Usual obvious margined-up stuff. It’ll be unfashionable in a year and the new Gurus will muscle in. Remember “In Search of Excellence” and “The Balanced Scorecard”. I’m a retired management consultant with a PhD in Psychology, like the vast majority of research in social psychology it’s 99% bull droppings.
This is one of the clearest articulations I’ve seen on the distinction between empathy and compassion—especially how compassion includes the bandwidth to act without collapse. That nuance often gets lost in spiritual and leadership circles alike.
I also appreciate the reframing of the “quiet ego” not as ego death, but as ego integration. So many frameworks talk about transcendence or self-awareness, but miss how functional leadership arises not from disowning the self but from stabilizing it enough to include others. The nod to SDT was especially resonant—autonomy and connection really do create the foundation for sustainable, not performative, leadership.
What struck me most, though, is how much of this scaffolding invites leaders to become more human, not more idealized. Thank you for helping translate science into clarity without dilution.
Successful organizations have several key elements that distinguish them from those that are unsuccessful. They have leadership that is forward-looking, adaptive to changing conditions, and concerned with the cultural processes that enable the workforce to meet organizational goals and expectations. Leadership is dependent upon situational circumstances and the needs of those who are disposed to follow.
Unfortunately, circumstances and the resulting needs that arise are in a continual state of change. What worked today may not work tomorrow. Leadership, at best, is contingent. Behavior and skills must be flexible, adaptive, and proficient enough to meet situational conditions. Those who survive know when to be task-driven as well as relationship-driven. Unfortunately. These skills are not often found together in the same person.
Leaders come and go. Some are nice, but others are jerks. That’s life. Some days you’re the bug, and some days you’re the windshield. It depends on which way the wind is blowing. Being relationship-driven only works some of the time. Leadership is a skill set that, by necessity, must focus on organizational survival and creating benefits for all parties involved. This means balancing several constituencies and competing demands.
Some people will like what is going on, while others may not. In the end, it’s about balance, being fair, and being sensitive to both individual and situational factors. Followership tends to be normally distributed, which means the focus needs to be on the roughly 70 percent who are in the middle. Leaders don’t have to be 100 percent likable to be effective.
Usual obvious margined-up stuff. It’ll be unfashionable in a year and the new Gurus will muscle in. Remember “In Search of Excellence” and “The Balanced Scorecard”. I’m a retired management consultant with a PhD in Psychology, like the vast majority of research in social psychology it’s 99% bull droppings.
This is one of the clearest articulations I’ve seen on the distinction between empathy and compassion—especially how compassion includes the bandwidth to act without collapse. That nuance often gets lost in spiritual and leadership circles alike.
I also appreciate the reframing of the “quiet ego” not as ego death, but as ego integration. So many frameworks talk about transcendence or self-awareness, but miss how functional leadership arises not from disowning the self but from stabilizing it enough to include others. The nod to SDT was especially resonant—autonomy and connection really do create the foundation for sustainable, not performative, leadership.
What struck me most, though, is how much of this scaffolding invites leaders to become more human, not more idealized. Thank you for helping translate science into clarity without dilution.
Successful organizations have several key elements that distinguish them from those that are unsuccessful. They have leadership that is forward-looking, adaptive to changing conditions, and concerned with the cultural processes that enable the workforce to meet organizational goals and expectations. Leadership is dependent upon situational circumstances and the needs of those who are disposed to follow.
Unfortunately, circumstances and the resulting needs that arise are in a continual state of change. What worked today may not work tomorrow. Leadership, at best, is contingent. Behavior and skills must be flexible, adaptive, and proficient enough to meet situational conditions. Those who survive know when to be task-driven as well as relationship-driven. Unfortunately. These skills are not often found together in the same person.
Leaders come and go. Some are nice, but others are jerks. That’s life. Some days you’re the bug, and some days you’re the windshield. It depends on which way the wind is blowing. Being relationship-driven only works some of the time. Leadership is a skill set that, by necessity, must focus on organizational survival and creating benefits for all parties involved. This means balancing several constituencies and competing demands.
Some people will like what is going on, while others may not. In the end, it’s about balance, being fair, and being sensitive to both individual and situational factors. Followership tends to be normally distributed, which means the focus needs to be on the roughly 70 percent who are in the middle. Leaders don’t have to be 100 percent likable to be effective.