The Foundations of Leadership:- Most of the “knowledge” of the business world consists of an impressive amount of recipes that everyone tries to develop and / or implement to make their boat work. In the desire to help one another, to form and converge towards success, all these methods are most often the result of the context and the state of mind of those who have “discovered” or “relayed” them. There are few that touch on the essential, the fundamental mechanisms that underlie the functioning of groups. Below this post is all about the basics of the the Foundations of Leadership.
Basics to Foundations of Leadership
We are then confronted with solutions that do not apply to all contexts and all types of individuals. We very quickly feel that we must sort through our own criteria, often intuitive, before opting for a solution rather than another.
The field of leadership touching on the profound nature of the human, it is undoubtedly the one that peddles the greatest number of “magic recipes” which one discovers that they do not depend on any know-how but rather on the gifts which would be available to the leaders who inspired or elaborated them. It often results in a deification of these leaders because their ways of doing so appear inaccessible, seem to be the product of an exceptional character or the scarcity of the person.
Having frequented a certain circle near the man, I was surprised at the image that was given to him, an image that I found contradictory with the idea that I was doing, seen from the outside, a synthesis of the appearance of Apple and its products combined with that of Jobs, its keynotes.
It was said of him that he was unbearable, a limitless requirement and that he stressed “everyone”.
In hindsight and in light of the success that meets Apple, one is entitled to wonder what can be worth these comments and, especially, what would have happened to this success if they had been taken into account by the man. Because the question is there: what “projects” were really hiding behind these criticisms?
Projects to achieve the goals of a company? That of achieving a concept of products and offers of high quality? That of meeting a wide audience? Or on the contrary, that of satisfying the staff, its tranquility, its well-being? that of yielding to the technical geeks who conceive an object only if it is equipped with growths and overtures, which are known to be more in keeping with their passion for the tripot rather than profiting from it. .
(Note the parallel with the prehistory of computer and fire magazine “Speaker” which had an impressive number of readers animated mostly the ultimate goal to fiddle with their sound system (hi-fi) rather than devote themselves to the advent of micro-components and multilayer circuits, they complained that they could no longer transform their lounges into a clean room, the disappearance of their favorite magazine and the world that was no longer that he was – my good lady! They reincarnated, alas for us!)
In the prevailing confusion of management, for which the main symptomatic is now called the company 2.0, we try to convey the idea that the company of tomorrow would be more consensual, more concerned with the well-being of its staff, a company looking for a compromise between the demands of its conduct and the very different (and diverging) motivations of its staff. By eliminating the jumble of technology that the singers of the 2.0 necessarily want to associate with it to facilitate collaboration, the bottom of the enterprise 2.0 has only 2.0 the effect “marketing” (we should say advertising), we would like to lend to him: to make something new with old. Because the company 1.0, and even without number, can only be the result of a desired consensus between the objectives of those who carry it and a convergence of adoption of the project by its staff. It’s adoption, it’s not co-direction.
In the case of Steve Jobs, it is interesting to note that those who have made a point of identifying the keys to what constituted his success are ignoring the way he leads his company and his men. And probably they also ignore this fundamental aspect of Apple’s success because, in the general confusion, utopian and dreamlike, we all want to be as brilliant as the man in question. So what’s more flattering to everyone’s ego than to reveal Steve’s marketing mindset, something that everyone can rather easily implement in their own business, when it’s so difficult (and not very trendy) to adopt the idea that a project should be developed that stands tall, widely adopted and almost limitless in its execution and ultimately
In innovation, we like to say that ideas have little weight in the success of a project, that it takes a few ideas and a lot of organization. In innovation, one weighs his words, because one does not want to probably evoke the fact that it is not so much organization that one must speak but of leadership, of conduct. Here again, we tend to solve the question of success by the magical nature of an organizational solution, perhaps not to disturb. But between organization and conduct, there is a gap. A badly conducted organization necessarily leads to an average result, or even the disappearance of any organization.
Did not propose any other initiatives than the creation of one more observatory whose measurement indicators would have taken into account broader notions than the only research. Observe what you want, but if nobody is there to drive the change, there is as much probability that a field of wheat produces bread under the spontaneous effect of lightning as to transform the short sight of our institutions. In the matter. And France to continue its long economic drift and our elected one that we cradle their cocoricos.)
Success depends on the conduct and coordination of what needs to be done, in other words, it is the function that determines the structure and not the other way around.
We can have all the best ideas in the world, whether or not they are based on the approach of this or that god of economic or technological success, if there is nobody to make them succeed, to make sure that those who are associated work in the same direction, do what they are there for, then there will be at best only the best ideas that will remain in the boxes or huge expenses of time and money that will only produce chess and ruins.
Leadership requires nothing more than to allow oneself to lead others in one direction, to do everything for those being led to converge, to reduce disagreements, misunderstandings and confusion and to create a general adoption. Leadership is also the ability to discard those who would not follow, despite every effort to help them, whatever the cause, because, often, time is running out and, even when it’s not, we cannot stop on the pretext of waiting for those who hang out. A life is not very long. Some let her go by without seeing her, so instead of complaining that she’s gone too fast, the best thing is still to act quickly and change the world, at least change her own.