Category: Leadership

  • The Elephant in the Room: Entitlement

    The Elephant in the Room: Entitlement

    I attended an interesting event recently. It was focused on creating a space for men to discuss their role in furthering the progress of feminism, or at the least, creating equal opportunity spaces for women to succeed in traditionally male-dominated domains. For example, corporate careers, public service, sporting codes, and more.

    The discussion resulted in the usual points being raised about how we need to uplift, empower, encourage, motivate, and so on. But it failed to recognise one critical undercurrent of this narrative. That is, we believe we need to create space for women in traditional domains of men while ignoring the fact that in so doing, we are still holding the achievements of men as the yardstick for the success of women. And inadvertently, women measure themselves by a similar yardstick. Maybe not all, but from my vantage point, that is most certainly the trend.

    The second problem that I identified in the narrative that played out in this discussion is that the sensitivities of the men affected by this disruption of women entering their spaces apparently needs to be considered, as well as the stress experienced by women who ventured into this toxic space occupied and largely defined by men. Again, the problem being that we ignore personal choice and the consequences thereof, and we focus on creating victims out of every change or shift in societal norms.

    Therein lies the problem. It is the assumption that success is defined by those currently perceived as successful, rather than the unique value of what we are able to contribute. The entire approach of feminism, from my understanding, is that it aims to empower women to function successfully in traditionally male-dominated domains. What it doesn’t do is encourage women to disrupt that model and create one of their own that rivals or outshines the current model. The point of departure is so misguided that the distortion that it creates is fast becoming a reality.

    We don’t thrive by trying to insert ourselves into someone else’s world. We thrive by creating our own unique value and sharing it with the world. We all have something unique and valuable to offer, but we start out with the assumption that such contribution is reserved for a select few, while the rest of us are required to fit in with the agenda of the successful. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

    We need to shift the conversation from finishing school and getting a job, to developing our unique talents and creating value. If we pre-condition ourselves to believe that success lies in a promotion, or an award, we reaffirm the belief that success is only experienced through validation from those that we believe are more successful than we are, and in so doing, we limit our belief in what success we are capable of creating for ourselves.

    Women have critical mass in numbers to create unique value propositions that can easily compete with the domains that men dominate. However, what we lack, both with women and men alike, is the belief that individually we are capable of creating more than what we inherited from others. We constantly focus on imitating the models of success of others, or in trying to gain recognition for our contribution towards the success of others, but seldom do we find reason to believe that we are as capable, or more capable than the people that we look up to for inspiration.

    Feminism is a red herring. It is a distraction from the true empowerment of women, by women because it focuses on the performance of women relative to men. As I have said many times, men have failed this world. We have failed society, and we have very often failed our families. And now we’re trying to model the behaviour of women around this failed social structure. Is it just me or does anyone else see the insanity of this approach?

    It’s time to reinvent ourselves, instead of trying to make a broken system more efficient. Trying to make the current model work by insisting on inclusiveness is not going to change the outcomes. It’s only going to ensure that we have shared accountability for the failures of society. It’s time to re-think this strategy that is supposed to be the upliftment of women and society. Square pegs, round holes, and fish trying to climb trees. That is how I see our current trajectory for social reform. When will the distracted insanity stop?

    The entitlement here is twofold. Firstly, that men need to have their sensitivities considered when the broken model is disrupted. Secondly, that women deserve a seat at the table with men. While both views can be defended quite bullishly, it is the defense of a false positive. You don’t fix a broken system by trying to make it more inclusive, or efficient, because in so doing, you’re still propping up a broken system. Do we have the courage to reinvent ourselves to the point where the current system is redundant? Current trends suggest that we don’t.

    It’s time for a social revolution, and that revolution is not about the economic structures that sustain the current status quo of society. It is a revolution that must empower every one of us to rethink our model of the world, so that we can create one that is wholesome, sustainable, and equitable. Equality is a myth, because it dismisses the uniqueness of each of us. The sooner we get this point, the sooner we’ll adopt a healthier approach to preparing the generations to come.

  • The Art of Deconstruction

    The Art of Deconstruction

    I’ve watched silently, often with annoyance, how it is that so many are considered to be intellectuals for their ability to tear apart someone else’s argument or contribution. The more effective they are at breaking down an opinion that they disagree with, the more revered they are in some circles. That’s the part that I watch silently. The part that fills me with annoyance is when I see that after all that effort, they have nothing of meaning or substance of their own to contribute.

    The rest that follow such antics applaud the efforts of those vain ones that love the sound of their own voices as they spew their anger disguised as eloquently articulated arguments filled with nothing more than criticism without purpose. The anger is what fascinates me. Always has. Its origins are so deeply protected that most convince themselves that their anger is a justified response to an oppression or an injustice. But they stop there. They don’t consider why that specific injustice or oppression angers them, nor do they consider why anger is their chosen response to it. Instead, their anger defines their contribution and they garner the respect and admiration from those that are equally angry, or are passively aggressively angry. I suspect the latter group is more despicable than the former because they even lack the conviction to be true to their anger.

    Nonetheless, these cycles play out all the time. Often in a public setting, but quietly in a private setting too. It is the private setting that intrigues me most. I find it intriguing because it is where we experience either our power, or our cowardice. When we experience our cowardice, it becomes a priority to judge or criticise the efforts of others to distract attention away from our meekness, hence the deconstruction of the efforts of others to make something of their lives. When we experience our power, our belief in being able to contribute towards the quality of life of others drives us towards contributing towards their efforts to improve their chances of success, because we realise that their success doesn’t threaten our own. But most don’t experience this. Most only see what they think should be done better but rarely (if ever) make an effort to actually do it themselves.

    Pointing out what is wrong with the world is easy. I look at the rhetoric and criticism against those that step up and fight the good fight, and most often that rhetoric or criticism finds its roots in a belief that the quoting of divine scriptures elevates the rank of the critic above that of the rank of the activist. This is yet another ploy to appear pious or spiritually awakened while conveniently ignoring the demand of such spirituality to lead by example.

    When we have a bone of contention with another, it is not our words in fiery criticism against them that is going to convince them to behave differently. It is our act of sincere and meaningful engagement that will hold any sway over their efforts. Either we will convince them of the benefit of our views, or they will convince us of what we may not have considered about their reality. But without this experiential journey, this side-by-side engagement, the reality of the basis on which we disagree will always remain theoretical and food for the ego, rather than genuine contribution or upliftment of the soul.

    Deconstruction is the art of debate, and the art of debate is firmly established in the need to be correct. Debate has never resulted in a sincere pursuit of the truth. That is left to the domain of discussion and contribution. But contribution demands that we offer of ourselves that which we seek to criticise in others. When our opinions define our self-worth, such contribution is far too daunting. Hence the safer path of deconstruction to earn significance from those that are equally frail in their conviction to meaningfully contribute, while the few that appear foolish enough to sacrifice their composure in favour of benefiting others remain a soft target for the whimsical leaders of debate groups.

    I have no respect for the argument that points out what is wrong with someone else’s approach, or philosophy, if it isn’t accompanied by a sincere effort to offer guidance and assistance as well. Having an opinion is easy. It means that you don’t have to do anything except blurt out the thoughts that occur to you as you vegetate in front of your keyboard. Having an informed opinion goes one step further because that vegetation was accompanied by some effort towards fact checking or research. However, even that is inexcusable if not accompanied by actual participation in the process of changing the reality, and not just the perception of an issue that weighs others down.

    Without willing and sincere engagement, an opinion is simply a fart pretending to be thunder. And global warming has ensured that there is no shortage of hot air to go around.

  • Own Your Sh!t Released!

    Own Your Sh!t Released!

    Just be happy. It could be worse. Don’t take life so seriously. Are you tired of hearing this? Well-meaning friends and colleagues tell us to stay positive, but it often has the opposite effect.

    Don’t be misled into thinking that happiness is just a choice. If it were, there would be no sad people. Getting a grip on your emotions is crucial for recovery from heartbreak, trauma, abandonment, and many other trials. Break the cycle of feeling overwhelmed by what happens to you.

    Own Your Sh!t is a book that helps you to understand why you feel sad, depressed or angry about life. It doesn’t tell you to overcome it by asking you to do what worked for someone else, because you’re not someone else.

    So, stop judging yourself so harshly, or allowing others to do the same. Let this book guide you out of that toxic space and into a better version of you. It’s time to own your sh!t.

    The book is available on Kindle, and Kindle Unlimited, and will soon be released on Amazon for paperback orders. Readers in South Africa can order directly from me at a special launch price of R149 which includes free shipping to any major city in the country.

    Watch my blog for snippets from the book in the coming days and weeks.

    MORE INFO ON THE BOOK
  • To Lead

    To Lead

    The meek assume that you’re a leader the moment you achieve a specific station in life or in your career. The ones who worship the titles do more damage than benefit to the efforts of the ones that rise above the convenience of following others. It is a convenience because it demands less effort to follow a given path than it does to discover your own. If it is true that leadership begins the moment you do more than is expected of you, then every one of us has the ability and capacity to lead. And I believe that to be true.

    A fixation on popularity distorts this image of true leadership. I see many toxic personalities being mimicked by others simply because of the title that those personalities hold, or the popularity that they enjoy on social media. Is it really leadership just because you have a following? If that were true, it could be argued that clowns are leaders too. Surely the station of leadership has to be warranted by more than just follower counts, or retweets?

    In a time that celebrates celebrities more than it recognises merit, we have a generation growing up with the belief that inspiration lies in verbalising the struggles of weak-minded unprincipled fools because it celebrates their common failings rather than appreciating the need for principled determination. Being able to string together sentiments that celebrate each other’s struggles without recognising how much of those are self imposed has become the latest easy path to fame. But fame is just another way of describing what amuses or pacifies the masses.

    One of the dreadful outcomes of social media and this liberal access that we have to a public platform is that it allows for genuinely demented or ignorant beings to organise themselves with like-minded fools that were rejected by the sane ones around them for good reason. Instead of considering why their ignorance was rejected or dismissed, they now have the option to go online and find others with a similar ache from rejection to recruit them into an organised response to demand acceptance, or dominance. That is not as cynical as it may sound.

    Before this ease of access to a digital soap box, common sense prevailed in social structures that demanded credibility before accepting someone as a a leader. Such an approach served to quell the stupidity before it became a viral trend. Stupidity would then have less opportunity to survive beyond its immediate social structure and would have to go in search of another social structure in the hope of finding acceptance there instead. But that cycle of moving from one to another required a lot more effort, resources, and personal sacrifice. That in itself dissuaded many from making that move and instead encouraged them to either conform or to adjust their views relative to the challenges that they received in their social circles.

    With pervasive access to social media, the less informed can now regroup without any sacrifices to their real life social structures and are entirely capable of leading a double life without any repercussions at all. Responsibility is thus dispersed among the masses because collective accountability means no individual responsibility. The convenience of such a way of life lays waste to social responsibility and instead inculcates a culture of extremism. However, given that extremism is redefined in such a structure, it means that mainstream acceptance of such extremism normalises it because of sheer numbers rather than merit, and suddenly we find ourselves in a state that turns idiots into icons and intellectuals into pyrrhias of society. Hence the greatest failing of democracy.

    For this reason, democracy will never be tolerated in a capialist structure. A structure established for the sole purpose of generating wealth will always be focused on the prevalence of opinions that seek to optimise the probability of sustainably acquiring such wealth. Regardless of how popular an opinion may be, those that hold the purse strings will suppress populism in favour of profits. However, this only remains true if the holders of the purse have control over the masses, and are vested in the sustainability of the organisation more than they are in enriching themselves. If they don’t have control over the masses, the masses will organise and prevail in their populist demands despite it undermining the acquisition of wealth, which ultimately undermines the ability of the structure to employ the masses. If their vested interests lie in self-enrichment rather than serving the goals of the organisation, then corruption sets in. Perhaps an over simplification, but I believe that this simple cycle is what defines the probability of success of any organisation or society. The goals that they strive for may be different, but the challenges of meritocracy versus democracy remains true.

    Leadership therefore cannot be considered credible if it merely enables the will of the populace without consideration for the sustainability or progress of that group. It also cannot be deemed leadership if it is self-serving and lacks meaningful accountability to the ones intended to be served. Equally so, it is also not leadership if it leads the charge of the masses without due consideration for the long term benefit of the masses. Leadership therefore cannot simply be the empowerment of popular opinion. It must be the tampering of such opinion with an informed view of the long term benefit of the needs of those that have an immediate demand. Being able to shape such opinion and guide it towards a sustainable strategy to not only meet the need but to grow the benefit beyond the immediate need is what will set true leaders apart from figureheads of populist opinions.

    When populism drives leadership, it is inevitable that the worst among us will rise to lead, and thus the most corrupt or inept will reflect the selfish whims of the masses when they take office. Those that champion a course that celebrates the selfish dictates of the short-sighted will only serve themselves when in office simply because that is the principles that won them the approval of the people to begin with. Despite this obvious failing in defining leadership criteria, the masses will continue to be enraged by the corruption in public office of those that they voted into power for their ability to create a platform for the uninformed opinion rather than demonstrating true leadership by raising the level of awareness of the masses to recognise that which will result in the long term growth and sustainability of society.

    To lead is therefore not to be popular. It is to uphold and strengthen that which the populace is too distracted to notice, but which is central to the upliftment of that very same populace. Plato phrased it beautifully when he said, “No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth.” We do not need proofs to validate this truth. As a natural consequence, it confirms that the ultimate outcome of the populist vote will result in the appointment to stations of leadership of the most deceitful rather than the most truthful among us, and social media plays perfectly into that equation.

  • The Lonely Path

    The Lonely Path

    There is comfort in being in a space unoccupied by others. The plague of clichés and the clutter of egos take up residence in crowded spaces. Blending into the crowd always threatened my sanity. Living up to an expectation set against a standard that I don’t subscribe to will always result in disappointment for the one that holds such expectation. Sadly, the fulfilment of our expectations defines the sense of significance for too many.

    A simple but defining realisation dawned on me in recent months. There is a conflict of sentiment in encouraging others to own their life. To pursue a path that is unique to what they yearn to see realised in this world places a burden on their shoulders that most are unwilling to bear. It’s much easier to talk about the change that is needed but to recede from the battlefield when the time to act arrives is even easier. Leading the charge against complacency is never a popular role to take.

    Spectators are the armchair critics of life. The back seat drivers, or the wall flowers. They observe the most, analyse the most, criticise the most, and do the least. But their time spent gathering information about everything that is wrong positions them well to be the first to point out the shortcomings of those that choose to go to battle. Through nothing more than the momentum contained in their numbers, they become the opinion makers and the advisors, much like the politicians that send everyone else’s children to fight wars that are created around boardroom tables.

    The odds are stacked against the ones that set out to make things better. Gaining critical mass for positive change amongst a mass of critics is beyond daunting. It requires a healthy dose of tenacity, resilience, and a dollop of manipulation. The populist leader however chooses to have a healthy dose of manipulation and nothing more. Offer incremental change and deliver only a fraction of it, and the history books will celebrate you for generations to come. All you need to do is give people reason to believe that they were part of a movement that made them feel better about not making progress in life, and then release them to go back into the dreary cycle of their lives.

    It’s easy to see why the path of leadership, authentic leadership is a lonely one, especially when you consider that leading does not require a vocal following. It doesn’t even require a conscious one. I once heard that the definition of leadership is to do more than is expected of you. This makes so many sincere contributors leaders despite them feeling like nothing more than burden-bearers.

    Step up to take up the slack of the slackers and automatically you take a lead role. Fill the parenting void of absent parents and you become a role model. Assume responsibility for an outcome that everyone needs but no one wishes to own, and you become a rebel. Speak out loud what you know everyone else is thinking but would never utter from fear of inheriting responsibility, and you become the abrasive protestor. The fly in the ointment, or the pain in the butt. Good intention makes no difference. The moment you choose to improve the quality of your life or the life of those around you, prepare to be judged because in stepping up, we automatically make visible those that are sitting down.

    It’s that easy to start out on the lonely path of leadership. Not pseudo-leadership that needs a title or a declaration to be established. True leadership. The one inspired by the struggle of the common man, or the aspiration of the unknown dreamer. That is the lonely path, because if everyone recognised the importance of the change that is needed, change would not be needed. Natural progression would happen without disruption. The human condition would improve as a natural consequence of commonly-held values that are actually valued. But they don’t value the values that they profess to uphold. Unless they are the designated leader, it’s not their job to care.

    So it rests on the shoulders of the restless ones among us. The ones that see the value of progress and can’t rest until it is realised. The ones that see the gaps and fill it with contributions that uplift the weary souls, or the under resourced. The ones who act, in spite of the critics and the knowledge that they will likely be damned before they are appreciated, let alone celebrated. They are the ones on that lonely path. Despite this, they are also the ones that are most likely to stop and offer a hand to the one whose lethargy finally saw them fall foul of the same system that they once coveted.

    Companionship is rare on this path. By implication of their nature, compensating for the selfish embrace of the other is simply a matter of course. Realising that your restlessness is likely to threaten rather than attract the ones that it is intended to uplift, living a life of restrained expression becomes second nature. The smile that never reaches the eyes, or the embrace that feels comforting but is rarely reciprocated are easily overlooked in the haste that accompanies the indulgence of the distracted.

    [This is an incomplete thought process…]

  • The Path You Take

    The Path You Take

    Share your story. A prompt that suggests so much. It suggests that we have a story worth sharing, but equally so, it suggests that there is an audience interested in our story. We all have a story to share. So much so that it is an accepted cliché when seeing untoward behaviour from some, or a lack of ambition from others. We remind ourselves and others that we don’t know their story and therefore should not judge them harshly. That has its merits to a point.

    Something not so often contemplated though is the story versus the storyteller. I’ve witnessed many times how a great story is dismissed simply for being told by the wrong storyteller. Not because they did a bad job of telling it, but because the audience saw that person as someone other than a source of credibility, wonderment, or inspiration.

    The stories of our lives consists of the people and characters that we most often know first hand. Be that online or in real time, our first hand interactions with them shapes their perceptions of who we are and what they believe we are capable of. It is that perception that defines how our story will be received or how our advice may be taken. Good advice is always good advice. It only becomes tainted in our minds because we contaminate it with our perception of the advisor.

    True emotional maturity and a healthy self esteem is defined by our ability to accept the truth, or criticism, regardless of its source. That probably speaks as much about the conviction we hold for objective truth (if such exists in normal human interactions) versus our subjective truth regardless of the facts that may challenge our views. But all this is beside the real point, and instead simply alludes to a much more important point that escapes most of us.

    When we choose to change the definition of who we are, or how we are preceived (which is a natural consequence of the former), we forget that others are not as invested in the change that we wish for ourselves. For most, it is more convenient for them to maintain their firmly held beliefs about who we are or what we represent, because it gives them predictability and assurance about their views on life and others. They need that predictability or stability especially when their self image is based on how they compare to others. I think this is an important point.

    When we realise how much the way we are strengthens the self esteem of others, we’ll realise why it is that the support that we expect is not forthcoming when needed. Their self esteem could be bolstered by believing that they’re better than we are, or by their association with us if we have admirable qualities that they want to be associated with. It is easy at this point to assume that they do not want us to be successful or ambitious, but the truth lies closer to the fact that they are not ready to reevaluate who they are relative to their changing reality.

    When we assume that it is about us, rather than recognising that they suffer from their own feelings of insufficiency, we feel deprived or betrayed by their lack of support. Right there is the struggle of leadership. True leadership, not pseudo leadership associated with an office or title. Leading in your chosen field of passion or influence. Following a calling that demands more than just fitting in or complying with the norm. When you choose that path, one of your closest companions will likely be isolation.

    Isolation is an inevitable outcome of influencing change. By definition, change means to be set apart from the norm. You cannot lead from within the masses, or by subtly hinting at improvement while maintaining the status quo to avoid disruption. Unless of course minor incremental changes define the limits of the leadership that you wish to provide, or the change you wish to see realised.

    I guess it is therefore more accurate to state that disruptive leadership is a courtship of isolation. Only once the value of your vision is experienced by the rest can you hope to feel any sense of inclusion. However, by that time the harm or discomfort of isolation by those you expected to be your staunch supporters often results in so much damage to the fabric of your relationship with them that their inclusion or support no longer holds any merit. Ironically it becomes a reversal of the point of departure. You risk becoming the one not willing to reevaluate your perception of others because of a moment in the past, rather than accepting that they needed tangible evidence to overcome their cynicism or doubt about what you were striving to achieve and the value that it offered them.

    Either way, when you choose your path in life, inclusion will leave you constrained and unfulfilled, while conviction will risk disruption that will set you on a collision course with the people that you hope to keep close through the journey ahead. If you have such people in your life, the ones that grow with you on your journey, cherish them. However, on this point I believe that not a lot of cherishing will be done, because not many earn such respect or gratitude through support and encouragement.

    Perhaps it is just my jaundiced view based on a jaundiced relationship with a jaundiced society.

  • Where to From Here?

    Where to From Here?

    Where do you go when you’re done with the world, but the world is not done with you? The blessing of having a lot of life in your years is that you have a lot of life in your years. While others are playing it safe, treating life like the marathon that it is, I’m the one rushing from sprint to sprint knowing that the marathon could end quite unceremoniously at any moment.

    The highs are frequent and exhausting, but so fulfilling. The lows creep up when you pause for a breath between the sprints and you notice that by comparison, you appear a tad crazy to those that are happy to be carried by the trickling current of complacency. Complacency always feels like a threat to me. It threatens to subdue my spirit in favour of a meaningless composure.

    Composure is something that is obviously subjective, but also often misunderstood. For me, composure is a sense of quiet confidence and fulfilment about what I’m aware of, what I’m capable of, and what I want from a given moment. When those three things feel balanced, it becomes very difficult for anyone to disrupt that composed state. Of course this ruffles many feathers at times because sometimes people want you to look like you’re in disarray at the news of their challenges or drama.

    The more grounded I find myself in a moment that demands a reaction, the more rational I find my response to be. For this reason I defend my personal space aggressively from such external interference that threatens to contaminate it with paranoia and entitlement. I found all of this coming to the fore more than ever in recent months, which resulted in me quitting my job in a corporate to finally pursue opportunities that I am passionate about.

    What was important in my decision to quit was whether I was doing it because I felt compelled to, or because I wanted to. I’ve had previous run-ins with big egos in corporate settings that forced me to choose my sanity over my income, and each time my sanity was not for sale. Sanity in this case was not only my grasp on reality, but also my sense of dignity and authenticity. When either was threatened, it brought out a side of me that many found abrasive. The reason they found it abrasive was because they did not share my values and ideals. Before I realised this, I simply assumed them to be dishonest or insincere. Now that I’ve realised this, I simply judge them for not demanding more from themselves, but I refrain from correcting them.

    This shift in engagement principles has been a significant change for me to embrace. When I embraced it, I realised that I was starting to compromise on the core of being me, and instead, I was starting to play the political games that make or break careers in the corporate world. That’s when the decision to exit became easy for me. It was no longer in response to a threat from colleagues, or from fear of being maligned or blamed for things out of my control. Instead, it was a solemn realisation that all the fight and passion that I have in me could be better spent in endeavours that had a chance of influencing the change that I wish to see in the world around me.

    Emerging from a cocoon-like state in a protected environment and facing the world on your own terms is a daunting experience, especially when your responsibilities extend well beyond just your personal well being. I’ve seen so many feel bitterly entrapped in their jobs because of the responsibility that they have towards their families. I’ve also seen the same people grow distant and abrasive and entitled towards their families because of the self-imposed view that they are tied down to a job that they hate simply because they have responsibilities. That made their supposed sacrifices all the more meritorious, and any action or inaction that did not celebrate that sacrifice was seen as ingratitude. I couldn’t allow myself to get into that state.

    Our perception of our options, I’ve discovered, are often informed by our ego. We fill ourselves with self-importance, and then use that self-importance to convince ourselves why we should not take risks. The risk aversion is not always related to the responsibilities that we have. Instead, it is related to our fear of failing at something other than what we are familiar with. When we hate what we’re familiar with, we find reason to defend our decision not to do something decisive about it, and often that defense is based on apportioning blame to others, or to circumstances because once again, it absolves us of the responsibility to act.

    Where to from here? I don’t know. What I do know is that if I fail to recognise the value that I contributed to the corporate world over the last twenty odd years of my life, and if I fail to appreciate the re-usable skills that I acquired in that time, I’ll be looking for another hand-out job offer to keep me sane and relevant. My focus now is therefore on everything that I have proven myself to be capable of, and to find ways to apply that in a meaningful way to pursuits that are anything but conventional, while seeking to fulfil the conventional needs of those that don’t realise they have those needs yet.

    It is a cryptic space, but not any more cryptic than life has been so far. The only reason we don’t recognise how cryptic life has been is because everyone was facing the same growing pains as we were. So there was collective comfort in knowing that we were not incompetent by ourselves. The cynic in me has returned, it seems. But this is a natural disposition that offers me insights into opportunities that would otherwise be hidden by the monotony of being normal. A return to myself is called for, and leaving a toxic environment on my terms was the first decisive step I needed to take to ensure that my life amounts to more than just a regular pay cheque from an unfulfilling job. There is relevance and significance to be earned outside of corporate. And that is where I’m heading with everything that I am.

    Perhaps the world that I was done with, was in fact not the world at all.

  • Those Damned Assumptions

    I have a reputation of making people feel awkward, or as some would describe it, infuriated (stop nodding so feverishly, you may lose your balance!). I take a particular pride in knowing that I am viewed this way, because it merely cements my views about the nature of the average Joe that I meet on a daily basis. This came to the fore a few weeks ago in a discussion that I had with a colleague which subsequently spilled online as well.

    I often feel compelled to challenge incorrect assumptions, or to persist in a point that I believe is important until I am certain that I have reached a point of mutual understanding, or at the least, am able to walk away knowing that I tried. So I choose my battles, but I also choose more battles than most (I can see you nodding again!). On this one occasion, I spent a fair amount of time trying to get someone to understand why the point that they were making was actually contrary to what they were trying to achieve. And so I kept asking probing questions and prompting them to consider an alternate perspective so that they may realise what it is that they were doing.

    Some in the room came to me afterwards and suggested that I really shouldn’t bother. Some assumed that I was being argumentative or just simply difficult (stop it already!). Meanwhile, the truth was far from both of those assumptions. While I speak for myself right now, I suspect that many others may be able to relate to what I am about to share.

    When I engage with anyone on any subject, my default assumption is that they are capable of processing the concepts and themes that I feel passionately about. As the discussion progresses, if I see that they’re not grasping my point, I assume that I’m either not explaining myself well enough, or they’re distracted by a bias that is not directly relevant to what I am trying to share with them. My knee-jerk reaction to this is to try to clarify my point so that they may be able to share in the value of what I think is important. In short, I assume we’re at the same level of understanding, but are experiencing a communication gap.

    Unfortunately, the most common assumption in such a situation, especially by those with a low self-esteem, is that my efforts to attain clarity is in fact an attempt to either make them look stupid, or expose how stupid they really are. At no point do they consider that perhaps I simply assumed that their level of understanding was the same as mine, rather than me assuming that they’re beneath me. Their perceptions of themselves informed their observations of me, and while they thought they were judging me, they were in fact judging themselves.

    Of course, if  I were to point this out to them (as I do on occasion, often just for fun!) they would feel justified in their views about my supposed arrogance, or condescension. The turning point in my life regarding my self-worth was when I realised this troublesome truth about people. From that point on, I found it easier to rise above the unqualified criticisms leveled against me, and instead, continued to focus on the passion that I had about the value that I wanted to realise for me and for others. Often, this resulted in the offended party recognising the point I originally tried to make, but only after they had enough time to get over their own insecurities about the interaction. For this reason, I almost always do my best to allow for a graceful exit from such contentious discussions.

    The times that I don’t allow for a graceful exit are the times when the offending moron is pretty much a confirmed bully who just won’t back down. That’s when my favourite philosophy kicks in. Treat an arrogant person with arrogance so that they may taste humility.

    Back to the topic at hand. Assumptions are made all the time. Some are informed, most are not. Another poor assumption on my part when I originally started contemplating writing books on leadership and mentoring others at the office to take leadership roles in their areas of influence was that in doing so, I may work myself into a position of irrelevance. In other words, like the fickle-minded, I thought that I was working myself out of a job. You know, that scarcity mentality thing where we assume that the success of others will rob us of opportunities for our own success? Well, fortunately I snapped out of that mindset soon thereafter when I realised that leadership is so rare because conviction is lacking in most people.

    In general, people want to be associated with greatness, not because they want to be great, but because they want to be with the crowd that is also associated with such greatness. One of the important lessons I learnt in the process is that despite giving someone the golden handbook of how to achieve greatness, and giving then the opportunity and environment in which to achieve it, their deeply ingrained insecurities will prevent them from embracing the opportunity. Everyone wants to be liked, or popular, or part of a group. Except for a few that see the futility in that, and decide to forge their own path in life. They don’t necessarily set out to be leaders. In fact, I would go as far as saying that leadership finds them, while everyone else tries to mimic the assumed journey of the new leader in the hope that they will achieve the same.

    People that set out to become leaders usually lack authenticity. Authenticity is by far the most important leadership trait ever. In the absence of it, you simply have authority and resources at your disposal, but will fail to genuinely influence or inspire others, except for those that aspire to similar levels of materialism. Perhaps this is why we have the leadership void that we have in this world. Perhaps this is why the worst of us has truly become the leaders of us, because we celebrate the wrong attributes, and dismiss the detractors that challenge the status quo.

    We make assumptions negatively about others when we assume that their flaws are the same as our own, while not being willing to acknowledge or own our own flaws. Criticism that has little to no constructive basis behind it simply feeds the ego. It does not encourage growth, nor does it forge new avenues of understanding. When someone takes the time to extend their engagement with you about a topic that they are passionate about, recognise their passion before assuming that they’re simply being arrogant. The biggest mistake most people make is that they fail to recognise the difference between passion and emotion, and are too ready to dismiss a passionate soul as an emotional being. That is the burden on society of a weak mind. It degrades sincerity in favour of popularity. And that is how society ends up being something that everyone wants to criticise, but no one wants to acknowledge being an integral part of it.