Bosses, Empathy, and Teaching: Thoughts from an Anonymous CEO

Written by

One of the bad and good things about spending a couple years writing a book is the process requires writing and then deleting a huge amount of text. This morning, I was reading through some of the scraps from Good Boss, Bad Boss and I ran into an inspired argument from a local CEO (I am not using his name because I didn't ask him if I could use it here, and so I think that is the civil thing to do). This CEO argued that he is most effective at his job when thinks and acts a lot like a teacher.

I wish we could have found a place for this section in the book. But I've learned (in line with this post quoting Steve Jobs) that if you are an author (or do any other kind of creative work) you not only have to discard a lot of bad ideas, you also have to get rid of a lot of good ideas — otherwise there is too much complexity in the final product and you can't focus your full energy on what matters most. So every author ends up deleting things he or she loves, and this is one of my favorite "discarded darlings" from Good Boss, Bad Boss.

For this post, I've changed the CEO's name to "Sam," but the rest is just as it would have appeared in the book and reflects multiple emails where this very sharp CEO and I exchanged revisions to reach a point where the text reflected both of our beliefs on the subject. Here is the excerpt:

Sam reports that to be an empathetic
boss, he has learned to devote close attention to his little facial expressions,
off-hand comments in emails and conversations, and seemingly trivial things like
whether he acknowledges people when passing them in halls. Sam went on to explain that this becomes
easier when he adopts what might be called a follower-centered mindset:

“Life is a lot better when think about my job as one of helping everyone be good,
helping everyone learn whatever they need, and teaching where I've got
experience and expertise. When I think in terms of helping people learn to be
even better, it automatically puts me into an empathetic mode (because
teaching, fundamentally, is about understanding where the learner is coming
from), and that sets up the interaction really well. I can't always stay in this teaching mode.
Sometimes there are real pressures and things I need to deliver on. Sometimes external stressors in my life cause
me to forget to be empathetic. But usually now I can notice when it's happening
and correct it.”

As Sam and I talked, we realized that
– whether it is a big important meeting or the most trivial conversation,
email, or blog post – the best bosses seem to keep asking themselves: “Why am I doing this? Is it because I am on
an ego trip and trying to get more goodies and glory for myself? Or is it really the best thing for enhancing
my people’s collective performance and humanity?”

When bosses can honestly answer the
question with a “yes” (and peers, bosses, and followers concur with their
assessment), good things happen. People
do good work. They experience dignity and pride in each other.

I am so struck by this comment from Sam that I want to repeat it: "When I think in terms of helping people learn to be
even better, it automatically puts me into an empathetic mode (because
teaching, fundamentally, is about understanding where the learner is
coming
from)." I believe he is talking about a hallmark of the most admired and effective bosses.

What
do you think of this view of
leadership? Does it strike you as
right? Or is it too idealistic?

P.S. If you read the comments below, you will see that the "anonymous" CEO quoted here has read it and is comfortable with having his name attached. It is John Lilly, CEO of Mozilla, which is most famous for the Firefox browser. So "Sam" is really "John." John, thanks for wisdom and great exchanges. Also, John writes a great blog, which among other things, contains great stuff on all the book's he reads.

Comments

80 responses to “Bosses, Empathy, and Teaching: Thoughts from an Anonymous CEO”

May 5, 2010

Dances With Books

Definitely too idealistic. Once they get to the higher levels of administration, and they lose touch with the trenches, bosses are not really helping. They are hindering the good work the rest of us do to serve our communities. Administration (at least in the education field, and I will let you ponder the irony of that) is basically a way to advance (maybe get an extra bit in your paycheck). But actually helping those under you? Very rarely. It is a big reason I refuse to become an administrator. I just do not want to be ruined into someone worried more about assessments, statistics, reports, and the eternal ROI than his workers and the work we are all supposed to do in the first place.

Reply
May 5, 2010

Dances With Books

Definitely too idealistic. Once they get to the higher levels of administration, and they lose touch with the trenches, bosses are not really helping. They are hindering the good work the rest of us do to serve our communities. Administration (at least in the education field, and I will let you ponder the irony of that) is basically a way to advance (maybe get an extra bit in your paycheck). But actually helping those under you? Very rarely. It is a big reason I refuse to become an administrator. I just do not want to be ruined into someone worried more about assessments, statistics, reports, and the eternal ROI than his workers and the work we are all supposed to do in the first place.

Reply
May 5, 2010

Dances With Books

Definitely too idealistic. Once they get to the higher levels of administration, and they lose touch with the trenches, bosses are not really helping. They are hindering the good work the rest of us do to serve our communities. Administration (at least in the education field, and I will let you ponder the irony of that) is basically a way to advance (maybe get an extra bit in your paycheck). But actually helping those under you? Very rarely. It is a big reason I refuse to become an administrator. I just do not want to be ruined into someone worried more about assessments, statistics, reports, and the eternal ROI than his workers and the work we are all supposed to do in the first place.

Reply
May 5, 2010

Dances With Books

Definitely too idealistic. Once they get to the higher levels of administration, and they lose touch with the trenches, bosses are not really helping. They are hindering the good work the rest of us do to serve our communities. Administration (at least in the education field, and I will let you ponder the irony of that) is basically a way to advance (maybe get an extra bit in your paycheck). But actually helping those under you? Very rarely. It is a big reason I refuse to become an administrator. I just do not want to be ruined into someone worried more about assessments, statistics, reports, and the eternal ROI than his workers and the work we are all supposed to do in the first place.

Reply
May 5, 2010

Dances With Books

Definitely too idealistic. Once they get to the higher levels of administration, and they lose touch with the trenches, bosses are not really helping. They are hindering the good work the rest of us do to serve our communities. Administration (at least in the education field, and I will let you ponder the irony of that) is basically a way to advance (maybe get an extra bit in your paycheck). But actually helping those under you? Very rarely. It is a big reason I refuse to become an administrator. I just do not want to be ruined into someone worried more about assessments, statistics, reports, and the eternal ROI than his workers and the work we are all supposed to do in the first place.

Reply
May 5, 2010

Dances With Books

Definitely too idealistic. Once they get to the higher levels of administration, and they lose touch with the trenches, bosses are not really helping. They are hindering the good work the rest of us do to serve our communities. Administration (at least in the education field, and I will let you ponder the irony of that) is basically a way to advance (maybe get an extra bit in your paycheck). But actually helping those under you? Very rarely. It is a big reason I refuse to become an administrator. I just do not want to be ruined into someone worried more about assessments, statistics, reports, and the eternal ROI than his workers and the work we are all supposed to do in the first place.

Reply
May 5, 2010

Dances With Books

Definitely too idealistic. Once they get to the higher levels of administration, and they lose touch with the trenches, bosses are not really helping. They are hindering the good work the rest of us do to serve our communities. Administration (at least in the education field, and I will let you ponder the irony of that) is basically a way to advance (maybe get an extra bit in your paycheck). But actually helping those under you? Very rarely. It is a big reason I refuse to become an administrator. I just do not want to be ruined into someone worried more about assessments, statistics, reports, and the eternal ROI than his workers and the work we are all supposed to do in the first place.

Reply
May 5, 2010

Dances With Books

Definitely too idealistic. Once they get to the higher levels of administration, and they lose touch with the trenches, bosses are not really helping. They are hindering the good work the rest of us do to serve our communities. Administration (at least in the education field, and I will let you ponder the irony of that) is basically a way to advance (maybe get an extra bit in your paycheck). But actually helping those under you? Very rarely. It is a big reason I refuse to become an administrator. I just do not want to be ruined into someone worried more about assessments, statistics, reports, and the eternal ROI than his workers and the work we are all supposed to do in the first place.

Reply
May 5, 2010

John Lilly

Hi Bob — Thanks for redacting my name, but it’s fine to have my name on the quotes. Important to emphasize that I think acting this way is the ideal. I fall short a lot, as does everyone, I’d imagine. But it’s the way I try to be, and it’s the way that I like to be treated by others.

Reply
May 5, 2010

John Lilly

Hi Bob — Thanks for redacting my name, but it’s fine to have my name on the quotes. Important to emphasize that I think acting this way is the ideal. I fall short a lot, as does everyone, I’d imagine. But it’s the way I try to be, and it’s the way that I like to be treated by others.

Reply
May 5, 2010

John Lilly

Hi Bob — Thanks for redacting my name, but it’s fine to have my name on the quotes. Important to emphasize that I think acting this way is the ideal. I fall short a lot, as does everyone, I’d imagine. But it’s the way I try to be, and it’s the way that I like to be treated by others.

Reply
May 5, 2010

John Lilly

Hi Bob — Thanks for redacting my name, but it’s fine to have my name on the quotes. Important to emphasize that I think acting this way is the ideal. I fall short a lot, as does everyone, I’d imagine. But it’s the way I try to be, and it’s the way that I like to be treated by others.

Reply
May 5, 2010

John Lilly

Hi Bob — Thanks for redacting my name, but it’s fine to have my name on the quotes. Important to emphasize that I think acting this way is the ideal. I fall short a lot, as does everyone, I’d imagine. But it’s the way I try to be, and it’s the way that I like to be treated by others.

Reply
May 5, 2010

John Lilly

Hi Bob — Thanks for redacting my name, but it’s fine to have my name on the quotes. Important to emphasize that I think acting this way is the ideal. I fall short a lot, as does everyone, I’d imagine. But it’s the way I try to be, and it’s the way that I like to be treated by others.

Reply
May 5, 2010

John Lilly

Hi Bob — Thanks for redacting my name, but it’s fine to have my name on the quotes. Important to emphasize that I think acting this way is the ideal. I fall short a lot, as does everyone, I’d imagine. But it’s the way I try to be, and it’s the way that I like to be treated by others.

Reply
May 5, 2010

John Lilly

Hi Bob — Thanks for redacting my name, but it’s fine to have my name on the quotes. Important to emphasize that I think acting this way is the ideal. I fall short a lot, as does everyone, I’d imagine. But it’s the way I try to be, and it’s the way that I like to be treated by others.

Reply
May 5, 2010

Bret Simmons

Love it, Bob. Great example of a purposeful leader. I’m betting that he learned this behavior and posture as a follower. Doubt he morphed into this kind of leader once he got to the top. He was probably a very purposeful follower. Thanks for sharing. Bret

Reply
May 5, 2010

Bret Simmons

Love it, Bob. Great example of a purposeful leader. I’m betting that he learned this behavior and posture as a follower. Doubt he morphed into this kind of leader once he got to the top. He was probably a very purposeful follower. Thanks for sharing. Bret

Reply
May 5, 2010

Bret Simmons

Love it, Bob. Great example of a purposeful leader. I’m betting that he learned this behavior and posture as a follower. Doubt he morphed into this kind of leader once he got to the top. He was probably a very purposeful follower. Thanks for sharing. Bret

Reply
May 5, 2010

Bret Simmons

Love it, Bob. Great example of a purposeful leader. I’m betting that he learned this behavior and posture as a follower. Doubt he morphed into this kind of leader once he got to the top. He was probably a very purposeful follower. Thanks for sharing. Bret

Reply
May 5, 2010

Bret Simmons

Love it, Bob. Great example of a purposeful leader. I’m betting that he learned this behavior and posture as a follower. Doubt he morphed into this kind of leader once he got to the top. He was probably a very purposeful follower. Thanks for sharing. Bret

Reply
May 5, 2010

Bret Simmons

Love it, Bob. Great example of a purposeful leader. I’m betting that he learned this behavior and posture as a follower. Doubt he morphed into this kind of leader once he got to the top. He was probably a very purposeful follower. Thanks for sharing. Bret

Reply
May 5, 2010

Bret Simmons

Love it, Bob. Great example of a purposeful leader. I’m betting that he learned this behavior and posture as a follower. Doubt he morphed into this kind of leader once he got to the top. He was probably a very purposeful follower. Thanks for sharing. Bret

Reply
May 5, 2010

Bret Simmons

Love it, Bob. Great example of a purposeful leader. I’m betting that he learned this behavior and posture as a follower. Doubt he morphed into this kind of leader once he got to the top. He was probably a very purposeful follower. Thanks for sharing. Bret

Reply
May 5, 2010

Elad Sherf

I love this approach. In fact, I just wrote a post about inspired by Edgar Schine new book about helping. http://comparativeadvantage.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/helping-as-an-overreaching-concept/
If we just adopt an attitude of helping. all of us, not just managers, work will be such a better place. Thanks for sharing this with us. If this is the scarps, the book will be really great!

Reply
May 5, 2010

Elad Sherf

I love this approach. In fact, I just wrote a post about inspired by Edgar Schine new book about helping. http://comparativeadvantage.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/helping-as-an-overreaching-concept/
If we just adopt an attitude of helping. all of us, not just managers, work will be such a better place. Thanks for sharing this with us. If this is the scarps, the book will be really great!

Reply
May 5, 2010

Elad Sherf

I love this approach. In fact, I just wrote a post about inspired by Edgar Schine new book about helping. http://comparativeadvantage.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/helping-as-an-overreaching-concept/
If we just adopt an attitude of helping. all of us, not just managers, work will be such a better place. Thanks for sharing this with us. If this is the scarps, the book will be really great!

Reply
May 5, 2010

Elad Sherf

I love this approach. In fact, I just wrote a post about inspired by Edgar Schine new book about helping. http://comparativeadvantage.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/helping-as-an-overreaching-concept/
If we just adopt an attitude of helping. all of us, not just managers, work will be such a better place. Thanks for sharing this with us. If this is the scarps, the book will be really great!

Reply
May 5, 2010

Elad Sherf

I love this approach. In fact, I just wrote a post about inspired by Edgar Schine new book about helping. http://comparativeadvantage.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/helping-as-an-overreaching-concept/
If we just adopt an attitude of helping. all of us, not just managers, work will be such a better place. Thanks for sharing this with us. If this is the scarps, the book will be really great!

Reply
May 5, 2010

Elad Sherf

I love this approach. In fact, I just wrote a post about inspired by Edgar Schine new book about helping. http://comparativeadvantage.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/helping-as-an-overreaching-concept/
If we just adopt an attitude of helping. all of us, not just managers, work will be such a better place. Thanks for sharing this with us. If this is the scarps, the book will be really great!

Reply
May 5, 2010

Elad Sherf

I love this approach. In fact, I just wrote a post about inspired by Edgar Schine new book about helping. http://comparativeadvantage.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/helping-as-an-overreaching-concept/
If we just adopt an attitude of helping. all of us, not just managers, work will be such a better place. Thanks for sharing this with us. If this is the scarps, the book will be really great!

Reply
May 5, 2010

Elad Sherf

I love this approach. In fact, I just wrote a post about inspired by Edgar Schine new book about helping. http://comparativeadvantage.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/helping-as-an-overreaching-concept/
If we just adopt an attitude of helping. all of us, not just managers, work will be such a better place. Thanks for sharing this with us. If this is the scarps, the book will be really great!

Reply
May 5, 2010

Michael McKinney

Thanks for sharing this Bob and John.
Idealistic? Perhaps. But I would agree it is something we should always strive for. Unfortunately, for many people, teaching means me smart and you dumb. By contrast, as it was described here, it is a learning experience for both. It helps the “learner” and it teaches the leader as well. It serves to keep the leader in touch with those in the “trenches” and helps those in the trenches to better understand there role in the overall picture. Unless a leader has specific expertise to contribute, I don’t think the kind of teaching we are talking about here is of that nature. It reminds me of something Lance Secretan once wrote:
“The principle purpose of the leader is to act as the main source of inspiration, personal development, support, and guidance for the principle customers of the leader—those who are followers. Otherwise, the role of the leader becomes superfluous since most of the followers know more about their work, goals, technologies, desired outcomes, and professional expertise than anyone who may be leading them.”
BTW,we need leaders who have seen it done incorrectly and know the pitfalls to step and lead. They are better able (more convicted?) to blaze a trail for others to follow.

Reply
May 5, 2010

Michael McKinney

Thanks for sharing this Bob and John.
Idealistic? Perhaps. But I would agree it is something we should always strive for. Unfortunately, for many people, teaching means me smart and you dumb. By contrast, as it was described here, it is a learning experience for both. It helps the “learner” and it teaches the leader as well. It serves to keep the leader in touch with those in the “trenches” and helps those in the trenches to better understand there role in the overall picture. Unless a leader has specific expertise to contribute, I don’t think the kind of teaching we are talking about here is of that nature. It reminds me of something Lance Secretan once wrote:
“The principle purpose of the leader is to act as the main source of inspiration, personal development, support, and guidance for the principle customers of the leader—those who are followers. Otherwise, the role of the leader becomes superfluous since most of the followers know more about their work, goals, technologies, desired outcomes, and professional expertise than anyone who may be leading them.”
BTW,we need leaders who have seen it done incorrectly and know the pitfalls to step and lead. They are better able (more convicted?) to blaze a trail for others to follow.

Reply
May 5, 2010

Michael McKinney

Thanks for sharing this Bob and John.
Idealistic? Perhaps. But I would agree it is something we should always strive for. Unfortunately, for many people, teaching means me smart and you dumb. By contrast, as it was described here, it is a learning experience for both. It helps the “learner” and it teaches the leader as well. It serves to keep the leader in touch with those in the “trenches” and helps those in the trenches to better understand there role in the overall picture. Unless a leader has specific expertise to contribute, I don’t think the kind of teaching we are talking about here is of that nature. It reminds me of something Lance Secretan once wrote:
“The principle purpose of the leader is to act as the main source of inspiration, personal development, support, and guidance for the principle customers of the leader—those who are followers. Otherwise, the role of the leader becomes superfluous since most of the followers know more about their work, goals, technologies, desired outcomes, and professional expertise than anyone who may be leading them.”
BTW,we need leaders who have seen it done incorrectly and know the pitfalls to step and lead. They are better able (more convicted?) to blaze a trail for others to follow.

Reply
May 5, 2010

Michael McKinney

Thanks for sharing this Bob and John.
Idealistic? Perhaps. But I would agree it is something we should always strive for. Unfortunately, for many people, teaching means me smart and you dumb. By contrast, as it was described here, it is a learning experience for both. It helps the “learner” and it teaches the leader as well. It serves to keep the leader in touch with those in the “trenches” and helps those in the trenches to better understand there role in the overall picture. Unless a leader has specific expertise to contribute, I don’t think the kind of teaching we are talking about here is of that nature. It reminds me of something Lance Secretan once wrote:
“The principle purpose of the leader is to act as the main source of inspiration, personal development, support, and guidance for the principle customers of the leader—those who are followers. Otherwise, the role of the leader becomes superfluous since most of the followers know more about their work, goals, technologies, desired outcomes, and professional expertise than anyone who may be leading them.”
BTW,we need leaders who have seen it done incorrectly and know the pitfalls to step and lead. They are better able (more convicted?) to blaze a trail for others to follow.

Reply
May 5, 2010

Michael McKinney

Thanks for sharing this Bob and John.
Idealistic? Perhaps. But I would agree it is something we should always strive for. Unfortunately, for many people, teaching means me smart and you dumb. By contrast, as it was described here, it is a learning experience for both. It helps the “learner” and it teaches the leader as well. It serves to keep the leader in touch with those in the “trenches” and helps those in the trenches to better understand there role in the overall picture. Unless a leader has specific expertise to contribute, I don’t think the kind of teaching we are talking about here is of that nature. It reminds me of something Lance Secretan once wrote:
“The principle purpose of the leader is to act as the main source of inspiration, personal development, support, and guidance for the principle customers of the leader—those who are followers. Otherwise, the role of the leader becomes superfluous since most of the followers know more about their work, goals, technologies, desired outcomes, and professional expertise than anyone who may be leading them.”
BTW,we need leaders who have seen it done incorrectly and know the pitfalls to step and lead. They are better able (more convicted?) to blaze a trail for others to follow.

Reply
May 5, 2010

Michael McKinney

Thanks for sharing this Bob and John.
Idealistic? Perhaps. But I would agree it is something we should always strive for. Unfortunately, for many people, teaching means me smart and you dumb. By contrast, as it was described here, it is a learning experience for both. It helps the “learner” and it teaches the leader as well. It serves to keep the leader in touch with those in the “trenches” and helps those in the trenches to better understand there role in the overall picture. Unless a leader has specific expertise to contribute, I don’t think the kind of teaching we are talking about here is of that nature. It reminds me of something Lance Secretan once wrote:
“The principle purpose of the leader is to act as the main source of inspiration, personal development, support, and guidance for the principle customers of the leader—those who are followers. Otherwise, the role of the leader becomes superfluous since most of the followers know more about their work, goals, technologies, desired outcomes, and professional expertise than anyone who may be leading them.”
BTW,we need leaders who have seen it done incorrectly and know the pitfalls to step and lead. They are better able (more convicted?) to blaze a trail for others to follow.

Reply
May 5, 2010

Michael McKinney

Thanks for sharing this Bob and John.
Idealistic? Perhaps. But I would agree it is something we should always strive for. Unfortunately, for many people, teaching means me smart and you dumb. By contrast, as it was described here, it is a learning experience for both. It helps the “learner” and it teaches the leader as well. It serves to keep the leader in touch with those in the “trenches” and helps those in the trenches to better understand there role in the overall picture. Unless a leader has specific expertise to contribute, I don’t think the kind of teaching we are talking about here is of that nature. It reminds me of something Lance Secretan once wrote:
“The principle purpose of the leader is to act as the main source of inspiration, personal development, support, and guidance for the principle customers of the leader—those who are followers. Otherwise, the role of the leader becomes superfluous since most of the followers know more about their work, goals, technologies, desired outcomes, and professional expertise than anyone who may be leading them.”
BTW,we need leaders who have seen it done incorrectly and know the pitfalls to step and lead. They are better able (more convicted?) to blaze a trail for others to follow.

Reply
May 5, 2010

Michael McKinney

Thanks for sharing this Bob and John.
Idealistic? Perhaps. But I would agree it is something we should always strive for. Unfortunately, for many people, teaching means me smart and you dumb. By contrast, as it was described here, it is a learning experience for both. It helps the “learner” and it teaches the leader as well. It serves to keep the leader in touch with those in the “trenches” and helps those in the trenches to better understand there role in the overall picture. Unless a leader has specific expertise to contribute, I don’t think the kind of teaching we are talking about here is of that nature. It reminds me of something Lance Secretan once wrote:
“The principle purpose of the leader is to act as the main source of inspiration, personal development, support, and guidance for the principle customers of the leader—those who are followers. Otherwise, the role of the leader becomes superfluous since most of the followers know more about their work, goals, technologies, desired outcomes, and professional expertise than anyone who may be leading them.”
BTW,we need leaders who have seen it done incorrectly and know the pitfalls to step and lead. They are better able (more convicted?) to blaze a trail for others to follow.

Reply
May 5, 2010

Joe Marchese

I like the mindset, and can see how it makes an impact.
I have occasionally seen myself in the role of host, making sure that I was of service to those in the organization. It serves to reinforce that one of my fundamental responsibilities is to create the conditions of success for all the in the organization. I think the distinction of ‘teacher’ adds a new element… thanx, John (and to Bob for pointing it out… I’ll treat scraps with more respect!).

Reply
May 5, 2010

Joe Marchese

I like the mindset, and can see how it makes an impact.
I have occasionally seen myself in the role of host, making sure that I was of service to those in the organization. It serves to reinforce that one of my fundamental responsibilities is to create the conditions of success for all the in the organization. I think the distinction of ‘teacher’ adds a new element… thanx, John (and to Bob for pointing it out… I’ll treat scraps with more respect!).

Reply
May 5, 2010

Joe Marchese

I like the mindset, and can see how it makes an impact.
I have occasionally seen myself in the role of host, making sure that I was of service to those in the organization. It serves to reinforce that one of my fundamental responsibilities is to create the conditions of success for all the in the organization. I think the distinction of ‘teacher’ adds a new element… thanx, John (and to Bob for pointing it out… I’ll treat scraps with more respect!).

Reply
May 5, 2010

Joe Marchese

I like the mindset, and can see how it makes an impact.
I have occasionally seen myself in the role of host, making sure that I was of service to those in the organization. It serves to reinforce that one of my fundamental responsibilities is to create the conditions of success for all the in the organization. I think the distinction of ‘teacher’ adds a new element… thanx, John (and to Bob for pointing it out… I’ll treat scraps with more respect!).

Reply
May 5, 2010

Joe Marchese

I like the mindset, and can see how it makes an impact.
I have occasionally seen myself in the role of host, making sure that I was of service to those in the organization. It serves to reinforce that one of my fundamental responsibilities is to create the conditions of success for all the in the organization. I think the distinction of ‘teacher’ adds a new element… thanx, John (and to Bob for pointing it out… I’ll treat scraps with more respect!).

Reply
May 5, 2010

Joe Marchese

I like the mindset, and can see how it makes an impact.
I have occasionally seen myself in the role of host, making sure that I was of service to those in the organization. It serves to reinforce that one of my fundamental responsibilities is to create the conditions of success for all the in the organization. I think the distinction of ‘teacher’ adds a new element… thanx, John (and to Bob for pointing it out… I’ll treat scraps with more respect!).

Reply
May 5, 2010

Joe Marchese

I like the mindset, and can see how it makes an impact.
I have occasionally seen myself in the role of host, making sure that I was of service to those in the organization. It serves to reinforce that one of my fundamental responsibilities is to create the conditions of success for all the in the organization. I think the distinction of ‘teacher’ adds a new element… thanx, John (and to Bob for pointing it out… I’ll treat scraps with more respect!).

Reply
May 5, 2010

Joe Marchese

I like the mindset, and can see how it makes an impact.
I have occasionally seen myself in the role of host, making sure that I was of service to those in the organization. It serves to reinforce that one of my fundamental responsibilities is to create the conditions of success for all the in the organization. I think the distinction of ‘teacher’ adds a new element… thanx, John (and to Bob for pointing it out… I’ll treat scraps with more respect!).

Reply
May 6, 2010

Thomas

This is going to sound a bit like nitpicking. You offer us a choice between two mindsets, which can be correlated with answers to the question “Why am I doing this?”:
(1) I am doing this because I am on an ego trip and trying to get more goodies and glory for myself.
(2) I am doing this because it is really the best thing for enhancing my people’s collective performance and humanity.
Notice that (1) goes to motive while (2) goes to results. Another way of putting it, the reason “I am doing this” in (1) is a property of the leader (“I am on an ego trip”) while in (2) it is a property of the action (“it is really the best thing”).
If we made these two answers more symmetrical they would not suggest such a simple either/or.
“Why am I doing this”?
(1) Because I’m on a ego trip and it’s the best thing for me.
(2) Because I think it’s the best thing to do.
Once we make this clear, it also becomes clear that this difference in leadership styles focuses on the leader’s *intentions* over his or her results. And we know where the road paved with the former leads.
It takes a pretty major ego (not necessarily an asshole) to believe s/he knows what’s best for others (or simply “really the best thing”). So I’m not sure that a leader that assumes that all is well so long as s/he’s not on an ego trip and therefore continuously keeps his/her ego in check by asking those questions, will be a good boss.
I sometimes think a good boss is someone who is less worried about being a good boss and more worried about whether I (the employee) is doing a good job.

Reply
May 6, 2010

Thomas

This is going to sound a bit like nitpicking. You offer us a choice between two mindsets, which can be correlated with answers to the question “Why am I doing this?”:
(1) I am doing this because I am on an ego trip and trying to get more goodies and glory for myself.
(2) I am doing this because it is really the best thing for enhancing my people’s collective performance and humanity.
Notice that (1) goes to motive while (2) goes to results. Another way of putting it, the reason “I am doing this” in (1) is a property of the leader (“I am on an ego trip”) while in (2) it is a property of the action (“it is really the best thing”).
If we made these two answers more symmetrical they would not suggest such a simple either/or.
“Why am I doing this”?
(1) Because I’m on a ego trip and it’s the best thing for me.
(2) Because I think it’s the best thing to do.
Once we make this clear, it also becomes clear that this difference in leadership styles focuses on the leader’s *intentions* over his or her results. And we know where the road paved with the former leads.
It takes a pretty major ego (not necessarily an asshole) to believe s/he knows what’s best for others (or simply “really the best thing”). So I’m not sure that a leader that assumes that all is well so long as s/he’s not on an ego trip and therefore continuously keeps his/her ego in check by asking those questions, will be a good boss.
I sometimes think a good boss is someone who is less worried about being a good boss and more worried about whether I (the employee) is doing a good job.

Reply
May 6, 2010

Thomas

This is going to sound a bit like nitpicking. You offer us a choice between two mindsets, which can be correlated with answers to the question “Why am I doing this?”:
(1) I am doing this because I am on an ego trip and trying to get more goodies and glory for myself.
(2) I am doing this because it is really the best thing for enhancing my people’s collective performance and humanity.
Notice that (1) goes to motive while (2) goes to results. Another way of putting it, the reason “I am doing this” in (1) is a property of the leader (“I am on an ego trip”) while in (2) it is a property of the action (“it is really the best thing”).
If we made these two answers more symmetrical they would not suggest such a simple either/or.
“Why am I doing this”?
(1) Because I’m on a ego trip and it’s the best thing for me.
(2) Because I think it’s the best thing to do.
Once we make this clear, it also becomes clear that this difference in leadership styles focuses on the leader’s *intentions* over his or her results. And we know where the road paved with the former leads.
It takes a pretty major ego (not necessarily an asshole) to believe s/he knows what’s best for others (or simply “really the best thing”). So I’m not sure that a leader that assumes that all is well so long as s/he’s not on an ego trip and therefore continuously keeps his/her ego in check by asking those questions, will be a good boss.
I sometimes think a good boss is someone who is less worried about being a good boss and more worried about whether I (the employee) is doing a good job.

Reply
May 6, 2010

Thomas

This is going to sound a bit like nitpicking. You offer us a choice between two mindsets, which can be correlated with answers to the question “Why am I doing this?”:
(1) I am doing this because I am on an ego trip and trying to get more goodies and glory for myself.
(2) I am doing this because it is really the best thing for enhancing my people’s collective performance and humanity.
Notice that (1) goes to motive while (2) goes to results. Another way of putting it, the reason “I am doing this” in (1) is a property of the leader (“I am on an ego trip”) while in (2) it is a property of the action (“it is really the best thing”).
If we made these two answers more symmetrical they would not suggest such a simple either/or.
“Why am I doing this”?
(1) Because I’m on a ego trip and it’s the best thing for me.
(2) Because I think it’s the best thing to do.
Once we make this clear, it also becomes clear that this difference in leadership styles focuses on the leader’s *intentions* over his or her results. And we know where the road paved with the former leads.
It takes a pretty major ego (not necessarily an asshole) to believe s/he knows what’s best for others (or simply “really the best thing”). So I’m not sure that a leader that assumes that all is well so long as s/he’s not on an ego trip and therefore continuously keeps his/her ego in check by asking those questions, will be a good boss.
I sometimes think a good boss is someone who is less worried about being a good boss and more worried about whether I (the employee) is doing a good job.

Reply
May 6, 2010

Thomas

This is going to sound a bit like nitpicking. You offer us a choice between two mindsets, which can be correlated with answers to the question “Why am I doing this?”:
(1) I am doing this because I am on an ego trip and trying to get more goodies and glory for myself.
(2) I am doing this because it is really the best thing for enhancing my people’s collective performance and humanity.
Notice that (1) goes to motive while (2) goes to results. Another way of putting it, the reason “I am doing this” in (1) is a property of the leader (“I am on an ego trip”) while in (2) it is a property of the action (“it is really the best thing”).
If we made these two answers more symmetrical they would not suggest such a simple either/or.
“Why am I doing this”?
(1) Because I’m on a ego trip and it’s the best thing for me.
(2) Because I think it’s the best thing to do.
Once we make this clear, it also becomes clear that this difference in leadership styles focuses on the leader’s *intentions* over his or her results. And we know where the road paved with the former leads.
It takes a pretty major ego (not necessarily an asshole) to believe s/he knows what’s best for others (or simply “really the best thing”). So I’m not sure that a leader that assumes that all is well so long as s/he’s not on an ego trip and therefore continuously keeps his/her ego in check by asking those questions, will be a good boss.
I sometimes think a good boss is someone who is less worried about being a good boss and more worried about whether I (the employee) is doing a good job.

Reply
May 6, 2010

Thomas

This is going to sound a bit like nitpicking. You offer us a choice between two mindsets, which can be correlated with answers to the question “Why am I doing this?”:
(1) I am doing this because I am on an ego trip and trying to get more goodies and glory for myself.
(2) I am doing this because it is really the best thing for enhancing my people’s collective performance and humanity.
Notice that (1) goes to motive while (2) goes to results. Another way of putting it, the reason “I am doing this” in (1) is a property of the leader (“I am on an ego trip”) while in (2) it is a property of the action (“it is really the best thing”).
If we made these two answers more symmetrical they would not suggest such a simple either/or.
“Why am I doing this”?
(1) Because I’m on a ego trip and it’s the best thing for me.
(2) Because I think it’s the best thing to do.
Once we make this clear, it also becomes clear that this difference in leadership styles focuses on the leader’s *intentions* over his or her results. And we know where the road paved with the former leads.
It takes a pretty major ego (not necessarily an asshole) to believe s/he knows what’s best for others (or simply “really the best thing”). So I’m not sure that a leader that assumes that all is well so long as s/he’s not on an ego trip and therefore continuously keeps his/her ego in check by asking those questions, will be a good boss.
I sometimes think a good boss is someone who is less worried about being a good boss and more worried about whether I (the employee) is doing a good job.

Reply
May 6, 2010

Thomas

This is going to sound a bit like nitpicking. You offer us a choice between two mindsets, which can be correlated with answers to the question “Why am I doing this?”:
(1) I am doing this because I am on an ego trip and trying to get more goodies and glory for myself.
(2) I am doing this because it is really the best thing for enhancing my people’s collective performance and humanity.
Notice that (1) goes to motive while (2) goes to results. Another way of putting it, the reason “I am doing this” in (1) is a property of the leader (“I am on an ego trip”) while in (2) it is a property of the action (“it is really the best thing”).
If we made these two answers more symmetrical they would not suggest such a simple either/or.
“Why am I doing this”?
(1) Because I’m on a ego trip and it’s the best thing for me.
(2) Because I think it’s the best thing to do.
Once we make this clear, it also becomes clear that this difference in leadership styles focuses on the leader’s *intentions* over his or her results. And we know where the road paved with the former leads.
It takes a pretty major ego (not necessarily an asshole) to believe s/he knows what’s best for others (or simply “really the best thing”). So I’m not sure that a leader that assumes that all is well so long as s/he’s not on an ego trip and therefore continuously keeps his/her ego in check by asking those questions, will be a good boss.
I sometimes think a good boss is someone who is less worried about being a good boss and more worried about whether I (the employee) is doing a good job.

Reply
May 6, 2010

Thomas

This is going to sound a bit like nitpicking. You offer us a choice between two mindsets, which can be correlated with answers to the question “Why am I doing this?”:
(1) I am doing this because I am on an ego trip and trying to get more goodies and glory for myself.
(2) I am doing this because it is really the best thing for enhancing my people’s collective performance and humanity.
Notice that (1) goes to motive while (2) goes to results. Another way of putting it, the reason “I am doing this” in (1) is a property of the leader (“I am on an ego trip”) while in (2) it is a property of the action (“it is really the best thing”).
If we made these two answers more symmetrical they would not suggest such a simple either/or.
“Why am I doing this”?
(1) Because I’m on a ego trip and it’s the best thing for me.
(2) Because I think it’s the best thing to do.
Once we make this clear, it also becomes clear that this difference in leadership styles focuses on the leader’s *intentions* over his or her results. And we know where the road paved with the former leads.
It takes a pretty major ego (not necessarily an asshole) to believe s/he knows what’s best for others (or simply “really the best thing”). So I’m not sure that a leader that assumes that all is well so long as s/he’s not on an ego trip and therefore continuously keeps his/her ego in check by asking those questions, will be a good boss.
I sometimes think a good boss is someone who is less worried about being a good boss and more worried about whether I (the employee) is doing a good job.

Reply
May 6, 2010

Ron Gentile

Great post and good topic. I like Sam’s model. However, I don’t think it works in all situations. Is the company a startup or a slow-growing organization? Does a particular employee respond best to being taught or challenged?
In the end it would seem one needs a metric for what a boss should accomplish. E.g. to get the most productivity from his staff over the long run. Some people will need one thing; others will need something else. Being able to sense and balance these differences is an attribute of a great boss.

Reply
May 6, 2010

Ron Gentile

Great post and good topic. I like Sam’s model. However, I don’t think it works in all situations. Is the company a startup or a slow-growing organization? Does a particular employee respond best to being taught or challenged?
In the end it would seem one needs a metric for what a boss should accomplish. E.g. to get the most productivity from his staff over the long run. Some people will need one thing; others will need something else. Being able to sense and balance these differences is an attribute of a great boss.

Reply
May 6, 2010

Ron Gentile

Great post and good topic. I like Sam’s model. However, I don’t think it works in all situations. Is the company a startup or a slow-growing organization? Does a particular employee respond best to being taught or challenged?
In the end it would seem one needs a metric for what a boss should accomplish. E.g. to get the most productivity from his staff over the long run. Some people will need one thing; others will need something else. Being able to sense and balance these differences is an attribute of a great boss.

Reply
May 6, 2010

Ron Gentile

Great post and good topic. I like Sam’s model. However, I don’t think it works in all situations. Is the company a startup or a slow-growing organization? Does a particular employee respond best to being taught or challenged?
In the end it would seem one needs a metric for what a boss should accomplish. E.g. to get the most productivity from his staff over the long run. Some people will need one thing; others will need something else. Being able to sense and balance these differences is an attribute of a great boss.

Reply
May 6, 2010

Ron Gentile

Great post and good topic. I like Sam’s model. However, I don’t think it works in all situations. Is the company a startup or a slow-growing organization? Does a particular employee respond best to being taught or challenged?
In the end it would seem one needs a metric for what a boss should accomplish. E.g. to get the most productivity from his staff over the long run. Some people will need one thing; others will need something else. Being able to sense and balance these differences is an attribute of a great boss.

Reply
May 6, 2010

Ron Gentile

Great post and good topic. I like Sam’s model. However, I don’t think it works in all situations. Is the company a startup or a slow-growing organization? Does a particular employee respond best to being taught or challenged?
In the end it would seem one needs a metric for what a boss should accomplish. E.g. to get the most productivity from his staff over the long run. Some people will need one thing; others will need something else. Being able to sense and balance these differences is an attribute of a great boss.

Reply
May 6, 2010

Ron Gentile

Great post and good topic. I like Sam’s model. However, I don’t think it works in all situations. Is the company a startup or a slow-growing organization? Does a particular employee respond best to being taught or challenged?
In the end it would seem one needs a metric for what a boss should accomplish. E.g. to get the most productivity from his staff over the long run. Some people will need one thing; others will need something else. Being able to sense and balance these differences is an attribute of a great boss.

Reply
May 6, 2010

Ron Gentile

Great post and good topic. I like Sam’s model. However, I don’t think it works in all situations. Is the company a startup or a slow-growing organization? Does a particular employee respond best to being taught or challenged?
In the end it would seem one needs a metric for what a boss should accomplish. E.g. to get the most productivity from his staff over the long run. Some people will need one thing; others will need something else. Being able to sense and balance these differences is an attribute of a great boss.

Reply
May 6, 2010

Dan

John’s description of being a teacher by understanding where the learner is coming from is, in my opinion, on target — but it must come with a very high degree of empathy, sincerity and openness. Unfortunately, the notion of leader as teacher has its shadows. One is believing that you actually know “where the learner is coming from,” and then end up operating more from a set of your own presumptions and projections than genuine connection or insight. This can have a very real effect on people who sense they are “being taught,” and who feel trapped and constrained. Who’s to contradict the CEO’s desire to “teach” something after all, especially if it seems to be a personal need?
And yet, it isn’t all that clear really. You might be a “teacher” with a blind spot or an amazing teacher and mentor to others. How to tell one from the other? Ask for feedback, and let it in. In effect, let others teach you. Then I think you are in good stead, and won’t have to wonder about whether “leader as empathic teacher” is too idealistic because you will have reversed the formula and become “leader as empathic learner.”

Reply
May 6, 2010

Dan

John’s description of being a teacher by understanding where the learner is coming from is, in my opinion, on target — but it must come with a very high degree of empathy, sincerity and openness. Unfortunately, the notion of leader as teacher has its shadows. One is believing that you actually know “where the learner is coming from,” and then end up operating more from a set of your own presumptions and projections than genuine connection or insight. This can have a very real effect on people who sense they are “being taught,” and who feel trapped and constrained. Who’s to contradict the CEO’s desire to “teach” something after all, especially if it seems to be a personal need?
And yet, it isn’t all that clear really. You might be a “teacher” with a blind spot or an amazing teacher and mentor to others. How to tell one from the other? Ask for feedback, and let it in. In effect, let others teach you. Then I think you are in good stead, and won’t have to wonder about whether “leader as empathic teacher” is too idealistic because you will have reversed the formula and become “leader as empathic learner.”

Reply
May 6, 2010

Dan

John’s description of being a teacher by understanding where the learner is coming from is, in my opinion, on target — but it must come with a very high degree of empathy, sincerity and openness. Unfortunately, the notion of leader as teacher has its shadows. One is believing that you actually know “where the learner is coming from,” and then end up operating more from a set of your own presumptions and projections than genuine connection or insight. This can have a very real effect on people who sense they are “being taught,” and who feel trapped and constrained. Who’s to contradict the CEO’s desire to “teach” something after all, especially if it seems to be a personal need?
And yet, it isn’t all that clear really. You might be a “teacher” with a blind spot or an amazing teacher and mentor to others. How to tell one from the other? Ask for feedback, and let it in. In effect, let others teach you. Then I think you are in good stead, and won’t have to wonder about whether “leader as empathic teacher” is too idealistic because you will have reversed the formula and become “leader as empathic learner.”

Reply
May 6, 2010

Dan

John’s description of being a teacher by understanding where the learner is coming from is, in my opinion, on target — but it must come with a very high degree of empathy, sincerity and openness. Unfortunately, the notion of leader as teacher has its shadows. One is believing that you actually know “where the learner is coming from,” and then end up operating more from a set of your own presumptions and projections than genuine connection or insight. This can have a very real effect on people who sense they are “being taught,” and who feel trapped and constrained. Who’s to contradict the CEO’s desire to “teach” something after all, especially if it seems to be a personal need?
And yet, it isn’t all that clear really. You might be a “teacher” with a blind spot or an amazing teacher and mentor to others. How to tell one from the other? Ask for feedback, and let it in. In effect, let others teach you. Then I think you are in good stead, and won’t have to wonder about whether “leader as empathic teacher” is too idealistic because you will have reversed the formula and become “leader as empathic learner.”

Reply
May 6, 2010

Dan

John’s description of being a teacher by understanding where the learner is coming from is, in my opinion, on target — but it must come with a very high degree of empathy, sincerity and openness. Unfortunately, the notion of leader as teacher has its shadows. One is believing that you actually know “where the learner is coming from,” and then end up operating more from a set of your own presumptions and projections than genuine connection or insight. This can have a very real effect on people who sense they are “being taught,” and who feel trapped and constrained. Who’s to contradict the CEO’s desire to “teach” something after all, especially if it seems to be a personal need?
And yet, it isn’t all that clear really. You might be a “teacher” with a blind spot or an amazing teacher and mentor to others. How to tell one from the other? Ask for feedback, and let it in. In effect, let others teach you. Then I think you are in good stead, and won’t have to wonder about whether “leader as empathic teacher” is too idealistic because you will have reversed the formula and become “leader as empathic learner.”

Reply
May 6, 2010

Dan

John’s description of being a teacher by understanding where the learner is coming from is, in my opinion, on target — but it must come with a very high degree of empathy, sincerity and openness. Unfortunately, the notion of leader as teacher has its shadows. One is believing that you actually know “where the learner is coming from,” and then end up operating more from a set of your own presumptions and projections than genuine connection or insight. This can have a very real effect on people who sense they are “being taught,” and who feel trapped and constrained. Who’s to contradict the CEO’s desire to “teach” something after all, especially if it seems to be a personal need?
And yet, it isn’t all that clear really. You might be a “teacher” with a blind spot or an amazing teacher and mentor to others. How to tell one from the other? Ask for feedback, and let it in. In effect, let others teach you. Then I think you are in good stead, and won’t have to wonder about whether “leader as empathic teacher” is too idealistic because you will have reversed the formula and become “leader as empathic learner.”

Reply
May 6, 2010

Dan

John’s description of being a teacher by understanding where the learner is coming from is, in my opinion, on target — but it must come with a very high degree of empathy, sincerity and openness. Unfortunately, the notion of leader as teacher has its shadows. One is believing that you actually know “where the learner is coming from,” and then end up operating more from a set of your own presumptions and projections than genuine connection or insight. This can have a very real effect on people who sense they are “being taught,” and who feel trapped and constrained. Who’s to contradict the CEO’s desire to “teach” something after all, especially if it seems to be a personal need?
And yet, it isn’t all that clear really. You might be a “teacher” with a blind spot or an amazing teacher and mentor to others. How to tell one from the other? Ask for feedback, and let it in. In effect, let others teach you. Then I think you are in good stead, and won’t have to wonder about whether “leader as empathic teacher” is too idealistic because you will have reversed the formula and become “leader as empathic learner.”

Reply
May 6, 2010

Dan

John’s description of being a teacher by understanding where the learner is coming from is, in my opinion, on target — but it must come with a very high degree of empathy, sincerity and openness. Unfortunately, the notion of leader as teacher has its shadows. One is believing that you actually know “where the learner is coming from,” and then end up operating more from a set of your own presumptions and projections than genuine connection or insight. This can have a very real effect on people who sense they are “being taught,” and who feel trapped and constrained. Who’s to contradict the CEO’s desire to “teach” something after all, especially if it seems to be a personal need?
And yet, it isn’t all that clear really. You might be a “teacher” with a blind spot or an amazing teacher and mentor to others. How to tell one from the other? Ask for feedback, and let it in. In effect, let others teach you. Then I think you are in good stead, and won’t have to wonder about whether “leader as empathic teacher” is too idealistic because you will have reversed the formula and become “leader as empathic learner.”

Reply
May 6, 2010

Landon Creasy

Hi Bob,
Great post – seems to have driven some discussion. My two cents? I see this as the point where emotional intelligence meets leadership. Interestingly enough, IQ is not the best predictor of effectiveness in life; instead, EQ is what appears to matter. The good news is that you can learn to be emotionally intelligent. Good leaders move in this direction, resulting in empathy, humility and interpersonal skills.
Thanks!
Landon Creasy
http://landoncreasy.wordpress.com/

Reply
May 6, 2010

Landon Creasy

Hi Bob,
Great post – seems to have driven some discussion. My two cents? I see this as the point where emotional intelligence meets leadership. Interestingly enough, IQ is not the best predictor of effectiveness in life; instead, EQ is what appears to matter. The good news is that you can learn to be emotionally intelligent. Good leaders move in this direction, resulting in empathy, humility and interpersonal skills.
Thanks!
Landon Creasy
http://landoncreasy.wordpress.com/

Reply
May 6, 2010

Landon Creasy

Hi Bob,
Great post – seems to have driven some discussion. My two cents? I see this as the point where emotional intelligence meets leadership. Interestingly enough, IQ is not the best predictor of effectiveness in life; instead, EQ is what appears to matter. The good news is that you can learn to be emotionally intelligent. Good leaders move in this direction, resulting in empathy, humility and interpersonal skills.
Thanks!
Landon Creasy
http://landoncreasy.wordpress.com/

Reply
May 6, 2010

Landon Creasy

Hi Bob,
Great post – seems to have driven some discussion. My two cents? I see this as the point where emotional intelligence meets leadership. Interestingly enough, IQ is not the best predictor of effectiveness in life; instead, EQ is what appears to matter. The good news is that you can learn to be emotionally intelligent. Good leaders move in this direction, resulting in empathy, humility and interpersonal skills.
Thanks!
Landon Creasy
http://landoncreasy.wordpress.com/

Reply
May 6, 2010

Landon Creasy

Hi Bob,
Great post – seems to have driven some discussion. My two cents? I see this as the point where emotional intelligence meets leadership. Interestingly enough, IQ is not the best predictor of effectiveness in life; instead, EQ is what appears to matter. The good news is that you can learn to be emotionally intelligent. Good leaders move in this direction, resulting in empathy, humility and interpersonal skills.
Thanks!
Landon Creasy
http://landoncreasy.wordpress.com/

Reply
May 6, 2010

Landon Creasy

Hi Bob,
Great post – seems to have driven some discussion. My two cents? I see this as the point where emotional intelligence meets leadership. Interestingly enough, IQ is not the best predictor of effectiveness in life; instead, EQ is what appears to matter. The good news is that you can learn to be emotionally intelligent. Good leaders move in this direction, resulting in empathy, humility and interpersonal skills.
Thanks!
Landon Creasy
http://landoncreasy.wordpress.com/

Reply
May 6, 2010

Landon Creasy

Hi Bob,
Great post – seems to have driven some discussion. My two cents? I see this as the point where emotional intelligence meets leadership. Interestingly enough, IQ is not the best predictor of effectiveness in life; instead, EQ is what appears to matter. The good news is that you can learn to be emotionally intelligent. Good leaders move in this direction, resulting in empathy, humility and interpersonal skills.
Thanks!
Landon Creasy
http://landoncreasy.wordpress.com/

Reply
May 6, 2010

Landon Creasy

Hi Bob,
Great post – seems to have driven some discussion. My two cents? I see this as the point where emotional intelligence meets leadership. Interestingly enough, IQ is not the best predictor of effectiveness in life; instead, EQ is what appears to matter. The good news is that you can learn to be emotionally intelligent. Good leaders move in this direction, resulting in empathy, humility and interpersonal skills.
Thanks!
Landon Creasy
http://landoncreasy.wordpress.com/

Reply