26 Leadership Course: the simplest format, (1)

Ad Kokke died some 16 months ago. He used to be President of our Board and I miss him,
we alle miss him. At this very moment our leadership courses start in Beijing I think of him and his views on leadership and I mix his views with mine.

Its 21.24 and dark outside, the Lake is like an impressionistic painting. Turner?

Can we lead people?

There is a preliminary question: who is "we"?

But first one must admit that many leadershiptasks in many companies are taken out of the hands of that glorified species called"manager"and/or "leader". People in many organizations are led by many substitutes of leadership, like mechanical devices, procedures, all sublimations of the running belts of olden times.
So far on the relevance of "leadership".

But if this competence is asked for, as it is on many occasions: who is "we"the leaders?
Here I must state this: people can not be led, they only can lead them selves.
So the often heralded leader, so proud of his job, has only one task: to elicit or trigger the
leadershippotentialities in the men he is supposed to lead.

So a leadership course can be simple: define the one condition that seduces the men to grant
the "manager" succes in his triggering task.
That is integrity.
This quality is not to be defined by management but by the clients of management: The Men. The Women. And only them.

Integrity is a bunch of actions displayed by the actor called "manager"in front of the spectators
he depends. They feed the answer to that all important question: Can I trust him or her, Can I depend on him.

Leadershiptraining as directed at changing your habits gets its most direct format by asking your clients (your men) for feedback on this issue. By accepting it. By acting accordingly. And also by accepting that your men and women in this respect lead you, act as your boss.

I remember an old french defintion of "Manager" : traiteur d'un champion...(caretaker of a
champion horse)

And I remember my own definition: de leider is de knecht van zijn zijn mensen. The leader is the servant of his men and women.

I am not an experienced China watcher but I must declare that as far as my observations go, as to this definition I can not see any need for adaptations in my and our approach in China.

But is the hierachical leadership- the bossy boss-style not the most
dominant style in the PRC.
Could be.
But if so, its the style of the past.