Leadership principles, by Sammy D.James

95% of Workers Fail Because of This...But They Can Fix It
Did you know that your career success is based on your
mastery of one important skill?
Failure to apply your leadership power usually prevents you
from realizing success in the workplace.
The organizational chart may not show you as a leader but
you can act like a leader if you choose to do so.
Leadership power is the primary cause of successful
outcomes, great achievements and evolutionary progress.
Most people think only executives, presidents and generals
possess any leadership power but the facts reveal another
truth - power is held by those who know where to obtain it
and how to share it with others.
The problem with many of us is this - we need to learn how
to empower our skills, enhance our competence and energize
our leadership power.
Power Principle 1 - Invest in your Infrastructure!
Your infrastructure contains the elements that will make
leadership power available to you. You must invest the time
and effort needed to build a strong, capable infrastructure.
=> Element-1 - MODEL SUCCESS - study the leadership methods
of great leaders
=> Element-2 - BE EAGER TO LEARN NEW THINGS - purchase
leadership skills training courses, materials or books
=> Element-3 - APPRECIATE YOURSELF - start recording your
thoughts, feelings, desires and experiences in a journal or
diary
=> Element-4 - HARMONIZE YOUR MIND - meet with like-minded
people who want to improve their leadership skills, talents
and behaviors
=> Element-5 - BE WILLING TO SERVE - begin to act like a
leader by serving the needs of others through community
service, teaching or by taking responsibility for removing
someone else's burdens
Power Principle-2 - See Hope in Visionary Ways!
You can inspire people to act out of their fears or hopes.
It is your choice - you can use worry or faith to make
people respond to your leadership.
However, I put it to you, which path do you think is more
effective, more likely to lead to good things? History has
shown us that the best course of action is always based on
hope, faith or love.
Leaders must craft a vision of what hope will look like when
it becomes a tangible reality. Your statement of hope should
include something tangible, specific, measurable,
attainable, realistic, hopeful, enthusiastic and empowering.
There are many examples of visionary leadership at its most
inspiring best. Your vision should strive to be positive and
vivid to others and worthy of pursuit by them, otherwise
they might not be moved to follow your lead.
Nobel Peace Laureate, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, Pastor Eclesiaste Donatian,Dr Myles Munroe:Dr Myles it is my pastor.from him i learn a lot.Dr myles have the bigger ministries in the bahamas, and around the world.,my father spiritual son to him.Dr Myles i love so much.
positively expressed his hope as being the time when,
"...we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every tenement and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's
children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles,
Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and
sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last,
free at last. Thank God Almighty, we are free at last."
Power Principle-3 - Strategies are for Drivers!
Strategy is for those leaders who yearn to get there! Your
vision may sound pretty and look nice but without a vehicle
you won't be able to take your vision on that special date.
Your leadership power gets most of its energy from a
strategy that just begs to be driven. Your strategy can help
you sustain the momentum and force of your vision.
In my time, I've seen plenty of chevrolet jeep, trucks and trains
but they all had one thing in common - they would take you
wherever you wanted to go and could make the journey of
getting there just as exciting, memorable and comfortable as
any roadway beauty.
You will need to drive your strategy
=> by steering towards your stretch goals,
=> by filling-up with the right resources,
=> by using a roadmap to navigate through the thorny areas
=> by measuring the effectiveness of its progress and
execution.
Power Principle-4 - Do You Speak The Language?
Are your words doing the job they need to do? Are your
thoughts reaching out to connect with their hearts and
minds? Do you appreciate their uniqueness, commitment and
contributions?
There is a certain magic which happens when our words
accomplish their purpose. To create the Universe, God said,
"Let there be light", and there was light!
Our words have the power to create or destroy - we must
understand that the words we speak have the ability to bring
life or death to the situation.
Ideas, procedures, opinions, facts and dreams are
reflections of our thoughts.We think therefore we are who
we are. Leaders use the language of meanings, beliefs and
feelings to connect with and compliment the hearts and minds
of people.
Studies on motivation reveal humans are hungry for
recognition and acceptance.The easiest way to motivate a
person is based on your continual, sincere and realistic
show of appreciation for their talents, achievements,
good-faith efforts and positive attitude.
Power Principle-5 - Be Congruent, Consistent, Cooperative!
There is something off-beat, brittle and frail about a
building that is missing key parts of its structure - a
broken roof, steel bars sticking out of the walls, crumbling
foundation can make you wonder how or why the building is
still standing.
Congruency is the state effective leaders try to maintain in
their actions -
=> they line-up their actions with their words,
=> they link their values to their behaviors,
=> their attitudes are in-sync with their conversations
Consistency is judged by your performance over time -
=> Do you always apply the same standards to everyone?
=> Do you usually make your decisions based on all the
available facts?
=> Do you appear to act and behave in the same ways you do
when facing similar kinds of situations?
Cooperative people know that using honey captures more
flies! To win over people to your point of view, your
history of respecting, valuing and working with their
desires, differences and decisions goes a long way in
gaining their cooperation with your plans.
Great leaders have always cooperated with people by
=> Asking for their opinions, thoughts and experiences
=> Listening to them, showing understanding by summarizing
their statements
=> Incorporating their ideas, beliefs and meanings into the
leader's statements [using the more powerful pronoun, "we"
to express those ideas and decision.
Do you agree that these 5 principles can energize your
leadership power? Regardless of your job title or formal
authority, using all five will increase your power and
effectiveness in your workplace, home and community.
In my life, I have found that these principles do add
considerable influence to my ideas and dreams. People tell
others that
=> I can be trusted to do the right thing,
=> I always gather the right people together to get the job
done in an harmonious manner and
=> My ideas and feelings are exact reflections of their own
beliefs and meanings
You can put these principles to work because each one uses
your own unique talents, efforts and resources.
Take advantage of Internet research and educational
materials, visit other offices, volunteer your time to a
worthy cause, take an online training course or two,
practice the art of leadership on your friends, family and
colleagues at work.
You can become a more powerful leader starting right where
you are - you can start today.
"I am personally convinced that one person can be a change
catalyst, a "transformer" in any situation, any
organization. Such an individual is yeast that can leaven an
entire loaf.It requires vision, initiative, patience,
respect, persistence, courage, and faith to be a
transforming leader."
Dr. Sammy D.James, author of, " believe in yourself
Effective People" and other titles.
Can you see yourself acting as a powerful,transforming and
enriching leader? Can you use the Principles of Power to
increase your influence and effectiveness? Can you be all
that you can be and share that power with the world?General Motors, IBM, and Sears: three companies facing a need for dramatic change that have already tried, but failed, at major change efforts.Judging from what I've read about these three companies in the business press recently, I'm inclined to believe they are unaware of the current ideas on organizational change--including the successful efforts of many large corporations---that have been appearing in the change literature.
The most important idea of all for companies like GM,IBM, and Sears is that those pushing for organizational improvement--whether they are external members of the board, major investors, or top executives--must deal with cultural and behavioral obstacles to change.Specifically,attempts at organizational change must consider three key features of organizational life:the firm's culture,the leadership of the change effort and the existing network of power.
The role of leadership in organizational change is my second key topic.Here I build on the discussion of organizational culture to reveal (1) the role of leadership in dealing with culture and (2) the form that leadership needs to take.For example, based on recent research we know that top management--and not some team of consultants--must lead the change effort.We also recognize certain key leadership actions that can help those efforts succeed.
Third, I discuss the need to consider organizational power (and the related topic of politics) in organizational change efforts. This topic,largely ignored in the literature until recently,is now recognized as central to any organizational improvement effort.Goals are accomplished in organizations largely through the use of power and politics, so it seems fairly obvious that changing an organization also requires their intelligent use.I close the article with a summary of the key implications for top managers trying to improve their organizations.

CHANGING ORGANIZATIONS: THE ROLE ORGANIZATIONAL.
Organizational culture was the hot topic of the management literature of the 1980. New techniques for assessing and changing culture appeared in the organization development (OD) field,and a wide range of consultants on culture appeared almost overnight (some promising to change a firm's culture almost as fast).A great deal of research on culture was performed some to determine exactly what it was, some to find out how to measure and change it.The good news is that we have learned a lot about what culture is;we now have some good instruments for measuring it.The bad news--and the harsh reality--is that we have also learned that it cannot be changed easily or quickly.
Before going further,I will posit an explanation of "organizational culture." I rely on Edgar Schein's (1985) widely accepted definition,which identifies three levels of cultural phenomena: basic assumptions,values and artifacts.Basic assumptions are the circumstances taken for granted in an organization as the "correct" way of doing things.They lie at the deepest level of culture and are the hardest to change.One basic assumption Schein found in an engineering firm dealt with decision making:the individual employee was valued as the key source of ideas, but the ideas still had to be assessed by the employee's work group--all relevant parties--before they were accepted.
The values of the firm are at the next higher level of culture, according to Schein. These refer to a sense of what "ought" to be.An example of a value might be the belief that on-the-job experience is the best form of training.Given this value and assuming employees successfully learn their jobs this way, there would be little reliance on structured training programs.
At the most superficial level,artifacts are the overt behaviors and other physical manifestations of culture. They can usually be observed directly and are easier to change than assumptions and values.Artifacts include,among other things, procedures followed,technology used and ways of communicating.Unfortunately,changing the artifacts generally does not yield a change of culture. To do that, one must eventually reach the values and (preferably) the basic assumptions.
Given this.
Measuring Culture:A Necessary But Insufficient First Step
We know how to measure culture.A key finding here comes from a study performed by Geert Hofstede and his associates (1990), who examined organizational culture in 20 units of ten organizations in Denmark and the Netherlands.They found that differences among the cultures could be explained by the practices employees of each firm said they shared in common (similar to what Schein called "artifacts"). Hofstede et al.further concluded that differences among organizational cultures can be described by focusing on very few--perhaps only six to eight--dimensions of organizational practice.Two key dimensions they found were the extent to which the culture was employee- versus job-oriented and whether it was process- or results-oriented.
Articles of Interest definition of organizational culture,let me now summarize the
Leadership = culture
GM, new culture or not? - As I See It - General Motors Corp management...
The importance of understanding organizational culture
Answering your questions on effective leadership and improving communication...
The effects of politics and power on the organizational commitment of federal...
The important point here is that in studying an organization's culture we can focus on practices (behaviors and performance) rather than on values,which are much harder to measure. One caution: in measuring culture, we need to recognize the possibility of important subcultures in different areas of the organization. Though there may be a general consensus on how things should be done,variations will occur within certain units--variations that do not violate the broader culture but which can make those particular units somewhat unique.
Assessing a firm's culture is not the same as changing it.Furthermore,it cannot be changed by top management edict. As Paul Bate's study of British Rail found, organizational culture develops over a long period through the interactions and relationships of key individuals and groups-- some outside the organization (Bate 1990). Note that the most recent attempts to change GM and IBM involved pressure from outside board members to replace top management teams. GM's team was from the Roger Smith school, and IBM's had come up through the "mainframe" ranks.It's too early to say, but bringing in new top management teams---with new interactions and relationships--may be what is needed to turn those two companies around.My point is that those attempting such change must understand the network of relationships and the dialogue among interest groups both inside and outside the organization. As Bate concluded, this network of relationships and not the formal authority structure,is the foundation upon which culture is created and adapted.
The influence of outsiders--the firm's environment--is further highlighted in a study by George Gordon (1991). He concluded that the basic assumptions and values of business organizations are influenced substantially by three outside factors: customer requirements,the competitive environment and societal expectations. Organizations facing dynamic and complex competitive environments can be successful with cultures that are flexible and adaptable. U.S. auto makers have known for some time now that they face this type of environment and must change accordingly (note Chrysler's efforts in recent years to downsize).Companies in the high-technology area, facing rapidly changing consumer demands,support cultures that call for risk-taking and individual initiative.Intel's culture has shown a recognition of this idea since the company's inception.Larry Smeltzer (1991) further highlighted the importance of communication and collaboration in his study of change in 43 organizations.The most commonly cited reason for the failure of a change effort was the presence of inaccurate and negative rumors,often caused by management's neglecting to provide timely and accurate information.The second biggest reason for failure was that of employees learning of the change from outsiders--again, because management did not communicate.Many employees, especially those affected by the change, expressed extreme resentment about this situation.The final cause of failure Smeltzer noted was management's reliance on a "lean" channel of communication, such as a memo instead of a face-to-face meeting.
Leadership.
The effects of politics and power on the organization.

THE NEED TO DEAL WITH POWER AND POLITIC.
Early literature on organizational change failed to address the role of power in such change. Among the reasons for this neglect was the belief not always spoken but certainly felt--that managerial decisions should be based on reason and legitimate authority rather than something as "non-rational" as power.Excluding power as a topic of discussion also assured the general public (especially investors) that decision making in organizations was based on efficiency and logic.Note that top executives rarely use the word "power" in their conversations with the media.
The more recent literature on organizational change indicates a recognition that both managing and changing organizations depend heavily on the use of power. Fortunately, we also know that not all power is bad, and that change can be achieved through its positive use.
However, our view of power in organizations is still somewhat simplistic.For example, Patricia Bradshaw-Camball (1989) says that managers and consultants tend to assume that the use of power can readily be observed in organizations--that "reality is objective." She argues that power plays are usually much more subtle and hidden. A key tactic she identifies is to create systems of meaning that others will accept. For example, in a meeting with other managers I might present only the information that supports my view of a situation.If the others accept my interpretation-- my system of meaning--I will have greater influence over the resulting decision-making process. Bradshaw-Campall studied a hospital in which top management had created the illusion of a financial crisis to gain additional resources from the hospital's funding agency.By overstating the hospital's budget deficit by $1.4 million and preventing department heads from seeing detailed, accurate financial reports, management created this false "system of meaning" to gain an edge over competitor hospitals funded by the same agency. The illusion of a crisis was so effective that, in a study of work force morale by an outside consultant,lower4ever managers and employees said they were very concerned about the potential for cutbacks--the apparent reality.The consultant, not being informed of management's game plan, based his recommendations for the hospital upon this finding.His examination of the situation was insufficient to uncover the power and politics that were being played
Powerful coalitions can be identified in a similar way.It is also important to look at interest groups that control key resources or have held together for a long time; powerful coalitions seldom are temporary.That's why top management teams, and not just a couple of top managers, are often removed in a change effort. Merely eliminating a couple of managers will not prevent the remainder of the team---often a long-standing, powerful coalition from blocking the change.
At what Cobb (1986) calls the "macro" level, powerful networks (of both individuals and coalitions) can be identified by studying key linkages among individuals and coalitions:Who talks to whom? Who shares similar values and interests? Who shares access to key resources? Decades of research on individual and group behavior show that we socialize with those who are similar to us, support us and share our goals.
A somewhat higher level of political maneuvering--political facilitation---calls for direct interaction with those who may help or hinder the change. It applies to more substantial changes-- perhaps major reorganizations within manufacturing divisions, individual retail outlets, or government agencies.
The level of political maneuvering appropriate for large-scale organizational change--the topic of this article--is what Kumar and Thibodeaux call political intervention. This is a true "activist" approach in which management goes beyond facilitation and support to encourage people to question existing beliefs and values. This intervention may require that management align with powerful others or consciously manipulate to achieve desired ends.
Organizational culture is not the "change trigger" we assumed it was in the early 1980s. We cannot change organizations by focusing directly and immediately on culture, because culture is too broad and resistant.Moreover, it is influenced by factors (the competitive environment) largely beyond the control of management. However, we need to assess culture to determine the best way to proceed with change. That effort is much more likely to be successful if, instead of treading on existing assumptions and values, management will collaborate with employees in assessing behaviors and practices.
Management's leadership in the change effort seems to be the key determinant of whether that change will succeed. It is not new to say that leadership is critical. What is new is the type of leadership being recommended-one that does more than just create and articulate a new vision for the organization.Management needs to communicate openly with those affected by the change and once again, collaborate with those same individuals to obtain their input. Part of communication and collaboration involves Wing the intended changes to organizational outcomes--what does the change mean in terms of productivity and quality of work life? Another key leadership feature involves role modeling of expected behaviors. For example, if top management expects lower-level managers and employees to behave ethically, then top executives themselves must do the same.
Most of what we know is someone’s opinion. In fact, most of what we know is someone else’s opinion. I’m reading a fascinating biography on Mary Queen of Scots and although the author is a well known English historian and has researched her subject thoroughly, most of what she writes is her interpretation of what few unarguable facts remain of her subject’s life. It turns out most of modern life works the same way. Unless we are subject matter experts in a pure science such as mathematics or biology, most of what we know is our own or someone else’s opinion. We give lip service to innovation, but we have no idea how to begin with something as simple as innovating how we know what we know.
This applies most basically and most powerfully to the questions of who we are and why we do what we do. Most of us define who we are in terms of our current and past roles. “I am business owner or executive, life partner, parent, child, friend.” These are indeed facts, but what they actually say about us are opinions. What does it say about us that we are an executive at Company X? That we are in a relationship with Person Y? That we are the child of These Parents? We aren’t always sure what it says, and often the meaning doesn’t carry any true connection to who we are inside. That’s because what it says is someone else’s words imbued with someone else’s meaning.
Defining “Who am I?” can be one of the most liberating and empowering exercises we ever engage with. Claiming our attributes and characteristics, our preferences and strengths, reframing what we once saw as negative into positive — all of these activities clarify areas of our lives and our work where once there was vague cloudiness. We gain focus and motivation, definition, power, and new frames from which to lead and empower others.
Who are you really? If you stop listening to the opinions of others, and even your own old mantras about roles and positions, who are you? What are the implications for fully claiming that identity? What one action can you take this week to wean yourself off the opinions of others and begin to claim the leader you really are.Character is power,the first lesson we must each learn is that broad leadership is build from deep character.An infrastructure of great character is essential to support great conduct.The trust and involment of our followers will be parallel to the level of our own character.Use power to help people for we are given power not to advance our own purposes, nor to make a great show in the world,nor a name the is but one just use of power and it to selve people.George w. Bush.I think G W B, was right.We abuse our power when we utilize it for self-gain.Matthew 20v26 whoever wishes to be come great among you shall be your servant,Sammy.I was spoke with my mom she told me that the world has two kinds of people.,thinkers and doers.They then said,the thinkers need to do more and the doers need to think more.I have always tried to do both.Reflect and act.When i have combined the two, i have great reduced the adds of failure.Sammy D.James.I have always believed this principle.It beautiful combines the necessity of both relationship and vision.I must live with the people to understand them and earn their trust.however,i am only their buddy if that,s all i do.to be a leader, i must live with God and move with him beyond where the people are.If they are to follow me,i must be ahead of them.You are the samme today that you are going to be five years from now Except for two things.The people with whom you associate and the book you read.And i meditated and i,ve become more convinced of it truth as time gos by.If plan to be come great we must determine to expose ourselves to read,bible and the rest of the great book.And learn from great people,their input will influence our growwth more than anything else..Choose both wisely.No matter what size the bottle,the war,the problem, the victory always be in our side.You manage things,you lead people.