LEADERSHIP THINK TANK - LINKEDIN GROUP

Contribution: Milan Grković
Date: 15.03.2014. Saturday

Link (here)

1
Skill of leading (leadership) is a skill that must be learned and practiced.
There are no naturally talented individuals who are effective leaders.
Changes in technology are so rapid that it is necessary to continually and systematically learn in order to be good leader (effective leadership).
In the vast majority of leaders there is resistance to learning and this generating a problem that we have bad leaders.

2
In today's time of crisis, we need good leaders more than ever. Unfortunately, we do not have enough good leaders to resolve the current crisis.

3
Become a leader is a matter of DECISION.
Become a GOOD leader is a matter of necessary knowledge, skills and behaviors to make this happen.
Every BAD leader does not have sufficient knowledge, skills and behaviors to be a good leader.

Keywords: decision, good leader, necessary knowledge, bad leader, missing knowledge

4
Some facts about the leaders and the current crisis (Model of Universal Excellence - MUE @ 2007):
1. We have too many bad leaders, and not enough GOOD leaders.
2. The current crisis is the result of an INSUFFICIENT number of good leaders.
3. Being a leader is a matter of DECISION.
4. Being a good leader is a matter of COMPETENCIES.
5. A good leader must primary has APPROPRIATE MANAGEMENT KNOWLEDGE (Critical Success Factor - CSF).
6. Management knowledge means the integrity and synergy between six MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS: Planning, organizing, leading, human resources management, controlling and improvement.
7. A good leader is determined by the number of creating NEW GOOD LEADERS (Key Performance Indicator - KPI).

5
BAD LEADER = BAD FOLLOWERS

6
Does it really makes any difference between a GOOD and a GREAT leader?

7
It is very difficult to define what makes the difference between GOOD and GREAT leader.
It is subjective interpretation which leads to disagreements, and then to an inability to objective evaluation of leader. The new definition of a leader (MUE) defines "only" three types of leaders:
- good leader,
- inconclusive leader,
- bad leader. Inconclusive leader is a new leader who has LIMITED time to determine whether to become a good or bad leader.

8
Possibilities bad/good:
1. bad leader – bad followers – bad outcome = REALITY
2. bad leader – good followers – bad outcome = impossible
3. bad leader – good followers – good outcome = impossible
4. good leader – bad followers – bad outcome = impossible
5. good leader – good followers – bad outcome = impossible
6. good leader – good followers – good outcome = OBVIOUSLY
1. is now brute reality, 6. is urgent and vital need

9
@Milan: "3. bad leader – good followers – good outcome = impossible "

I would not say that getting a good outcome is impossible with good followers but a bad leader.

I achieved some of my greatest achievement IN SPITE of a leader. They take all the credit thought of course.

10
@Kevin:

Kevin, can you imagine how much could your success been greater with a good leader instead of the bad leader? Achievements with the bad leader will always be far less than the existing potential, desires and needs.
Success with the bad leader is relative and always is lower than in the situation where a good leader is.

11
Lee Wilcox After 45+ years in many different businesses. You seem to be missing the fact that many of those in top positions are not leaders. You also missed the fact that not all leaders are not on the top of the stack. People follow leaders anyway.

12
Very simple and good DEFINITION OF LEADER by the "Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia by Farlax": 1. One that leads or guides.2. One who is in charge or in command of others. Leader is a relation, not quality of action. Everyone in top positions is leader. We have many leaders: every teacher is a leader, every professor is a leader, every sport trainer is a leader, every director is a leader, every mayor is a leader, etc …  A leader does not mean it is automatically positive. We have bad leaders, too. Unfortunately, we have more bad leaders than good ones.

13
Most of confusion regarding the leader is due to different definitions of who is a leader. It is obvious that there are two approaches to defining a leader: 1. Leader is a person who leads others and has a number of special characteristics that are not fully defined and not measurable (classical approach). There are very few leaders. 2. Leader is a person who leads at least one person (the new approach).There are many leaders. Necessary actions based on the above definitions are opposite. Consequences: Inadequate definition = inadequate actions. Adequate definition of a leader is a starting point for all other in life and work.

14
@David Cory:

MUE LEADERSHIP - new approach   Manager is a function (management), leader is a relation with others (lead others).   The manager is every person who has a need for planning, organizing, leading, human resources management, controlling and improvements.   Leading is a basic function of management. Every leader (person who has at least one follower) must be (is) at the same time a manager (function).   Difference between leaders and managers - to lead or not to lead others!   If we accept this conception, we can easily produce numerous good managers and good leaders. We must educate them with appropriate MODEL OF ACTIVITY with focus on management functions. Of course, with some other things (soft skills, ...).   Such approach is quite new and very "radical". But what if it is correct?   All above is easy and simple to prove.

15
David, we must accept that LEADING is basic function of management.

Here is one source from many on Internet:
„There are five management functions. Good managers discover how to master five basic functions: planning, organizing, staffing, leading, and controlling. Managers who accomplish their goals and mission are considered to be effective.“
Source: www.ask.com Leading is one of six management functions and must be in balance and synergy with others functions (planning, organizing, leading, human resources management, controlling and improvements).MUE (Model of Universal Excellence) added new sixth management function: IMPROVEMENTS.

16
Yes, without right attitude we get only bad leader.
Bad attitude primarily means resistance against learning new knowledge, skills and behaviors.
Every leader without necessary knowledge, skills and behaviors is a bad leader.

17
@Hassan Salisu, excellent explanation. I totally agree with you. This is right solution to overcome this crisis.

Hassan said:
"Bad leadership is caused by the absence of the right attitude and skills as well as inadequate knowledge of what to do in a certain situation. This deficiency is now wide spread in most sectors of the world economy [especially the public sector]; be it in an advanced or developing economy. Furthermore, the unbridled adoption of the "end justify the means" principle by most Managers and public officials has worsened the situation!

A new approach must be adopted that will help in inculcating good leadership principles/ training for future leaders. We all need to know that bad leadership spells doom for the world economy, as such urgent action is required to stem the problem!"

18
Yes Hassan, this two sentences describe the essence of the biggest problem about leaders:

"A new approach must be adopted that will help in inculcating good leadership principles/ training for future leaders. We all need to know that bad leadership spells doom for the world economy, as such urgent action is required to stem the problem."

19

@Carmen Goodman, excellent contribution:

Carmen, in my opinion you gave the best practical contribution to this theme.

We must go in this direction to solve the biggest problem of mankind in this moment: We do not have enough good leaders!

It is obviously that current leaders cannot solve this crisis.
We need new really good leaders!

20
@Carmen Goodman wrote earlier:
Who is up to that challenge?

On these words let's start Leadership Think Tank project: WHO IS NEW A LEADER?

Let's keep this discussion because there are already many great items in previous individual contributions about this theme.

Our Leadership Think Tank LinkedIn group has more than a hundred thousand members.

We can do it!

21
There is a big problem in leadership because we have a number of definitions of leaders which are different.
First we need a definition which is valid for the dominant majority (or for all).

22
It is obvious that the definition of a leader is a problem.

We have many different explanations who are leaders.
When we solve it (to get consensus), we shall be able to "produce" much more good leaders.

23
@Tamara Perušić

Let's define "lack of adequate leadership education and passion for their job" and so we shall create conditions "to produce" good leaders.

24
There is a big problem in leadership because we have a number of definitions of leaders which are different.
First we need a definition which is valid for the dominant majority (or for all).

25

Regarding the leader we need to look at these three key elements:

1. Who is a leader (condition)?
2. How does one become a leader (choice)?
3. What is the effect of a leader? (outcome)?

26
Peter Graudums in his comment mentioned "leader factory". It is a very interesting notion.

- Is it possible?
- Do we have any system of education for good leaders?
- Are there schools for good leaders?

Does anyone know which school educates the best leaders?

27
Without necessary knowledge, skills and behaviors every leader is a bad leader.

28
Yes, LEADER in the English language have more than one meaning and this is really a big problem.

We're talking about the same thing in different ways, and our actions are different.
Of course, then the results are different and that is why we have so many bad leaders.

First of all, we must define who is a leader.

29
Indeed, we have a big problem in defining who is a leader.

Is the leader each director of any company?

If the answer is "Yes", there are many leaders.
If only some of them are leaders, what is with others? What are they?

If we have 100 000 directors, how many of them are leaders?

30
@Mark Miera said:
"Why we have so many bad leaders.....too many leaders believe it is natural and they don't have to practice....If we want good leaders, then measure it. That which is measured, get's done."

- Excellent! True.

31
@Mark Miera said:
"Why we have so many bad leaders.....too many leaders believe it is natural and they don't have to practice....If we want good leaders, then measure it. That which is measured, get's done."

- Excellent! True.

32
@Glenn
A BAD LEADER does not have necessary knowledge, skills and behaviors and do not want to learn.
A bad leader continuously generates many negative states (results).

The current crisis confirms that there are not enough good leaders.
If we have enough good leaders, the crisis would have been only in theory.

33

@GlennYes, my purpose in starting this theme was not merely to pose a rhetorical question.
I designed one definite and complete model of action named Model of universal excellence - MUE.My discussion has universal approach, not political or any other focused area of life or work.
Glenn thanks very much for link on your very interesting contents.

34
Should GOOD LEADER have appropriate knowledge, skills and behaviors in the field of management functions (planning, organization, management, human resources management, control and improvement)?

35
Microsoft has more than 200,000 employees in total.
How many managers and how many leaders have Microsoft (approximately).

The answer can give a good direction for further discussion.

36
@Kenneth

Of course that Microsoft has basic pyramid structure like many organizations.
Knowledge is one element of organization.
But leadership is the most important element for any organization.
On this way we can replace "knowledge-based organization" with "leadership-based organization".

Every superior in any organization is a leader.
Every superior in any organization has followers (subordinates).
With such new approach we have a completely clear picture how effectively “produce” good leaders.
(According MUE – Model of Universal Excellence …).

There are many leaders in Microsoft.
Are they good or bad is another question.

37
Kenneth, please can you answer on next question:
How many leaders have Microsoft: None, only one, five, ten, a hundred, a thousand, ...

The answer is crucial to determine why we have so many bad leaders.

38
Rich said in previous discussion:
"The way we teach how to be a leader is flawed."

This is the cause why we have so many bad leaders.
It is very easy to prove.

39
@Joe Albano: I'm curious Milan, how is it that you can prove that "The way we teach how to be a leader is flawed" causes bad leaders?"

The way we now teach how to be a leader is flawed because how can we explain next situations:
1. Why a crisis started in 2008, if we had enough good leaders?
2. If we have enough good leaders why the crisis is not yet resolved globally and in individual countries?
3. There is no consensus which knowledge, skills and behaviors are needed to be a good leader.
4. When we talk about leaders we think about exclusivist individuals with special characteristics that are not completely defined. How can we train new good leaders on this way? What?
5. Black and white approach to defining bosses and leaders. Bosses are negative, and leaders are positive. How do we train leaders on this way because they have something common?
6. We define too generally characteristics of a leader. There are several hundred of them. How to explain it and how individual (leader) can have it so many.
7. It is not known (not determined) where the best school for leaders in the world is. What if such school exists? Most will go into it and we shall have many good leaders.
8. When talking about the leaders we think on charismatic leaders such as Gandhi, King, Mandela, Jobs, ...
The present times are completely different and will never occur such good leaders. The time of charismatic leaders is gone.
9. We did not define the knowledge, skills and behaviors that are common to the bosses and leaders, and it creates confusion.
10. There are too many different approaches how to train leaders what leads to their uneven ability. When we add negative selection of leaders we have a really big problem.

These are just some of the elements that indicate that something is wrong with the training of leaders. Please, is this not enough?

40
Joe, you didn't misinterpret my (Dr. Rich Schuttler) statement.

INADEQUATE EDUCATION IS THE CAUSE WHY WE HAVE SO MANY BAD LEADERS.
It is so obviously.
We must urgently change the way how to educate good leaders.
Look through points 1. - 10. in my previous post and define which one is wrong and which one is right.
After that I can give you more (next) elements for analyses (discussion).

41
Glenn, please, what are the differences in the required knowledge, skills and behaviors between a GOOD MANAGER and a GOOD LEADER?

42
@ Glenn
Yes, it is hard to find differences between a manager and a leader if they are both judged good. Today is another time - time of continuous and systematic changes. Today is completely different situation than before thirty years and more. Being a manager and leader before thirty years and more is not the same as being a manager and a leader today. We need new approach to leadership if we want to get more good leaders. Only numerous good leaders can overcome this situation (crisis). To be a good leader TODAY, leader must be a good manager, too. The world can successfully lead just good leaders, right?

43
Everything can be learned, even leadership
If the leader improvises, the results are uncertain.
If the leader has defined model of action, the results are certain.

Most leaders improvise and that's why we have so many bad leaders.

44
Maybe the next question can help to clarify who is a leader:
Are leaders all single mothers with five children, which "by the way" lead a household?

45
@AdrianIt not important to which group leader belongs, it is important is he good or bad leader. We must have the criteria for determining the quality of leader.Quality can be: good, inconclusive (new leader without necessary knowledge, skills and behaviors) and bad leader.  Of course, this is from MUE* leadership model: A leader is every person who leads others.*MUE - Model of Universal Excellence

46
Timothy, to learn from life is too long for leaders and especially for followers. Learning from life means to get too many mistakes. Can followers wait that leaders pick up appropriate knowledge, skills and behaviors do become good leaders? No! Learning by mistakes is not a good option for followers. WE MUST EDUCATE GOOD LEADERS MUCH FASTER. The present time is a time of rapid changes and leaders do not have time to dominantly learn from life.

47
Obviously, we have two approaches to create leaders: 
1. A new approach: A defined model of leadership (MUE - Model of Universal Excellence) - to educate leaders for necessary knowledge, skills and behaviors in order to be good leaders. Of course, the necessary knowledge, skills and behaviors are defined. 
2. Old (classic) approach: Spontaneous and undefined (content and duration) self-training throughout life. Let's choose the one solution. Of course, the choice is subjective.

48
Did we finally determine the reasons why we have so many bad leaders?

49
One of the main reason why we have so many bad leaders is their lack of key SOFT SKILLS: Change management, problem solving, time management, effective meetings, networking, advocacy, learning to learn and creative writing.   Soft skills are skills that must be learned, there is no naturally talented individuals who are experts in soft skills.

50
Being good in a soft skills means to acquire DEFINED knowledge, skills and behaviors (curriculum).For individuals who have some form of natural talent will be easier for learning, but it is not crucial for the acquisition of knowledge of soft skills. Of course, curriculum (content) must be appropriate (good).All the key soft skills mentioned earlier, must be mutually complementary, not individualized and separated (MUE - Model of Universal Excellence).

51
Being good in a soft skills means to acquire DEFINED knowledge, skills and behaviors (curriculum).For individuals who have some form of natural talent will be easier for learning, but it is not crucial for the acquisition of knowledge of soft skills. Of course, curriculum (content) must be appropriate (good).All the key soft skills mentioned earlier, must be mutually complementary, not individualized and separated (MUE - Model of Universal Excellence).

52
Kenneth, your words are reality:

"Often there are no checks and balances to deal with someone who turns out to be a poor or bad leader and remove them from positions of power and influence."

53
Kenneth, your words are reality:

"Often there are no checks and balances to deal with someone who turns out to be a poor or bad leader and remove them from positions of power and influence."

54
We have more than 500 posts in this topic. It's great. Sincere thanks to all the participants for contribution. Contents are so good and a real boost to the writing of many books about leadership. A special thanks to Olivier Madel-Felicite, the owner of the LinkedIn group. Thanks to all who follow this topic. Join us! Let's continuing with the posts in order to solve the biggest problem today:
LACK OF GOOD LEADERS.

55
Glenn, is it really so in our reality: The bosses are bad and the leaders are good?

56
Ron Simplified Myers wrote in another topic:
"I guess I look at the word "Leader" different than most ever since I heard John Maxwell explain it probably 20 years ago. He said "A Leader is someone that people voluntarily follow" - nothing more, nothing less".

MUE (Model of Universal Excellence) use principle "simplify simply" for leadership:
"A Leader is someone that people follow" - nothing more, nothing less.

57
@Carmen

Every leader must have a defined:
1. purpose,
2. vision,
3. mission,
4. objectives,
5. areas of activities.

These elements are the INITIAL ELEMENTS OF EXCELLENCE and define the required action of leaders and followers (MUE - Model of Universal Excellence).

If "initial elements of excellence" are fulfilled - leader is good.
If "initial elements of excellence" are not fulfilled - leader is bad.

Very simple to define - very simple to control.

58
Every leader without purpose, vision, mission, objectives and areas of activities is automatic bad leader.

Elements must be defined exactly in this sequence.

It is obvious for any form of association (groups, organizations and communities) whatever the reason for following is: voluntarily or any other reasons.

59
@Carmen
Of course, every follower is bad when follow a bad leader.
He must urgently choose another leader - a good leader.

60
@Carmen
Yes, the followers decide who the good or bad leader is.

All followers decide who the good or bad leader is on the same way - according completed IEE (Initial Elements of Excellence: purpose, vision, mission, objectives and areas of activities).
IEE are defined when form of association is formed.

Of course activities of leaders cannot be deadly, illegal or immoral for anyone inside or outside of association.

61
Carmen, just contrary, assessment is objective.
Anyone can easily, simply and quickly check whether the leader is good or bad:

If "initial elements of excellence" are fulfilled - leader is good.
If "initial elements of excellence" are not fulfilled - leader is bad.

The Initial Elements of Excellence are quantitative and qualitative data which must be written.

62
Timothy, Justin Bieber is a teen music IDOL for his fans, not a leader.
His fans are consumers.

63
Carmen, just contrary, in any moment anyone can determine whether a leader is good or bad.
In any time metrics show us does leader is good or not.

64
@Kenneth

MUE leaders must follow next principle:
Everything is allowed if it is not deadly, illegal and immoral.

Of course, good leader must "has high moral and ethical values", as you said earlier.
There are no limits for leaders to act together with his followers. It depend about their purpose, vision, mission, objectives and areas of activities

Kenneth, your next statement is absolute (and unfortunately) correct:
"There are numerous examples of leaders over many centuries who were leaders in the basic sense of the word in that they had committed followers, but who ruled by fear, threat, extortion and murder."

Obviously, we have good and bad leaders.

65
Kenneth, all relevant factors (the winning side, the opposition, those who did not support their course, followers, communities, different experts …) can and must determine is leader good or not.

But they must have definite KPI's (Key Performance Indicators) for objective identification is leader good or bad.

KPI's for leaders are purpose, vision, mission, objectives and areas of activities.

The problem is that it is not controlled continuously and systematically.
Without control many leaders become bad.

66
Adrian, for example, are the leaders all presidents of countries?
I think they are.

If KPI's are not for the leaders (only for managers), how we will evaluate their leadership?
It is more important that we have KPI's for leaders then for the managers.
It is greater responsibility to lead the country than to lead one company in that country.

67
It is obvious that a present leadership theories and practices are not good because we do not have enough good leaders.

We need to provide a new paradigm that will result in the creation of many new leaders.

It is not a question of the impossible; it's a matter of finding the right way to do it.

68
MUE leaders must follow next principle:
Everything is allowed if it is not deadly, illegal and immoral.

Of course, good leader must "has high moral and ethical values", as you said earlier.
There are no limits for leaders to act together with his followers. It depend about their purpose, vision, mission, objectives and areas of activities

Kenneth, your next statement is absolute (and unfortunately) correct:
"There are numerous examples of leaders over many centuries who were leaders in the basic sense of the word in that they had committed followers, but who ruled by fear, threat, extortion and murder."

Obviously, we have good and bad leaders.

69
We have two approaches to leadership and leaders:
1. LEADERSHIP MODEL (we can and must measure some elements).
2. SPONTANEOUS LEADERSHIP with undefined elements (we cannot measure or don't want to measure).

When discuss about leadership we must define which approach we are talking about.

Does anyone know any definite leadership model?
Please, can you describe it in short?

70

Microsoft just announced the name of its new CEO: Satya Nadella.

Is Mr. Nadella just now?
1. Only manager
2. Only leader
3. Both

71
Glenn, you think that "for now", Nadella is not a leader?
Why is it not an answerable question?
Does this mean that Microsoft does not have a leader now?

72
Glenn, Microsoft has a great problem if Nadella is not a leader just now. It is not a logical debate here, quite contrary - it is practical debate. We must urgently and practically answer on these questions :- Who are leaders (relations or undefined extra qualities)?- Who are good leaders (KPI's)? - Why we have so many bad leaders (Peter principle)?- How can we create numerous good leaders (appropriate leadership model)? Why is it necessary? Because we have a big problem – not enough good leaders in all areas of life and work. We need urgently solution for this problem.

73
@Timothy

MUE is not a mechanical and gives creative solutions available to every average individual.
MUE uses Mechanical Creativity Principle: First steps are defined and after that choice of options for action is subjective (free).

The main role for MUE is to teach a person how to catch a fish alone – not to catch fish for him. And even more – now he can teach the others.

Timothy, do not be skeptic, people should have innate traits personally without restriction.
Only restriction in MUE is for improvisation because our achievements are then far less than our potentials, needs and wishes.

74
Joe, of course not!

KPI's are composed of different elements, and each element has its value (the desired goal).

Every leader has own SPECIFIC KPI's in relation to the other leaders.
President of the state has his specific KPI's, Microsoft CEO has his specific KPI's, leader of non-government organization has his specific KPI's, ...

All leaders mentioned above have different KPI's.

What is here general for all leaders?
They all have KPI's which consist from definite number of elements with desired values (goals). And they are different!

If you have KPI's for managers, it is logical (and more necessary) to do so for the leaders.
All can be measured - quantitatively and / or qualitatively.

The above elements are part of the MUE (Model of Universal Excellence).
This is a new paradigm to solve the problem with the bad leaders.

75
MUE – Model of Universal Excellence part 1

Timothy, thank you very much for your interest for MUE – Model of Universal Excellence.

I apologize to you because all books and other materials are still on Croatian.
I am going to translate it on English. I shall introduce MUE in some steps here.

MUE - Model of Universal Excellence is entirely practical model that automatically runs changes that are immediately measurable.
MUE - Model of Universal Excellence is a universal model for setting and achieving goals, regardless of the themes, current status and the users (individuals and all forms of community).

MUE- Universal model of excellence - completely excludes improvisation.
The components of the model are the key soft skills, mind maps and tools.

MUE learns "how to do" regardless of "what?"
MUE is defined sequence of activities how to do with optimal use of resources.

MUE shared resources on HARD RESOURCES and SOFT RESOURCES (this is an innovative approach).
Hard resources are limited, soft resources are practically unlimited.

Hard resources are: Material resource, finance and human resources.
Soft resources are: Time, knowledge and meetings.

MUE treats meetings as a new sixth resource and it is a new and innovative approach.

Searching for solutions (problems, decisions, effective meetings, improvements, choice of strategy, defining goals…) are dominantly based on the soft resources.

Searching for solution is driver (central point) to achieve excellence.

Key elements: model, change management, soft skills, mind maps, tools, searching for solution, soft resources, necessary activities, the whole picture, control

MUE can be equally used in leadership.
Leadership is "what'", MUE is "how".

76
Joe, brief explanation about your question:

Where?
MUE is used in the same way in business, government, non-profits and any sector on the same way (definite sequence of activities); equally in personal and professional carrier.

How?
Tools are one of the components of the model.
Tools are defined activities that lead to the desired goals with respect to the use of tools.
To introduce changes we use tool named EXCELLENCE with the following components: determining the condition, goals setting, strategy selection, search for solutions, achieving goals.
Each component of the tool is a new tool.
Tools provide a whole picture and exclude any improvisation.
The skill of creating a whole picture of any issue is the most important skill for any individual.

When?
MUE has tool with name "NEED FOR CHANGES" that has "only" four elements and is used:
- When we have a negative condition (it is a new tool)
- We want things to improve (it is a new tool?
- Due to external factors (PESTEL)
- If goals are set.

All users apply model on the same way. Therefore, the model has an attribute "universal".
I must emphasize that the model is entirely practical and excludes any improvisation.

Model is not a mechanical and gives creative solutions available to every average individual.

77
Yes, I am the author of the model.
I worked on model theoretically and practically fifteen years.
Model was finished in 2007.
Nothing cannot be changed after that.

78
Glenn, it is very interesting observation about West Management and East Management.
Management and leadership have no side - can only be effective or ineffective.

Personally, last 25 years I studied systematically only "West" literature about management and other related fields.

MUE is sophisticated compilation of original sources from the "West".
Glenn, MUE is definitely a "West" product.

Of course, there are many products (models) on the market.
The choice is subjective.

79
MUE defines "only" two possible courses of action: MODEL OF ACTION and IMPROVISATION. Model of action and improvisation exclude each other. When we talk about improvisation, we need to create a definition.MUE definition of improvisation is:- Improvisations are different answers to the same or approximately the same event.- Improvisation is an activity that is done beyond the existing procedures.- Improvisation is a hasty activity without analysis of the situation.- We cannot logically explain why we improvised. - We cannot teach others how to replicate our improvisation. With improvisation achievements will always be less than the potentials, desires and needs. With improvisation we always consume excessive resources. No one has so far not give a single practical example where improvisation is better than the model of action. Of course, if we have not defined a model of action we have only improvisation.

80
Glenn, there is no cultural differences in the meanings we attach to the vocabulary of leadership. There is no east and west. Maybe we have different definition who is a leader and after that everything is different in our approaches. MUE definition of a leader: A leader is a person who leads others. With such definition, we have a lot of leaders (all CEO's, all presidents of states, all sports coaches ...). 

Leader is RELATION towards others (leader leads - followers follow).Every leader is a manager.

Manager is FUNCTION (action), not position in the organizational hierarchy.

CEO is a POSITION. Key words: relation, function, position. 
This is a part of new paradigm which is named MUE. Why we need a new paradigm? - Because we cannot "produce" enough good leaders on "old way". Without enough good leaders we still have crisis. Of course, MUE is just one of the many models of action in the market.

81
James, a brilliant comment. Yes, we have good and bad leaders. The leader is primarily relation (with others), and then the quality of action (good or bad).

82
Kenneth, now is the time of unavoidable changes and current paradigm is no longer valid.

Current leaders must be trained.

OF COURSE, TRAINING IS NOT ONLY IN THE CLASSROOM BUT PRIMARILY IN PRACTICE AND ACCORDING DEFINED CURRICULUM.

MUE training for leaders totally exclude cases and learns how to be a good leader in real-life situations.

The real (practical) question for the individual who learns how to be a good leader is:
What is currently your biggest problem?

On this topic (the biggest problem) leader being taught skills and behaviors that are indispensable for a good leader:
- identify the need for change,
- advocating for change,
- brings a comprehensive decision for changes,
- initiate changes,
- establish the current state,
- set objectives,
- choose a strategy,
- searching for optimal solutions,
- control the implementation of necessary activities,
- set new goals based on previous achievements,
to name a few.

83
Glenn said: "That doesn’t mean that leadership is not an important and highly useful idea." We have a real problem if we don't declare that leadership is the most important problem for mankind at this moment. Leadership cannot be only a useful idea; it must be a bloodstream which only can ensure the healthy development of mankind. The best world's experts must urgently solve the paradox about leadership: What is the technological development faster, grow faster and the number of bad leaders.

84
Glenn, I did not mean that mankind is on the verge of apocalypse.
I think that we do not use ENOUGH benefits of current development of technology.

The reason for this is the lack of good leaders.
We can create them only with new and the appropriate education (not only in the classroom).

Glenn, thanks for the invitation to contact you through your working email account.
I will gladly accept it.

85
Glenn, my answer on your earlier question: "Please describe the relation(ship) that a leader has with others and tell us how those others view the leader." Every leader operates in association with others (followers) in groups, organizations and communities. All relations between members of association must be defined (procedures).If it is not so, we have improvisation.If the form of action is improvisation, the result is (always) a bad leader. Followers are with the leader because they expect that he is a good leader and able to achieve common interests: the purpose, vision, mission, objectives and areas of activity (initial elements of excellence). Initial elements of excellence are earlier defined and every follower must know for them.Of course, revisions are always possible, but not with improvisation than through defined procedure for that.  Key word: procedures Procedures are not force against anybody; they are a guarantee (prerequisite) for success in any form of associations.

86
Margaret, please, can you give your definition of what is improvisation?  Here is MUE definition of improvisation: - Improvisations are different answers to the same or approximately the same event.- Improvisation is an activity that is done beyond the existing procedures.- Improvisation is a hasty activity without analysis of the situation.- We cannot logically explain why we improvised. - We cannot teach others how to replicate our improvisation. With improvisation achievements will always be less than the potentials, desires and needs. With improvisation we always consume excessive resources.

87
Margaret, if improvisation is a SKILL as you said, than we can teach others how to improvise on the appropriate manner. If we can teach somebody how to improvise we can have situations where somebody has more skill to improvise and another has less skill to improvise. But all improvisations are originals. We cannot repeat improvisation on the same way. I didn't find any literature how to learn how to effectively improvise. Please, can you help me to find literature about improvisation skill? If we mix (misuse) creativity and improvisation, we really have a big problem about leadership, especially if we think that improvisation is a good trait for leaders.

88
Yes, Kenneth, you are right - improvisation is a REACTION, not a skill. Improvisation is an uncontrolled reaction on events from environment.  And this is a big problem for leader because if leader is without a MODEL OF ACTION he produces results which are always less than existing potentials, wishes and needs.

89Timothy, we haven't an endless circle here, we have two different approaches to leadership. MUE claim that improvisation is a main reason why we have so many bad leaders. Improvisation is an Achilles heel for every leader. Classical Leadership model claim opposite: Improvisations are solutions for great leaders. It is a big problem when we equalizing creativity and improvisation. Of course, choice which leadership model to use is a personal decision.

90
Margaret, everything is OK.As I said earlier, choice of leadership model is a subjective. But the fact is that existing leadership models cannot solve the biggest problem of the mankind: There are not enough good leaders! World cannot go faster forward without a far greater number of good leaders. The present time is a time for change. It is a time to change a paradigm about leadership, too. If we use principle "simplify simply", everything can be more productive.

91
I asked many times all around me next question: Does anyone know ONE PRACTICAL CASE when improvisation was a more successful than well-defined model of action? No one has so far not given a single practical example when improvisation better than the model of action.

92
Glenn, your case which you describe here is not a good example that improvisation is better than the model of action. 1. For example, what would happen if we had foreseen the possibility of such unfortunate events and that we have made specific procedures for handling? It is certain that the outcomes would be different.

2. This part of the content from the book is a misinterpretation: "The crisis of the World Trade Center collapse was managed by a pair of ordinary New York City bureaucrats".
It is obvious that Holden and Burton are not a pair of ordinary bureaucrats – they are EXPERTS in their fields.

3. Next text from the book is misinterpreted:
"They immediately called in the four (de-) construction firms they knew to have the necessary equipment, know-how and trained personnel to undertake the job, assigning each to one quadrant of the work. No contracts were negotiated, no bids requested. They presided over daily meetings with representatives of these firms as well as of fire and police departments, resolving turf disputes, assigning priorities and IMPROVISING decisions as critical as how to prevent collapse of walls that held back river water from surging into the city’s underground transport systems."

The words "improvising as critical decisions" are misleading and inappropriate because Holden and Burton are experts who knew how to determine the situation and on the basis of their knowledge of decided what was the best at this moment.

Taking part of a book for case in order to confirm the rule is a very slippery area.

93
Glenn, your case which you describe here is not a good example that improvisation is better than the model of action. 
1. For example, what would happen if we had foreseen the possibility of such unfortunate events and that we have made specific procedures for handling? It is certain that the outcomes would be different.

2. This part of the content from the book is a misinterpretation "The crisis of the World Trade Center collapse was managed by a pair of ordinary New York City bureaucrats".
It is obvious that Holden and Burton are not a pair of ordinary bureaucrats – they are EXPERTS in their fields.

3. Next text from the book is misinterpreted:
"They immediately called in the four (de-) construction firms they knew to have the necessary equipment, know-how and trained personnel to undertake the job, assigning each to one quadrant of the work. No contracts were negotiated, no bids requested. They presided over daily meetings with representatives of these firms as well as of fire and police departments, resolving turf disputes, assigning priorities and IMPROVISING decisions as critical as how to prevent collapse of walls that held back river water from surging into the city’s underground transport systems."

The words "improvising as critical decisions" are misleading and inappropriate because Holden and Burton are experts who knew how to determine the situation and on the basis of their knowledge of decided what was the best at this moment.

Taking part of a book for case in order to confirm the rule is a very slippery area.

94
Joe, your words "I'm not sure why a leader's ability or tendency to "improvise" is such an issue." are very useful. Starting point of new paradigm named MUE is that we have ONLY two ways of action: IMPROVISATON and MODEL OF ACTION.I apologize, but I shall repeat again: We have only two way of action. Every model of action has purpose, domain, when we use it, users,  …Model of action are defined activities. There are many models of action on the market. SWOT analysis is one model of action. We use it to determine current state. SMART technique is one model of action. We use it to define goals.

Improvisation is undefined activities. It is free for any action without restriction.
Every improvisation is unique.  If we have model of action we automatically exclude any improvisation. Claim is: If we have model of action – outcome will be higher than if we use improvisation. If we use SWOT analysis, outcome will be higher than if improvising (when we exclude SWOT).If we use SMART technique, outcome will be higher than if improvising (when we exclude SMART).And so on.

For any person the most important dilemma is: Choice the way of action - improvisation or model of action.

95
Glenn, according to the information that I have I think your case is not an improvisation but planned action. Of course, the conditions were imposed.

I would say that Holden and Burton was CREATIVE, not use improvisation.

The case would be better evaluated if at least answer the following questions:
1. Was earlier any defined procedure that could be applied to this case?
2. Were asked other experts to solve the problem? (within the available time)?
3. Did Holden and Burton have other solutions to this problem?
4. Is later performed an analysis and found a better solution?
5. Is this event initiated drawing up of procedures that would prevent such events in the future or reduce damage if happen again? In this case, I think that creativity is replaced with improvisation.
Creativity and improvisation are two different things.

96
Glenn, I do not insist that you use and accept my definitions. I cannot and do not want to do it. These are just my thoughts.
As I've said many times, the choice is subjective and it is solely the decision of the any individual.

We have different approaches about leadership.
Is it a problem?
There are many different leadership models in the market.

I have quite new paradigm about leadership because for me the old paradigm is not in function any more - we have too many bad leaders.

Through this discussion all can learn more: Person who knows more and the person who knows less. And that is a function of LinkedIn.

97
It is very charming to observe how the question "Why we have so many bad leaders" transforms into teaching of semantics. I am sure it is a very good for healthy discussion and I personally approve it.
But we still need answer on this question and solution to overcome this problem.

98
@Joe, Glenn

Earlier I wrote in one post:
"Timothy, thank you very much for your interest for MUE – Model of Universal Excellence.
I apologize to you because all books and other materials are still on Croatian.
I am going to translate it on English. I shall introduce MUE in some steps here."

I defined MUE completely in 2007. In 2011 I wrote book entitled "MUE BOOK FOR SUCCESS".MUE is completely in this book with one auxiliary book entitled "LEARNING WITH MIND MAPS" published in 2011. First book has 260 pages, the second has 162 pages.  They are both in A4 format. All content is practical. As I said, book "MUE BOOK FOR SUCCESS" is in the process of translating on English. I am sorry, but I cannot put all content at once in this thread. I am sure that you will be satisfied with this MUE "story" at the end. I shall prepare a shortened version of this model on English very soon. It will be nice to continue to look for the right answer to the initial question, isn't it?The initial question was: WHY WE HAVE SO MANY BAD LEADERS?

99
Albert Einstein said: "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

We really have a big problem with leadership. How can we overcome leadership paradox: Better technology – less good leaders?
Is it logic that we don't use this Einstein's quote?

100
I think that we now have more leaders than there were in the past because we have more new forms of associations than before. It is without statistics, only according scanning our environment.

101
The main seven components of leadership (according MUE): 1. Interests,2. Form of togetherness (group, organization or community),3. Leader,4. Followers,5. Model of action,6. Activities,7. Results. Is something missing?  If we give the attributes for components, we can easily, simply and quickly determine who is a good leader, and who is a bad leader.

102
The most important task of a good leader is the creation of new good leaders, without fear that will be threatened from them.

To create new leaders, a leader must have a defined model of action.
How he can learn somebody if he doesn't knows what to do?

Model of action are defined activities: setting goals, delegate, choose the best strategy, successfully solve problems, to seek optimal solutions for the desired achievements and many others.

Can leader be a good leader if he doesn't creates new good leaders?

103
Timothy, now we have situation where Leader and Manager are strongly different (classical leadership models).Which are consequences? We have too many bad leaders. Now is a time of continuous and systematic changes and we need enormous number of good leaders for that.

Obviously, we need new paradigm. One element from this new paradigm is:
Every manager is a leader when he leads others. Of course, every leader can be a good leader or a bad leader and it depends on his achievements. Which are consequences of this new paradigm? Many individuals are "now" leaders and they must learn how to become good leaders. Till now we all thought that managers do not need to have a leader's knowledge, skills and behaviors. On this way we had too few individuals who "need" to be leaders. What's the problem if leader is every manager when he leads others in various forms of togetherness (groups, organizations, and communities)? What's wrong with that? Managers lead others and must learn how to do it effectively.

Timothy, try simulating the above claims.
It is a solution how we shall get numerous good leaders.
I agree, it is really a big change with big consequences, but it is necessary if we want numerous good leaders.

By the way, MUE – Model of Universal Excellence is very flexible in relation to the different topics, users and current conditions.

104
Kenneth, why next words cannot be true? "MANAGEMENT, by definition and through experience, means responsibility and accountability, the ability to listen to others, make and take decisions, communicate information and delegate responsibility to others."  Of course, that cannot be true if we talk about a BAD MANAGER or a BAD LEADER. When comparing GOOD leaders and BAD managers we really get incredible results. Let's compare GOOD managers and GOOD leaders. What are the results of such comparison?

105
Timothy, please, can you explain more precisely your claim:"A bad person can be a profound leader." Can you give one real example?

106
Timothy, these people were definitely leaders - of course they are bad leaders.

107
Timothy, you're right, there is a need for many new questions to resolve the paradox of the current situation: Lack of numerous good leaders. We urgently need a new paradigm of leadership? Timothy, do you agree?

108
In LEADERSHIP THINK TANK thread "Describe in one word what makes an effective leader." opened by Lacey MacDonald - http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Describe-in-one-word-what-39683.S.257209435?view=&gid=39683&item=ANET%3AS%3A257209435&trk=NUS_RITM-title, we can analyze very interesting situation about definition of leader.

Just now thread has 1649 posts (Vou!).
I investigated what happened here.
Till now I take in consideration less than 10 % of all posts.

In 150 posts there are 132 attributes what makes an effective leader:

adaptive, altruistic love, aptitude, assertive, assertive, attitude, attraction, authentic, author, available, aware, being decisive, charisma, challenge, character, coach, commanding, commitment, communicator, compassion, concern, confidence, confidence, confident, consistency, conviction, courage, credibility, culture, decisive, dedication, determination, developing people, direction, doing the right thing at all time, driver, effectiveness, ego-less, empathy, empowering, empowerment,  encouraging, engaged, execution, exemplary, fidelity, flexible, followers, foresight, genuine, good instincts, growth, holistic, honest, honesty, humility, influence, influential, insight, inspirer, integrated, integrity, intuitive, know-how, knowledgeable, learning & development, life purpose, listen, listener, love, loyal, mentor, motivational, motivator, mutual understanding, navigation, noteworthy, organized, other-directed, passion, patience, personable, presence, quality, relationship-builder, respect,
role-model, self, self-confidence, self-reflection, servant, service, serving, should be inspiring, situational, sole, student, systems-thinker, tactful, talented charisma, team, transcendence, transparency, transparent, trust, trust the team, trustworthy, truth, understanding, us, vision, wisdom, wise
It is a real shock. When I finish with all posts I am sure that we can get more than 1000 different attributes for effective leaders. Fact is that we describe leaders too broadly. If a leader is only a quality, how anyone can become a leader with so much necessary attributes? Are we sure that for leader the first is quality, and then the relationship with others? Problem with quality of leader we solve with a good leader and a bad leader. First we should look who is a leader, and then we should look for quality (good or bad).  Thank you, Lacey MacDonald for this thread.

109
Leadership is a complex area only when the improvisation is a model of action. Here improvisation has meaning that we have too much different and too general access to leadership and on those basis unsatisfactory results.  There is no one objective fact that leadership is a super special "product". Everything can be defined, learn and measured. And so is with leadership. Of course, "defined" do not mean that everything is defined for every situations and every user. There is basic frame, model, methodology ... for start, and after that everything is free for action.

110

Timothy, it is not just a statement that the present paradigm doesn't work anymore - it is fact. How we can rationally explain why crisis in 2008 started if we had enough good leaders?  I shall complete my task from your previous post in my next post.

111
Aseem, that's great expressed. It not your attempt, you just hit the essence of leadership problem.

112
I apologize, but I must say directly, here is another excellent question - this time from Kenneth. If those who are elevated, or see themselves, to the position of leader do not have those competencies, they are of course bad leaders.  Solution is very simple: We need to make a complete LIST OF REQUIRED COMPETENCIES for good leaders. Necessary competencies mean appropriate knowledge, skills and behaviors to be a good leader.

113
Kenneth, I have not forgotten about my task.

114
Timothy said earlier: "Milan, please give one concrete example to support your claim. Give an example of a human person that has been elevated to a Leader role following this model of action as well as a specific human who exemplifies an improvisational Leader that has failed due to their innovation that could have succeeded using the model of action. I am open-minded but to sell your idea, you have to show how it will work and not just statements that the present paradigm doesn't work anymore." Timothy, first of all I must correct your first part of the post: It is not necessary that any model of action elevated any person to a Leader role because leadership is a relationship with others. Good model of action must enable any leader to become a GOOD leader. 
Here is one example about model of action:  
1. If any person (manager, leader or any other person) uses next model of action named "Requirements for starting changes" with next elements the outcome will be excellence:
1. Defining state,
2. Goal setting,
3. Choice of strategy.

2. If any person (manager, leader, any other person) skips or replaces these three elements, we have improvisation. Improvisation always gives fewer achievements than potentials, wishes and needs. This is true for any topic: entering in new market, possibilities for new product, entering in entrepreneurship, job change, entering into partnerships, marketing campaign, choice of a new supplier... Please, don't say that these elements are ONLY for managers. Otherwise, can we imagine good leaders which don't know how choose strategy of action or they skip to define strategy of action? Of course, we can imagine such leaders, they are bad leaders.

115
Timothy, I just gave one example as you requested about model of action.
Your request was about model of action, not about differences between managers and leaders.

Defining state, Goal setting and Choice of strategy are not traits of managers and leaders. They are necessary knowledge and skills to achieve desired goals (equally for managers and for leaders).

Timothy, I gave the answers according your request.

116
Timothy, you gave answer through your question. We have too many bad leaders because they DON'T HAVE A DEFINITE MODEL OF ACTION. Notices:- There are many models of action on the market.- Choice of model of action is a subjective. I designed a model of action named MUI - Model of Universal Excellence. Model is totally practical, not theoretical.MUE operates with principles and other elements. The first MUE principle (and the most important): "Don't use MUE if you have better solution!"

117
Kenneth, I am sure that we go in good direction, not round and round. In your previous post you described LEADERSHIP STYLES - they are behaviors of leaders. To get the whole picture we must take in account knowledge and skills, too. Knowledge, skills and behaviors are parts of leader's competencies. When we talk about model of action it means "how" to act to optimally achieve desired goals. Sequences of action for specific purpose must be the same regardless of the situation, the organization, the task, the objective or objectives, the strategy and even the country. For example, who rationally can explain why not to use the following sequence of action to ensure effective changes driven by any leader/manager: 
1. Defining state,
2. Goal setting,
3. Choice of strategy. 
I must stress here, that this sequence of action is one among many.

118
Glenn, I am not sure did you see a request from Timothy for one example about model of action? I gave only one example and it was only one part from MUE. It is very hard (practically impossible) with this one example see the whole picture of the model of action. In my answer to Timothy there was no need for a complete presentation of MUE. Glenn, your review of model without knowing the whole picture is really very interesting.  I shall continue with some elements from your post in one of my next post.

119
Glenn, if you think that defining state, goal setting and choice of strategy are unnecessary activities for achieving desired goals, it's OK. That is your way of doing. It's a personal decision not to know current state, to act without goals and without defined way how to achieve the desired goal.  I think that defining state, goal setting and choice of strategy is not a theory. Just contrary from theory. These are practical activities that we need to do to make the effective changes.

120
Govind, your question "Are they really Bad leaders? or are they the people chosen by Bad Panel?" is very interesting. It would be worthwhile to make a complete analysis.

121
Reality is that we have different opinions about the same things. It is so because we have different definitions about key terms.

The same situation is with the definition of leader.

Let's together examine next situation from the practice with real "players" and real data.

In "Data.com Connect Company Directory" we can find very interesting data about Microsoft Corporation from Redmond USA at https://connect.data.com/company/view/h8tcnrULra-hdHpMkHdLiw/microsoft-corporation

Here is the structure from part of Microsoft organizational hierarchy:
C-Level 378
VP-Level 130
Director-Level 1,818
Manager-Level 6,461
Staff 5,567

It is 12,364 employees total in the top of Microsoft organizational scheme.

How many leaders have Microsoft among these 12,364 highly ranked employees?

Are leaders all C-Level?
Are leaders all VP-Level?
Are leaders all Director Level?
Are leaders all Manager Level?
Are leaders all Staff?

How many leaders have Microsoft?

122
Here I shall elaborate situation only about Microsoft CEO's. Timothy, if we accept your number of Microsoft's leaders and suppose that all leaders are CEO - we have only 5.3 % leaders on CEO level. Is it possible that Microsoft have so few leaders? Many questions come to mind: - What about the Microsoft CEO's who are not leaders (355 in total)? - On what basis (qualitative and quantitative) is determined who is the leader? - Are leadership skills the most important when choosing a new CEO? - Why CEO who is not a leader is yet elected (355 in total)? For now I shall skip VP-Level and Director Level.

123
Good leadership is the culmination of human skills. Only good leadership can enable development that is appropriate to the current potentials, needs and desires. Therefore, the priority task of all individuals and institutions who work in the field of leadership to find a practical way to create a numerous of good leaders.

124
Timothy, for getting the whole picture, MUE takes in consideration three elements: function, relation and position:
FUNCTION: Management activities (planning, organizing, leading, human resource management, control and improvements).
RELATION: The connection between persons (in leadership it is connection between a leader and followers: to lead and to follow).
POSITION: Jurisdictions (areas of activities) and authorizations (what is allowed) in the hierarchical scheme: CEO, VP, Director, staff …
Of course, MUE is only one of a many leadership models in the market.

125
Timothy, the topic (focus) in this thread is: BAD LEADERS - not leadership models. In all topics in this thread there are different elements from leadership. I don't know whether these elements are from any specific leadership model. It has not been mentioned in posts. I told a few times so far that we have different access into several initial elements. Is it a problem? Certainly not! It's only a discussion. We here do not discuss about leadership models, we are talking about individual elements of the model (I only suppose that they come from leadership models).  We have different access here. Problem? Why? Timothy, you said earlier that only 20 Microsoft CEO's from 378 in total are leaders. I think that all 378 Microsoft CEO's are leaders. Additionally, I think that all Microsoft VP's are leaders (130 in total).Additionally, I think that all Microsoft Presidents are leaders (1,818 in total).
Are they good leaders or bad leaders is another question (of course, it is only in the domain of Microsoft).

We think differently. It really is not a problem.

Timothy, next sentence is only one element from MUE, it is not the whole leadership model:
“A leader is every person which leads others.” Of course, a leader can be a good leader or a bad leader.

Such a definition has great consequences for the necessary action to create a numerous good leaders. Of course, if we can accept such approach.

126
Joe, it is not only DESIRE to evaluate leaders so that we can tell the "good" ones from the "bad" ones, it MUST be absolutely necessary. Leaders must be evaluated and directed in the right direction to achieve the desired goals together with their followers. The leader is not a "lonely island", the leader is the most responsible person in the group, organization or community. The leader is not alone; he is always with and in front of his followers. Everything can be measured, including the leader. Joe, your last post is very stimulating for more good discussions - I shall continue in my next posts about it.

127
Matt, you just mentioned one very important element: Advices.

We cannot create new good leaders through advices.
Good leaders can be created only by a good leadership model.

Let's find it on the market.

128
Joe, your question "That a good leadership model is the ONLY way to create good leaders?" is excellent.

Joe, do we have any other way?
I really do not know.
Do you know any other way?

129
Joe, it is easy and cheap (really without money) to establish continuous evaluation for leaders.

No matter is it group, organization or community, they must have INITIAL ELEMENTS OF EXCELLENCE.
They are: purpose, vision, mission, goals and areas of activities.
These elements always must have QUANTITATIVE and QUALITATIVE values.

Every form of togetherness without these elements is improvisation.
If it is so, it is easy to evaluate any leader.

If values from initial elements of excellence are reached - leader is good.
Otherwise, he is a bad leader.

Of course, if we have new unforeseen situations it must be taken into account in the evaluation.

130
Joe, it is obvious that we still have a big problem about bad/good leaders.
We must find a solution.
It is reason why we have 750+ comments till now.

131
Too many bad leaders are a consequence of not sufficiently good leaders.

To become a good leader, person needs an appropriate education.
We cannot teach leaders any more by advices and cases from other leaders.

We need definite models of action.
Model of action must have initial frameworks which are universal (ONLY SOME STARTING ELEMENTS).
After these initial steps everything is free for action.
It cannot be a rigid model; because it has only some defined starting elements.

We have only two approaches to leadership: With model of action or without model of action.

There is no third way.

Choice is a matter of personal decision.

132
Bob, you said in your earlier post that you didn't read all posts. It's true.

I wrote in one of previous post:
"Glenn, it is very interesting observation about West Management and East Management.
Management and leadership have no side - can only be effective or ineffective.

Personally, last 25 years I studied systematically ONLY "West" literature about management and other related fields.

MUE is sophisticated compilation of original sources from the "West".
Glenn, MUE is definitely a "West" product.

Of course, there are many products (models) on the market.
The choice is subjective."

We cannot solve problem about bad leaders with ideology or semantics or without new paradigm about leadership.

133
I am not satisfied with this post here but I want and must help to Glenn with right information.

I mentioned earlier in one post that my books are on Croatian language and they are just in process of translation on English.

Glenn, you made wrong association with Croatian language and it takes you in the wrong street (to Soviet Union).

I live in Croatia. Before 23 years Croatia was part of former Yugoslavia.
From 1950 - 1990 in Croatia was quite opposite economical system than in "East countries", named WORKER SELF-MANAGEMENT.
It was unique practical experiment which lasted 40 years till war in Yugoslavia.

Additionally, Yugoslavia was a founder and leader in non-aligned movement which was on opposite side from East block (Soviet Union).
By the way, in 2012 non-aligned movement had 120 member countries and 17 observer countries.

Glenn, do you know that Nelson Mandela was a Secretary of Non-aligned movement from 1998 to 1999?

You missed totally with Soviet Union here.
Yugoslavia (Croatia) was on quite opposite side from Soviet Union.
Of course, it is easy to check on Internet.

Glenn, it's OK, you have not right information about it.

There is no argument for politics or ideology in this thread if we want to solve leadership problem.

134
There is no a semantic problem in this thread and in our posts.

Glenn said:
"A leader, by definition, is accepted by followers fully, even enthusiastically. That is language usage of leadership in this part of the world."

There are many English dictionaries.

Glenn, please, can you give some of them with completely definition of a leader and sources to confirm your claim that leaders have absolutely positive attributes?

After that I shall give my list of dictionaries with definition of a leader.

135
Glenn wrote:

"Here are two definitions taken from the Wikipedia discussion of leadership:

"Leadership has been described as "a process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task"

"Leadership can be perceived as a particularly emotion-laden process, with emotions entwined with the social influence process."

Leadership is, indeed a thorny issue, because there is no such thing as a leader. Leadership is a quality of behavior, variously described in mostly positive terms as influence (vs. coercion or incentive) vision, integrity, credibility, teamwork, empathy, etc. A manager becomes a leader through acceptance by followers, not through certification or appointment. In the companion thread to this discussion, "specify what separates a boss from a leader", nine out of ten responses specify some form of qualitative distinction whereby a leader is described as more desirable to work under. If leader is the same as boss, manager, administrator, what useful meaning does it have. I stand by semantic common usage.
I'm still looking for your behavioral example of a bad manager."

Glenn, I am really confused with your statement from this post:
"Leadership is, indeed a thorny issue, because there is no such thing as a leader."
... there is no such thing as a leader?

136
Glenn wrote:
"A bad manager imposes a plan that will certainly fail and uses it as opportunity to fire someone."

It is weird strategy and it is dangerous and unnecessary.

If the manager wants to fire someone it is not necessary to impose a plan that will certainly fail - only requires a decision to fire him.

137
Every leader must have the LEARNING PLAN with next elements: Management knowledge, soft skills, technological knowledge, IT knowledge, foreign languages, …

Without learning plan, it is impossible to gain a competitive advantage.

138
Can satisfaction or dissatisfaction of followers determine is leader good or bad?

139
If the leader has definite model of action, he adapts to the situation and the environment according defined initial elements of excellence (purpose, vision, mission, goals and areas of activity).

If the leader is without definite model of action, everything is allowed.

140
Numerous different definitions of who is a leader led to a real mess.

141
It's "easy" to be a BAD leader without adequate knowledge, skills and behavior in the field of leadership.

142
Descriptions of leaders are too broad and vague, and it prevents specific actions to create a numerous of good leaders.

If we cannot define exactly how to become a good leader, then how can we say that someone is a good leader?

A hundred of authors give a hundred of different definitions of leader.
Obviously, something is wrong with it.

143

Changes in technology and in social relations are so rapid that it is necessary to continually and systematically LEARN in order to be a good leader (effective leadership).

144
If we want to effectively solve the problem of insufficient number of good leaders we have to talk (analyze) about leadership models, rather than individual isolated elements of leadership.

We must urgently find which the best leadership model is.

Of course, we must first define the key elements of the leadership model.
If we type "leadership model" in the Google search, we get 462,000 responses.

145

It's easy to become a leader; the art (skill) is HOW to become a GOOD leader.
Key words: how, good

146
A leader is not "prince on the white horse".
It is not undefined state, relations, activities, ...

It is easy for followers to evaluate is leader good or bad.

Everything can be learned, even to become a good leader.
Of course, without permanent learning it is not possible.

147
Kenneth, I'm a little confused about your claim that it is impossible to be learned about good leadership.

If we cannot become a good leader with learning, which is another option?

Is it possible to be a good leader without learning (of course, not only in classroom)?

Please, let's distinguish a leader from a BAD leader.

148
Kenneth, I totally agree with you that good leaders cannot be learned only from textbooks and in the classroom.
But there is a definite way how to "produce" good leaders.

With appropriate leadership model, curriculum, mentor(s), and learning on real situations (not on cases) it is possible.

Leadership is not mystical, only available for some to understand, something very difficult to achieve and indescribable.

Leadership has two elements: One that is common to all leaders and one that is specific to individual leaders: based on culture, creeds, traditions, habits, recognition... (as Kenneth mentioned earlier).

It is important that we analyze what is common to all leaders, not what is specific for each individual leader.

149
The debate on leaders will be much more effective if we describe leaders in a defined form of togetherness (groups, organizations and communities), and not as if they were free shooters and omnipotent in their actions.

Every leader has a defined domain of action and followers who can be named and identified.
There is nothing mystical in leaders.

Leaders are persons with appropriate leadership knowledge, skills and behaviors, not magicians.

150
The Need for Continuous Learning

A) 50% of the job skills and knowledge of the Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964) became obsolete in 12-15 years,

B) 50% of the job knowledge and skills of those born after 1965 and before 1984 will become obsolete in just 30-36 months.

Source: http://www.bredenbergassociates.com/search/label/leadership

Here are a few elements why leaders without continuous learning are bad leaders.

151
Margaret, your words are great:
"Should we begin to be thinking about what outliers on each area brings to the discipline of leadership development?"

I shall add (paraphrasing your words):
"Should we begin to be thinking about what COMMON in each area brings to the discipline of leadership development?"

Answer on both questions is "YES".

And of course, common in each "area" is LEADERSHIP MODEL.

Key question: WHAT IS COMMON FOR EVERY LEADER, REGARDLESS OF THEIR DIFFERENCES?

152
Mark, I have definite leadership model named MUE - Model of Universal Excellence.
I mentioned some elements from MUE through earlier discussions.

I wish that we exchange thoughts about different leadership models, benchmark them and choose the best one.
And of course, I wish that we get consensus about the best leadership model.

Good leadership model cannot be rigid and must be easy to implement without any specialist knowledge and skills.

Good leadership model is the key in order to solve the biggest problem of our time:
THE LACK OF GOOD LEADERS.

153
Glenn, thank you for links, but can you give us here a brief summary with some sentences about your leadership model? Thanks very much in advance.

154
Timothy, your approach to leadership about "leader" with lower case and "Leader" with an upper case is very interesting.

I have two questions:

1. Can "leader" with lower case be a bad "leader"?
2. Can "Leader" with an upper case be a bad "Leader"?

Do we have four leaders: Good / bad "leader" with lower case and good / bad "Leader" with an upper case?
Or?

155
Timothy, it is a very strange construction with "leader" and "Leader". Timothy, you said: "The "leader" is a person who manages or supervises a group." I have two questions: 1. If the group has a "Leader", is he a "leader" at the same time or we have two different persons?2. Who leads the group if we have ONLY a "leader" (a person who manages or supervises a group)?

156
Become a leader is a matter of DECISION.
Become a GOOD leader is a matter of necessary knowledge, skills and behaviors to make this happen.
Every BAD leader does not have sufficient knowledge, skills and behaviors to be a good leader.

157
Madhira, please, can you answer on my two questions?

1. Are LEADERS all the first persons of world countries (presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens ...)?
2. Are they all GOOD?

158
We have two leadership approaches:

1. Leaders can be good or bad.
2. All leaders are good. There are no bad leaders.

Such approaches are opposite and give different necessary actions (proceeding).
Of course, and results are different, too.

Good/bad leaders or only good leaders are one of the greatest leadership dilemmas.

MUE - Model of Universal Excellence claim that leaders are GOOD or BAD.

159
Timothy, BAD leader and GOOD leader are common terms in practice.

If we use Google search we shall get:
- 134,000 responses for "bad leader",
- 800,000 responses for "good leader".

Our thoughts are subjective, Google's numbers are objective.

The essence is that leader can be positive (good) or negative (bad).
Terms are sometimes irrelevant if we have the initial definition.

Our initial definitions of leaders are different:
- MUE claims that we have good and bad leaders.
- You claim that leaders are always good (positive).

Of course, the choice is subjective.

160
Mark, Google results from "good leader" are (can be) inside these sentences:

- Only "good leader" can run things effectively.
- How to produce a "good leader"?
- What "good leader" must know?
- Is "good leader" born or made?

161Mark, your words give us a reality: "... there are not enough good leaders or we simply don't know how to find them, recruit them, grow them, etc."

162
Through discussions we can see the second LEADERSHIP DILEMMA:

Right now WE HAVE LEADERSHIP CRISIS vs. there is NO LEADERSHIP CRISIS at all.

MUE claims that we have a very big leadership crisis now.

163
Mark, your words are just elements of really big leadership crisis:  "Could we do more to train leaders, yes....Could we do better at recruiting leadership, yes? Could we do better identifying great potential and develop that potential, yes? Could we assess our current leadership, and hold them accountable when they are not meeting specific expectations around leadership behavior, yes ..." Consequence of leadership crisis: No enough good leaders.

164
Sorry Timothy, I shall use again Google search. Google search is only one element for our discussion.
We get 406,000 responses when "LEADERSHIP CRISIS" is input in Google search box.

165
Mark, here is one very interesting articles:
A Leadership Crisis - http://tnlp.valuescentre.com/pages/fundamentals/a-leadership-crisis.php

"I believe we are in the midst of a leadership crisis. Bill George and John P. Kotter, both professors at Harvard Business School agree.

John P. Kotter is an internationally recognized organizational researcher who has numerous publications to his name. He is the Konosuke Matsuhshita Professor of Leadership. A graduate of MIT and Harvard, he has been on the Harvard Business School faculty since 1972.

Kotter states that:

After conducting fourteen formal studies and more than a thousand interviews, directly observing dozens of executives in action, and compiling innumerable surveys, I am completely convinced that most organisations today lack the leadership they need. I am not talking about a deficit of 10percent but of 200percent, 400percent or more in positions up and down the hierarchy. This is not to say that untalented, unenergetic people occupy management positions.

The typical case is just the opposite, with bright, experienced, and hardworking individuals, some quite extraordinary, almost all trying to do what they believe is right.

The problem is that far too few of these people are providing the leadership that is increasingly needed in business, government, everywhere. … The central issue here is not one of style. It is about core behaviour on the job, not surface detail and tactics, a core that changes little over time, across different cultures, or in different industries. ..."

166
Distinguished John P, Kotter, professor at Harvard Business School in previous article said that we have a leadership crisis. Timothy, please, are you agree with professor Kotter or no?

167
Through discussions about this topic we can see the third LEADERSHIP DILEMMA: Leadership can be learned vs. leadership cannot be learned. Of course, to teach somebody for good leadership we must have appropriate (good) leadership model. MUE claims that leadership can be learned.

168
The current situation in the leadership is the most undefined area of human activity. Such situation has led to the current crisis of leadership which resulted insufficient number of good leaders.

169
If we do not have a defined leadership model, all we have is improvisation (undefined action).   Do you agree?

170
Mark, it's true: "Too many points of view on what Right Looks Like, so there is not agreement on a model."

171
Timothy said: "say that the only two options are a single defined model or improvisation is an oversimplification".   It is not oversimplification; it's the fact and the "whole picture" ways of action.   We have "only" two ways of action: 1. Model of action (defined activities), 2. Improvisation (undefined activities).   Timothy, please, do you know the THIRD way of action?   Of course, there are many models of action on the education market. The choice is subjective.

172
Timothy said: And to say that "the current situation in the leadership is the most undefined area of human activity" is a stretch.   If we have numerous different definitions of leader, if we have hundreds and hundreds different main characteristics of leaders, if we have numerous schools for leaders with different curriculums, if we cannot name the best leadership school, if we cannot declare which leadership model is the best, if we have to many bad leaders, if we have a chronic shortage of good leaders, ..., then leadership is really the most undefined area of human activity.   We have a real paradox here: The leadership is the most undefined area of human activity, and at same time the leadership is the most important area of human activity.

173
Timothy, your explanation of crisis is very interesting:
"This is not a crisis. It is just something you can't fully define."

On this way, we can easy and immediately remove any crisis with "appropriate" interpretation.

Is it smart and useful?

174
Through discussions about this topic we can see the a fourth LEADERSHIP DILEMMA:

A good leader must have a leadership model vs. leadership model is not necessary for a good leader.

MUE claims that a good leader must have a leadership model.
Without model of action we have only improvisation.

175
To be a good leader, leader must have practical (NO THEORETICAL) leadership model.   Every good (practical) leadership model must know "answers" on these questions all the time:   - Why are we together? - Where we are now? - Where do we want to come? - How do we get there? - Are we going in the right direction now? - Are we all satisfied?   Of course, these questions are equally for a leader and for his followers. These questions are "control questions of excellence".   Who mentioned theory?

176
Explanation what is improvisation in relation to the previous post.   Here is MUE definition of improvisation: - Improvisations are different answers to the same or approximately the same event. - Improvisation is an activity that is done beyond the existing procedures. - Improvisation is a hasty activity without analysis of the situation. - We cannot logically explain why we improvised. - We cannot teach others how to replicate our improvisation.   Improvisation is not intuition, nor creativity or Archimedes "eureka" solution.   On this way improvisation is a wrong activity with unnecessary consumption of resources, and achievements are always less than the potentials, desires and needs.

177
Timothy, you miss the point with improvisation defined on this way. Improvisation is a problem, not a solution. Of course, there are many different approaches. The choice is subjective.

178
Very important question to establish why we have so many bad leaders:

"Is the theory and practice of leadership changeable over time?"

179
It is expected that new approaches(changes) produce resistance.
If we accept the changes, we must leave the current comfort zone.

In order to get productive discussion it is important to distinguish the NEGATIVISM from an ARGUMENTATION.

180
Timothy, I have one very simple question for you:

Do you have your own leadership model? Or any other leadership model which you used? Please, can you describe it?

181
Margaret, if my next claims:

- that we have good and bad leaders,
- that we have a leadership crisis,
- that leadership can be learned,
- that good leader must have a appropriate leadership model,
are an ideology for you is really very interesting.

These words are only claims that are supported through my practical research.
It is not an ideology.

It's only a leadership model (one of many) and acceptance is matter of subjective decision, as I said many times before.

182
Glenn, I'm really surprised if you here do not recognize the different elements primarily American management / leadership schools and models.

Your persistent mention of Soviet Union in this topic is really likable again.
Your starting association without checking (history, geography, politics and economic) took you in completely the wrong direction.

For effective discussion is always more important to ask the right questions than to deny things without giving other solutions.

183
When a person becomes a leader or wants to become the leader has a big problem: Do not know how to become a good leader.

The result: He's quickly becoming a bad leader because there is little opportunities to learn from his mistakes because his followers are impatient and expect achievements, not failures.

For leaders learning from mistakes as the dominant strategy is not a smart decision.

184
In most discussions about leaders we talk about their most important characteristics, and very little about the MANDATORY characteristics that must have every good leader.

185Through discussions about this topic we can see the fifth LEADERSHIP DILEMMA: A leadership should change continuously vs. no change in leadership. MUE claims that a leadership needs changes because everything is in rapid change: technology, social relations, globalization…Without change a leadership cannot generate numerous good leaders. Key words: continuous changes in leadership

186
I found one very interesting article with title "Foundations of Leadership".

"Here is one of the questions that I recently answered for a leadership journal interview. Everything rises and falls on leadership and everyone is a leader in life whether they realize it or not. Leadership is influence and everyone influences someone. LIFE Leadership is a company designed to teach leadership to people from all walks of life. Who do you influence?

Sincerely, Orrin Woodward

What are the foundational qualities of all great leaders? Can you acquire those qualities or do you have to be born with them?"

You can read the full article at the link: http://hr.toolbox.com/blogs/leadership-team/foundations-of-leadership-59098

187
When we talk about GOOD leaders, we emphasize mainly those characteristics which must have, and do not talk how to acquire these characteristics.

Without practical "HOW?" we cannot get theoretical "WHAT?"!

HOW? vs. WHAT?

188
Can a leader be a GOOD leader if he don't know how or will not create many NEW good leaders?

189
Darja, a sign that we are good leaders means to "produce" a new numerous good leaders.

Good leaders can be trained only if we have defined leadership model (model of action).
It's logical. How can we train others for good leadership without defined activities (model)?

Notice!
Leadership model must have one common part for all leaders and one part which are specific for individual leaders or specific groups of leaders.

Leadership model cannot be rigid and must be very simple for practical use.

Key for good leaders: APPROPRIATE LEADERSHIP MODEL.

190
Now we have a deficit of good leaders.

Present time looks for a new definition of a leader.
Why a new one?
The old definitions are dominantly focused on traits of leaders.
We must include other elements.

We need to find a leadership model of action that will generate a numerous good leaders.

Can you agree?

191
Darja, your words are exactly what we urgently need for good leadership:

"We need to develop more practical and actionable leadership models."

192
We can all learn in schools (theoretical and practical).
There are many schools for managers.
But, why there are no schools for leaders?

193
Marian, your words are correct:
"We focus more and more on linear thought."

Consequence:
With dominant way of linear thinking, we can see only a partial picture and it leads to improvisation and achievements are always less then potentials, wishes and needs.

194
Leaders do not know how to become good leaders because they have no place (institution) where they can learn it.

Can you agree with this?

195
Patricia, we must learn good leadership from wisdom traditions and research, simultaneously learning appropriate practical LEADERSHIP MODEL (model of action).

In fact, good leadership model must have wisdom traditions and research as basic components.

196
Audrey, you are right.

Bad leader = Bad (naive) followers.

197
Patricia, thank you for information about your work on http://rethinkingsurvival.com/
I have read several articles - very interesting approach.
I will continue with reading.

198
Patricia, thank you very much for your questions.

Yes, I developed a model of action named MUE - Model of Universal Excellence.

I published a book named MUE BOOK FOR SUCCESS which describes the whole model of action.
Book is written on Croatian language. Just now being translated into English.

For now, I created MUE workshops on Croatian with complete access to MUE.
Of course, I shall translate and expand MUE on English and other languages after that.

I shall describe basic concept of MUE in next posts.