ANATOMY OF LEADERSHIP
Among the PRIME QUALIFICATIONS OF LEADERSHIP should be: effectiveness, supremacy, skill, initiative, foresight, energy, influence, authority and power. All of those qualities help describe, but do not necessarily adequately distinguish, the difference between a leader and a politician.
Ah, there’s the rub! To add another difficult hurdle to becoming a leader, one quite often would be required to endure the political process in order to be enabled. Exceptions, of course, would encompass individuals, while during fierce battle, lead (or attempt to lead) their group out of harrowing, sticky situations by showing the way as to what needs to be done to achieve victory or, in a less threatening environment such as a court room, finding a way to convince the judge and/or jury the way for them to think in order for them to reach a just decision.
The type of leadership that I want to discuss concerns itself with basics, likening the concept to parents setting examples for their children to do the right thing. Also similar is the concept of the clergy reciting various disciplines which in all cases serve mankind and try to guide us all to behave properly — setting a high standard which we should all like to follow!
When discussing the leadership necessary to run an organization, that organization is the focal point, and there is NO OTHER CONSIDERATION!
Leadership 101 (if there were such a course in college) would demand that the one in charge employs the following guidelines:
(1) Never think what would be the best for an individual, or a group of individuals, or a subset of any other considerations;
(2) Always consider what will best serve that organization in the long run, continually being extremely careful to only set positive examples! Quite often this involves the deprivation of others along the lines of convenience and material advantages, but the one in charge should never lose sight of the only goal —
BEING FAIR TO THE ORGANIZATION, ITS PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES AND THE REALIZATION THAT IF EVER IT WAS THOUGHT BY ANYONE THAT THOSE GOALS WERE BEING COMPROMISED — WHATEVER WOULD RESULT WOULD BE A SERIOUS CHALLENGE TO THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE GROUP.
It now is probably time to discuss some specifics! An organization which features competition must avow that after the Conditions of Contest HAVE BEEN WRITTEN AND APPROVED, THEY MUST BE FOLLOWED EXACTLY AS WRITTEN. The caveats involved revolve around competency by the individual or group doing the writing. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT ADEQUATE proofreading BE GIVEN TO THE DOCUMENT BEFORE APPROVAL, AND ONCE APPROVED, CAN NEVER BE CHANGED OR EVEN MODIFIED — OR ELSE IT WILL BE SEEN (BY AT LEAST SOME) AS A POLITICAL MOVE IN ORDER TO SERVE A LESSER GOD AND BE IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE GOALS OF THE ORGANIZATION.
FOR ANYONE SERIOUSLY ASPIRING TO BE A LEADER THIS MUST BE HIS OR HER CREED, RELIGION AND REASON FOR BEING; OTHERWISE, WE WILL HAVE NO LEADERSHIP AT ALL — A CONDITION WHICH IS NOW EXISTENT AMONG THE ONES WHO CONTROL US — our international bridge organization, THE UNITED STATES BRIDGE FEDERATION (USBF).
There’s a fix to this. Go on strike. If all US world class players refused to participate in USBF-sanctioned play, you can bet that that organization would get right really quick.
Excuse me?
. . . AND ONCE APPROVED, CAN NEVER BE CHANGED OR EVEN MODIFIED ??
Are you so totally unfamiliar with the Legal Process or the Rule of Law ?- ALL rules have the ability to by changed.
Try reading the Ammendments to the Constitution for starters.
To Chris,
At my age, a strike could be a death sentence, but it is still close.
Thanks for writing!
Hi Steven,
I apologize for obviously confusing you. In my zeal to write this particular blog I overlooked the possibility that either a beginning bridge player or possibly even a non bridge player would respond. By making this false assumption, I neglected to state that the USBF has the LEGAL right to do pretty much anything they want.
The lack of leadership is evident in why they ruled that way, not whether they had the right to do it. It would take some experience to understand why their change to a 1 day Round Robin (RR) instead of a 2 day one is an enormous difference and I do not think they realized that. Fortunately the original thought put into the double RR came from a knowledge of what RR’s are all about. Perhaps they should trust the original CofC instead of overruling it for what are certainly petty reasons.
Bobby
Well, perhaps the right thing to do is for the participants to get together and elect the winning team, with all others forfeiting this year. Amounts to a strike by default. Or, have the captains of all teams cut a deck of cards. Team with highest card cut wins. Either way the USBF management team will be chastised.
It’s time to go back to money bridge. Chicago, anyone?
Congratulations on winning the Senior Team. Good luck in Brazil.
Darwin & Kay