The 'humble hound' leadership style
She believes we only progress through a series of regulated errors. Every move is a partial failure, to be corrected by the next one. Even walking involves shifting your weight off-balance and then compensating with the next step. . . . She tries not to fall for the seductions that Collins says mark failing organizations: the belief that one magic move will change everything; the faith in perpetual restructuring; the tendency to replace questions with statements at meetings. NY Times
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm refering to The Humble Hound article in New York Times.
ReplyDeleteWatson-like Summary
(1) Good leaders are humble.
So, 1) they seek and find devices to compensate their weaknesses.
2) they budget for their failure "Every move is a partial failure, to be corrected ... "
(2) Good leaders have "intense professional will” i.e. discipline
So, they use the above-mentioned devices.
My Conclusion
(1) David Brooks and Jim Collins haven't been in real leadership roles.
(2) They haven't read or understood biographies of Mao Zedong, Ghandi, General Grant, Montgomery, President Lincoln and Reagan, etc.
My Reasons
(1) Humility is necessary for leaders. But not enough. Groupthink-driven, consensus-seeking leaders will get no where. e.g Kennedy and Bay of Pigs ops?
(2) Leaders have vision and will to impose on any situation and circumstances. I'm not preaching "mind over matter" stuffs, or Hitler-like "superman" "will" stuffs.
Given the same set of situations and factors, Jimmy Carter saw something and did something WHEREAS Reagan saw something different and did something different.
Will discipline and humility compensate for such stuffs?
(3) I believe in leadership processes. But they are more than humilty and discipline.
More at EthicMinds
Thanks for commenting. I appreciate your thoughts, but this was posted in the context of pregnancy care center directors, not governmental leaders.
ReplyDelete