The advantages of Strength-Based Leadership is that it is an empowering system which uses best parts of a person. The leader knows what he/she can and cannot do, and he/she is honest about it. If the leader knows that he/she can run an organization, but lacks computer skills, then he/she admits that from the start and works with someone who can complement them. You work with other people's strengths, and don't harp on their weaknesses.
The biggest killer of any leader or leadership structure is fear. If a subordinate fears to report a problem, then the problem grows larger the more time passes. If a leader fears to tell his/her people about a mistake, then the problem eats away at the leader's conscience and eventually destroys the people's faith in their leader. So the first thing you must do in a Strengths-Based Leadership structure is remove the roots of fear. Make it clear that all problems are to be reported at once, and that it is not a matter of blame. You can even put the fear to rest by offering a bonus or a "pleasant surprise" to people who spot problems or potential hazards. A pizza or a bundle of flowers doesn't cost much, it brightens everyone's day, and it is proof that fear has no place in the leadership structure.
There was a very good poem in George R. R. Martin's book, Game of Thrones, which a fencer used as a mantra to a student. I liked it so much, I copied it, and posted it in my office. If this were to be posted in any school, office, or training center it would empower many people:
"Swift as a deer. Quiet as a shadow. Fear cuts deeper than swords.
Quick as a snake. Calm as still water. Fear cuts deeper than swords.
Strong as a bear. Fierce as a wolverine. Fear cuts deeper than swords.
The man who fears losing has already lost. Fear cuts deeper than swords.
Fear cuts deeper than swords. Fear cuts deeper than swords."
A Strengths-Based Leadership system must use all the positive qualities that people have to offer. One must indeed be swift, quiet, strong, calm, and fierce. Everyone should embody these qualities, and use them for the common good. But, it is easier to be these things when you know that you need not fear.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Monday, April 16, 2012
Teacher Leadership
>>What do I hope to gain from the Teacher Leadership program?
What I hope to gain is a better understanding of what is required as both a teacher and as a leader. To date, my experience in the classroom has been in one of two roles, neither of which allow for much experience as a leader.
First, I have been an ESL teacher in the Far East. In that role, my purpose is to impart the lessons and meaning of language to people who speak a language other than English. For total immersion purposes, the lessons are always in English; those who have lesser abilities either struggle to keep up or are helped along by their friends. I give aid whenever I can. But the students naturally look to me; I do not lead so much as I shepherd. No one questions my position as head of the class, nor is there much give and take; I must be the fount of all wisdom and experience. Unsurprisingly, teaching ESL overseas is an exhausting venue.
Second, my work in classrooms is as a Substitute Teacher. In that role, I am confined to following the lesson plan of the person whom I am subbing for. The rules and the plans for the day are laid out in black and white, and I cannot deviate from that plan. Both the teacher and the school are counting on me to do what I am told and stick to the course provided. Moreover, the students themselves will correct me right away if I don't do things the way their teacher requests. Since I hope to gain the regular teacher's approval (and hopefully return again at their request), I must follow their guideline.
So, I am hoping to learn how to lead properly. It is something that I haven't had much experience with at all.
Lawrence Burdick
lawrenceburdick@hotmail.com
San Francisco Bay Area
What I hope to gain is a better understanding of what is required as both a teacher and as a leader. To date, my experience in the classroom has been in one of two roles, neither of which allow for much experience as a leader.
First, I have been an ESL teacher in the Far East. In that role, my purpose is to impart the lessons and meaning of language to people who speak a language other than English. For total immersion purposes, the lessons are always in English; those who have lesser abilities either struggle to keep up or are helped along by their friends. I give aid whenever I can. But the students naturally look to me; I do not lead so much as I shepherd. No one questions my position as head of the class, nor is there much give and take; I must be the fount of all wisdom and experience. Unsurprisingly, teaching ESL overseas is an exhausting venue.
Second, my work in classrooms is as a Substitute Teacher. In that role, I am confined to following the lesson plan of the person whom I am subbing for. The rules and the plans for the day are laid out in black and white, and I cannot deviate from that plan. Both the teacher and the school are counting on me to do what I am told and stick to the course provided. Moreover, the students themselves will correct me right away if I don't do things the way their teacher requests. Since I hope to gain the regular teacher's approval (and hopefully return again at their request), I must follow their guideline.
So, I am hoping to learn how to lead properly. It is something that I haven't had much experience with at all.
Lawrence Burdick
lawrenceburdick@hotmail.com
San Francisco Bay Area
Sunday, April 15, 2012
The Royal Prison
The Royal Wedding was televised a while back, but I didn't bother to watch it. As an American citizen, of course, I am not obligated to pay homage to the British crown; I own a tuxedo which suits me fine when I want to dress up, and my one attempt at Holy Matrimony ended in divorce. Suffice to say, the royal marriage had nothing to offer me. But beyond the political scope, I felt as though there was something a little bit sad about the marriage of between William and Kate. The velvet-trimmed cage of Buckingham Palace has just claimed another victim, and the royal minders and scheduling agents have another client to plan out a day-to-day existence, from her first press-conference through her family life and clear up to the state funeral procession through the streets of London. It is an existence which will consume her daily life, and there will be no getting away from it.
Next time you see the royals on TV, look closely at them. They present themselves in a stated assembly, with just so much space between them. The idea is that they want to be in the correct formation for a picture; no one can block the view of the others. I don't know, but I suspect that like movie actors, they have their marks taped down on the floor, and everyone has to stand at their appointed place. Each public appearance is carefully choreographed, clear down to how to wave to the crowd. Think about that for a moment. Can you imagine that? Constantly practicing how to wave to a crowd? Who knows how many hours of practice before the wave is satisfactory?
King Edward VIII once said, "What does it take to be a good king? You must be a figurehead, a wooden man! Do nothing to upset the Prime Minister or the Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury! Show yourself to the people! Mind your manners! Go to Church! What sort of modern man wants that sort of life?" He hated the idea of being king, which was why he gave it up and married Mrs. Wallis-Simpson, because he knew that meant he would have to give up the throne.
To the average Joe (or Jack, if you're part of the U.K.), it might seem like the Royals have it easy. After all, they are part of a family that appear to have no material cares in the world. They receive adulation from many (although certainly not all) of their subjects, and they have all the freedom of time they want. But the reality is quite different. As Edward VIII noted, there is the constant pretension; the practiced waves and gestures; people waiting on you hand and foot; being told what is and isn't "proper" behavior; never being able to slip into a pub and get drunk with total strangers. The Royals are always being properly groomed and never getting to wear that favorite old T-shirt or the that ratty old terry-cloth robe because it has either been thrown out by the butler, or been mended by a seamstress so that it is suitably tailored. There are the endless autographs to sign, cutting ribbons at factories, christening ships for the navy, presiding over tea ceremonies, meeting dignitaries, exchanging presents with total strangers, going on tours to places that you'd never want to visit, etc. Life for the royals is an endless costume party at which you are an enforced guest who is never allowed to leave.
And consider this: if your father is a tyrannical brute like King John, then you have no recourse but to take it, giving rise to the infamous "stiff upper lip". Take the cruelty now, and then pass the buck to the next generation. Remember that line in The King's Speech where the king confesses that his own father said, "'I was terrified of my father, and my children will be terrified of me!'" Which traumatized the boy, and gave him a stammer. Real picture of paternal love, don't you think? But what could that little boy do? His oppressor was the King!
Every time I look at a picture of Prince Charles, I try to look past the official face, the carefully presented cardboard cutout, and try to see the real man underneath. Whenever I do, I see someone who is deeply troubled; a man who got stuck playing a part that he felt should have been taken off the stage years before. Charles looks like a guy who longs for a quiet corner of the room with a thick blanket and warm socks. This is a guy who's been wearing Penny Loafers for far too long. He looks tired.
According to legend, almost a thousand years ago, a monarch named Boleslaus II was drafted to be the king of Poland. According to legend, he protested mightily that he did not want the job, and was literally frog-marched to the throne. One day, after a royal hunt, it was discovered that the king had disappeared. After a long search, he was discovered working in the streets as a common porter, hauling loads on his back and living in shabby quarters. The entire royal court begged him to return to the throne, and he answered thusly, "Upon my honor, gentlemen, the load which I quitted is far heavier than the one you see me carry here; the weightiest is but a straw when compared to that world under which I labored. I have slept more in four nights than I have in all my reign. I begin to live and be a king of myself. Elect whom you choose. For me, who am so well, it were madness to return to court."
Sometimes I wonder if Prince Charles doesn't have that same dream: to slip away and live as a commoner. Kate Middleston has always known this life, and no doubt thinks that she will not miss it, but I think she will. For her new father-in-law, Charles, though, it represents a life that he knows nothing about, and epitomizes the one quality that he has never had--the freedom to be left alone.
Next time you see the royals on TV, look closely at them. They present themselves in a stated assembly, with just so much space between them. The idea is that they want to be in the correct formation for a picture; no one can block the view of the others. I don't know, but I suspect that like movie actors, they have their marks taped down on the floor, and everyone has to stand at their appointed place. Each public appearance is carefully choreographed, clear down to how to wave to the crowd. Think about that for a moment. Can you imagine that? Constantly practicing how to wave to a crowd? Who knows how many hours of practice before the wave is satisfactory?
King Edward VIII once said, "What does it take to be a good king? You must be a figurehead, a wooden man! Do nothing to upset the Prime Minister or the Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury! Show yourself to the people! Mind your manners! Go to Church! What sort of modern man wants that sort of life?" He hated the idea of being king, which was why he gave it up and married Mrs. Wallis-Simpson, because he knew that meant he would have to give up the throne.
To the average Joe (or Jack, if you're part of the U.K.), it might seem like the Royals have it easy. After all, they are part of a family that appear to have no material cares in the world. They receive adulation from many (although certainly not all) of their subjects, and they have all the freedom of time they want. But the reality is quite different. As Edward VIII noted, there is the constant pretension; the practiced waves and gestures; people waiting on you hand and foot; being told what is and isn't "proper" behavior; never being able to slip into a pub and get drunk with total strangers. The Royals are always being properly groomed and never getting to wear that favorite old T-shirt or the that ratty old terry-cloth robe because it has either been thrown out by the butler, or been mended by a seamstress so that it is suitably tailored. There are the endless autographs to sign, cutting ribbons at factories, christening ships for the navy, presiding over tea ceremonies, meeting dignitaries, exchanging presents with total strangers, going on tours to places that you'd never want to visit, etc. Life for the royals is an endless costume party at which you are an enforced guest who is never allowed to leave.
And consider this: if your father is a tyrannical brute like King John, then you have no recourse but to take it, giving rise to the infamous "stiff upper lip". Take the cruelty now, and then pass the buck to the next generation. Remember that line in The King's Speech where the king confesses that his own father said, "'I was terrified of my father, and my children will be terrified of me!'" Which traumatized the boy, and gave him a stammer. Real picture of paternal love, don't you think? But what could that little boy do? His oppressor was the King!
Every time I look at a picture of Prince Charles, I try to look past the official face, the carefully presented cardboard cutout, and try to see the real man underneath. Whenever I do, I see someone who is deeply troubled; a man who got stuck playing a part that he felt should have been taken off the stage years before. Charles looks like a guy who longs for a quiet corner of the room with a thick blanket and warm socks. This is a guy who's been wearing Penny Loafers for far too long. He looks tired.
According to legend, almost a thousand years ago, a monarch named Boleslaus II was drafted to be the king of Poland. According to legend, he protested mightily that he did not want the job, and was literally frog-marched to the throne. One day, after a royal hunt, it was discovered that the king had disappeared. After a long search, he was discovered working in the streets as a common porter, hauling loads on his back and living in shabby quarters. The entire royal court begged him to return to the throne, and he answered thusly, "Upon my honor, gentlemen, the load which I quitted is far heavier than the one you see me carry here; the weightiest is but a straw when compared to that world under which I labored. I have slept more in four nights than I have in all my reign. I begin to live and be a king of myself. Elect whom you choose. For me, who am so well, it were madness to return to court."
Sometimes I wonder if Prince Charles doesn't have that same dream: to slip away and live as a commoner. Kate Middleston has always known this life, and no doubt thinks that she will not miss it, but I think she will. For her new father-in-law, Charles, though, it represents a life that he knows nothing about, and epitomizes the one quality that he has never had--the freedom to be left alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)