Leadership Reflections #1

During the past eighteen months I’ve been focusing in my studies and research on leadership. I’ve focused this modeling in preparation for creating a leadership matrix using the Matrix model and for the first presentation of it next year in Geneva Switzerland (April 2006). Already Michelle Duval has been coaching a Leadership Matrix with various CEOs and senior management. Already we have a list of leadership criteria for Neuro-Semantics along with benchmarks for that criteria (Article on Website and in the Trainers manual).

Given that in one reference I discovered that there are over 6,000 titles on leadership and that’s just in English, what can we add? What’s new in the area of leadership?

Actually there are many, many new things. Various authors have been mapping out new distinctions in their studies about the many different kinds of leaders and styles of leadership as well some of the meta-skills critical for leadership. I’ll save those for later articles as well as for the Leadership Matrix model as well as applications of the Meaning/Performance axes for leadership.

For now I’d like to offer some reflections about leadership that I’ve been experiencing, how it relates to Neuro-Semantics, and implications for all of us. After all, the first and most immediate application that I have for these studies is my own need for getting clear on the leadership I have and want to offer as well as empowering others to become leaders in Neuro-Semantics so that together we can train up a new generation of leaders.

Ultimately, leadership is not a thing, but a process and therefore more accurately described using verbs than nouns. As a process, it’s about what and how we what we do. There’s only leadership when someone is leading out in thought or action and there are people who like that leading and so follow that lead. This makes the whole leadership thing an interactive interpersonal process involving communicating, relating, framing, acting, collaborating, giving and receiving feedback, and many, many other actions. This makes any and every leader’s leading a present-tense dynamic dependent upon ongoing exchange of vision, mission, values, style, etc.

Two reflections for now.

First is that the heart of leadership is about envisioning and pioneering a new path. I did not realize that’s what was happening when I first discovered the Meta-States model. While it brought together all kinds of things that I had been holding in suspense, all of the ambiguities that I had been embracing about mind and consciousness through years of reading Bateson, Korzybski, and many others, at first I only assumed that Meta-States was another pattern or two. It wasn’t long before I realized that it was an entire model, a model mapping out the workings of our self-reflexive consciousness.

Discovering that I followed that line of thought into the field of Meta-Cognition, Systems, the Cognitive sciences, neuro-science, Cognitive Linguistics, etc. Eventually, the model came together and created quite a stir in the field of NLP as it opened up new vistas of possibilities and eventually leading to some 150 new patterns. Writing about Meta-States in various journals and speaking about the model at various NLP Conferences, I began to travel upon invitations. Eventually, this led to the first Meta-State Certification training in Houston Texas.

While this description of some of the history may sound like I came up with it on my own, I did not. The model emerged as many others began asking questions, hard questions, explorative questions, as others saw new applications, connections, relationships with other models and ideas. Over the years I have attempted to track and credit the individuals who stimulated my thinking and further research but I’m sure that I’ve overlooked many who provided me feedback about things. In this example of a leadership of ideas, the so-called leading intimately involved the ones catching a vision of the ideas and seeing their inherent value. Again, it is a leading-following interaction of relationship.

And it is more. Meta-States satisfied a longing of mine about congruency. When I entered into the field of NLP, incongruency was the thing that struck me as the weakest link and the very thing that would threaten its success. I was both shocked and unsurprised when I first heard Richard Bandler say that he could not do NLP on himself during a training. Shocked because “how could that be?” If it’s about running your own brain and managing your own state, then just practice until you can do it on yourself?” Why not? But unsurprised when I saw how obese he was (and other things).

My longing was to find a pattern for “applying to self” and that’s, in part, what kept gnawing at me in the back of my mind about our self-reflexive minds. Paths are envisioned and pioneered by the presence of problems, difficulties, conflicts, stresses, distresses, traumas, and things not going right or things not working well. It is our of our necessities that we become the most creative. Therefore leading and training others to lead obviously involve enabling and empowering people to have embrace problems, welcome conflict, develop opportunity-seeing eyes when things are not going well. Such is the soil for creative leadership. So, given that, who’s game?

The second reflection. I’ve been discovering that, like wealth creation, there are many paradoxes about leadership. One is that to be a leader demands both being liked and disliked, followed and resisted, adored and hated. This is true when we think of the world-class leaders who have created revolutions, led nations, changed culture, created new industries and companies, etc. It is also true on much smaller levels. We both love and hate those who lead out. Take a stand – any stand – and you will have both your admirers and those who hate your guts. This is one of the occupational hazards and prices of being a leader.

With the recent conflict over one person, not a few have asked me what’s it like to receive so much hateful insults and slander. I mostly think, “part of the price. The way it’s been since I took Meta-States and Neuro-Semantics international. Par for the course.” Others have asked, “Why don’t you defend yourself?” My answer is that I don’t have to. If others want to waste their time and energy criticizing me rather, that’s their choice. Like the title of a book I saw many years ago, “Your opinion of me is none of my business.” That’s very Neuro-Semantic; I’m in charge of my response-powers and power zone so that what I’m responsible for pretty much ends at my nose.

In addition to that, I have so much better things to do than fuss about whether everybody likes me. I’m working on several new models, I have a book I’ve looking to finish on self-actualization, I have trainings to conduct, research to continue, a beautiful lady to love, a wonderful daughter to spend time with, rental properties to manage, a book business to look after, etc. Why would I want to waste time with trying to control the whining complaints of people who don’t like me? Hey, they are giving me free rent in their heads!

If you’re going to lead, you are going to piss some people off. It’s inevitable. As a leader my only focus about that is that I make sure that this pissing off power comes from the vision, mission, and values that I’m promoting and living, and not otherwise. If people don’t like the Vision of Neuro-Semantics and our mission or the values that we stand up for, well, they’re not invited to our party just as I’m not invited to their party. Now, where’s the red wine and who wants to propose the first toast?