| Do you know of a veteran who may be suffering from PTSD? |
|
|
There are many myths and misunderstandings regarding the effects of extreme trauma and what is needed to heal from it. Our friend and colleague, Bill O'Hanlon is a world renowned expert and has generously produced 3 small videos which may be accessed for free on YouTube.
These videos are under 10 minutes each. They are practical and contain NO PSYCHOBABBLE!
Please feel free to forward these on to anyone you know who might benefit from this information.
|
|
|
|
|
The Whitman's Sampler Approach to Leadership
Leadership is an endeavor that rivals any Olympic sport. Mastery requires the utmost in intentionality, stamina and effort. Indeed, its demands and requirement of lifelong learning makes it much more of a life-path than a sport. Weekend warriors need not apply.
To equip us in the rigors of leadership, a plethora of trainings have appeared on the scene. If you are like me, you have shelves full of notes from these weekend workouts. Each promises to give us the key to empower us and multiply our effectiveness. And they do - for about a week. We apply what we've learned, a new skill, a new technique. Then the rubber band of what we are trying to change reaches its limit and snaps back. The conclusion of our defeat is usually that there must be something wrong with us. We didn't learn enough. We didn't apply consistently enough. Soon the three-ring binder is gathering dust on the bookshelf with the rest of its kin. Our inadequacy masquerades as a noble need to learn. More! Always More!
It would seem that this pattern of learning would indeed be noble. Yet, if we stand back and look at it, we are being seduced away from mastery in a single skill and toward a Whitman's Sampler approach to Leadership. We find ourselves stuffed with many small skills, poorly learned over a weekend rather than one essential skill mastered over a lifetime.
I don't mean to discount the value of such trainings. But I do want to point out that they have their dark side. And maybe, just maybe, the best approach is what each of my children learned in their 5th grade drug awareness programs.
"Just say, 'No!"
Howard Hansen & Steve Geske
about becoming a
HealingLeaders Member. |
|
Warning: Leadership Training Could be Hazardous to Your Health
Polemics (pronounced /pə'lɛmɪks/) the practice of disputing or controverting religious, philosophical, or political matters. As such, a polemic text on a topic is often written specifically to dispute or refute a position or theory that is widely viewed to be beyond reproach.
Since I am not running for president, and since this is my newsletter article, I am going to go out on a limb and take an extreme view on the Leadership Training phenomenon for the sake of making an important point. I am going to assert that such trainings (Emotional Intelligence, Myer's Briggs Temperament Training, etc.) may actually harm your effectiveness as a leader.
How can this be? How can learning any new skill be a bad thing as a leader? Briefly, I suggest there are at least three ways in which giving one's time and effort to these trainings might actually hinder your ability to lead with maximum effectiveness and minimum effort.
The first way I suggest these trainings can be harmful is that they often distract from the real issue. My experience as a leader affirms the central premise of Ed Friedman in his book, Failure of Nerve - Leadership in the age of the quick fix, that leadership is essentially a process of emotionality. Unless this is recognized and kept central, a leader is easily seduced into working on symptoms rather than addressing the underlying problem. Like the man who lost his keys and crossed the street to look under the street light because the light was better, we get hoodwinked into focusing on peripheral issues just because we recently learned something interesting or profound about them. We end up majoring in the minors of leadership.
The second way these trainings can hinder leadership is by giving a false sense of control. The expertise we gain in a particular area of learning supports the illusion that we have greater leverage or power of influence over others. In truth, the only one we can really control is ourselves. In our efforts to influence others, we waste untold time and energy, only to find ourselves frustrated in the end.
Finally, these trainings give the illusion of the effectiveness of the approach and the incompetence of the leader. When the honeymoon of a new approach is over and the reality of little or no lasting change sets in, we are forced to make a judgment that something is wrong. Too often, we conclude that the weak link in the chain was us. Since the approach is being offered by "experts" who appear to be successful, what other conclusion could we make? What is the logical response to such a conclusion? Try harder. Go for master's level. Sign up for the next training. Or, even worse, give up.
Training is good if that is what you want to learn. I contend, however, that many of these have little impact and may even cause harm. We as leaders get distracted, diverted and demoralized in the process. What if effective leadership was possible with less than perfect skills? What if a person could even be clumsy, and even inept, at many of these skills and still be an effective leader? What if being a leader had more to do with who you are than what you know?
Steve Geske |
|
General Washington's Non Anxious Leadership
Through my recent reading of David McCullough's "1776", I learned of George Washington's well defined empathic behaviors in the midst of recurring crises he faced while the young army he commanded suffered repeated defeats and retreats at the hands of the British.
One event which dramatically illustrates Washington's understanding and practice of the healthy definition of empathy occurred on January 1, 1777, the date on which most enlistments in what was left of the Continental Army were due to expire. Had all those eligible for separation from the army exercised the option, no army would have remained. Washington's aides were depressed and discouraged. They could not see how, after a long year of defeats, retreats, weariness, hunger, cold and separation from families, the troops would remain.
Washington gathered his army and addressed the soldiers. He calmly spoke of the mission and the importance of carrying on, inviting the men to stay longer. None accepted his invitation. So he spoke again, still calm, repeating his points and asking the men to reconsider. Slowly at first, men came forward to extend their enlistments. Others, seeing their comrades volunteering, followed. Washington's calm and non-anxious focus turned the tide.
What sort of leadership was Washington practicing? He refused to be caught up in the swirling emotions of the aides and the men in the ranks. The impact of his presence changed others around him. Imagine the renewed motivation, not because Washington joined the anxiety as a fellow sufferer, but because he refused to join in the sorrowful self pitying which must have been a central emotional tone around him.
Proof of Washington's non-anxious presence is recorded by historians who say even during the dark days of the revolution, the General wrote lengthy and detailed letters to his plantation manager, describing specific improvements and alterations he thought important to the management and future of his property. This ability to focus on a successful future in the midst of a disastrous present created a balanced calmness which surely caused those around Washington to develop the personal even-temperament required to persevere.
Howard Hansen |
|
|
Our Special Thanks...
Goes to Marge Hulburt for her professional expertise and effort in editing all things written for HealingLeaders. Thank you, Marge for truly making us "look as smart as we are." (Maybe even a little smarter!)
|
|
|
