingrained personality traits which can negatively affect leadership style and actions. These hardwired characteristics, often begin as strengths, but when overused can become detriments. The authors believe these “derailers” are the fundamental source of leadership failure.

Why CEOs Fail outlines the eleven “derailers” which can cause CEO’s and other leaders to fail. These behaviors are listed and defined as follows: Arrogance was defined by the authors as “thinking everyone else is wrong”. Leaders with this trait can become so convinced of their opinions, they ignore and irritate others resulting in decreased communication and teamwork.

Dotlich and Cairo define the next “derailer, Melodrama, as the use of exaggerated emotion or actions to hold the attention of an audience. Leaders inclined towards melodrama in the extreme can experience separation from others, decreasing dialogue with coworkers, and difficulty in making decisions.

Volatility, defined as “uncontrolled mood swings” often becomes an impairing behavior when leaders “become a slave of their volatile nature not masters of it.”

The authors believe the next “derailer”, Excessive Caution, causes leaders to fear making the wrong decision. Instead of making any decision, a cautious leader may procrastinate, conduct more research, and actually make the problem bigger.

Habitual Distrust is defined by Dotlich and Cairo as “a continual focus on the negatives.” Distrustful leaders are often skeptical regarding other’s motives and can create work environments where suspicion becomes a virus. Eventually, workers fail to accept feedback and nobody relies on anybody.

The authors define Aloofness as “disengaged and disconnected actions.” Aloof leaders often possess management styles which cut them off from people, ideas, and information. Aloof behavior tends to accelerate during periods of stress.

Mischievous leaders think “rules are made to be broken.” This derailer appears when a manager challenges tradition by acting impulsively without taking into account the impact of their actions.

The next derailer, Eccentricity, is described as “being different to be different.” Eccentric leaders can be brilliant idea generators who create unique environments. However, the authors note there can be a thin line between unique innovation, and confusion and irritation.

Passive Resistance is a behavior where a leader “says one thing and does another.” This derailer can result in confused and angry direct reports and alliances and teams which fall apart.

Perfectionist leaders are known for “getting the little details right and the big things wrong.” These leaders may have difficulty with delegating and often place stress upon themselves when projects are not being done efficiently.

The last derailer, Eagerness to Please, is defined by the authors as “always wanting to win the popularity contest.” CEOs and other leaders with this trait avoid conflict even at the expense of productivity.

Love Leadership approach

Standard

In a world where people are seemingly obsessed with success, Love Leadership makes the case that the path to sustained success is paved by leading with love, not fear.

Screen Shot 2015-12-22 at 7.10.06 pmDrawing from his personal transformation, interviews with well-known leaders, and anecdotes, John Hope Bryant explores love and fear leadership styles, proposing that love leadership acknowledges a person’s need for external success while tapping into the internal strength one gains by overcoming personal insecurities, limitations, and failures. Love leadership recognizes the wisdom gained by personal and business setbacks, the power of developing long-term relationships, and the wealth achieved by serving others.

Screen Shot 2015-11-13 at 5.34.53 pmBryant explores five “laws” that are fundamental to a love leadership approach:

  1. Loss Creates Leaders. Inner strength and wisdom are the products of legitimate suffering. Most great leaders have gained wisdom after enduring loss.
  2. Fear Fails. Although leading through fear continues to be prevalent today, fear-based leadership is self-defeating and does not lead to sustained success.
  3. Love Makes Money. Basing business success on caring for others and doing good makes an individual wealthy and is critical to long-term success in business.
  4. Vulnerability is Power. Opening up to others can be one’s greatest strength because it encourages people to do the same.
  5. Giving is Getting. The more a leader gives to others, the more likely he will attract good people, inspire loyalty, and experience true wealth.