Should someone who is appointed, or elected, to a position be required to earn the respect that they expect? Over the last several months, I have been sort of mentally cataloguing some instances of individuals in my life that are supposed to be leaders. Although I should focus on those in my life that I feel are excellent leaders, I am drawn to the study of people who are not good leaders, what makes them bad leaders and why they do not accept that that are in fact poor leaders that probably shouldn't be filling their position.
The majority of leaders who are in my life these days are part of the fire department for which I spend so many hours working. Whether they are volunteer or paid leaders, there is no argument that leadership should be something that is sacredly protected for those who are genuinely interested in the best for their respective organizations.
I am specifically discouraged by one individual in the department that has taken a position for which I do not feel he is well-suited. I am equally disappointed in the individual that appointed him. I feel very strongly that in most every field that technical ability is not nearly as important as applied leadership ability. And when I speak of applied leadership ability, I want to make it clear that it is important to understand and have experienced the trials and tribulations of your subordinates But just because you are the best in say, firefighting, does not necessarily mean that you are going to be the best Fire Chief. A Fire Chief should have technical knowledge that allows him or her to make effective decisions. He should not be required to be the best firefighter, whatever that means. Because if he is the best, he should be on the front lines with other operational members, not in his office budgeting for the next fiscal year. I feel as though many will disagree with this assumption, but I feel as though all too often people are promoted based on their technical ability and not on their management and leadership expertise and experience.
Certainly exceptional leaders are not people who have solely studied leadership in textbooks. However, I do think that scientific studies that have attempted to explain why some leaders are more effective than others is something from which we could easily learn and we shouldn't ignore the vast amount of work available. The shame of the human race is that we continue to make the same mistakes throughout history, even though sufficient experience is communicated through literary and word-of-mouth vectors. We have learned as a race that a quality college education in addition to sufficient field experience will ensure our managers and supervisors are able to provide effective leadership to those in the field. This is why it is so difficult for me to understand why this individual was promoted.
I think I am most upset because there were individuals in the Department that would have provided the highest quality leadership without a terribly difficult break in period. I never thought it would be possible that someone who did not do their job before would be invited to take on more responsibility. To be responsible for the operations of an approximately 65 member Fire/Rescue Department should take more education than a high school diploma. If that person were to read this blog, and I doubt he will, I would encourage him to seek more leadership training, read more, and try to know his people as well as he can. Only you can make yourself into a great leader of the Department.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Sunday, June 15, 2008
U. S. vs. Them
I finished Jim Webb's A Time to Fight on Friday while I was at work (my work lends me a lot of time to get a good amount of reading done). I was overly impressed and I would recommend this books to anyone who is interested in a common sense approach to public policy. The only flaw that I find in manuscript is that the author did not provide as useful of a set of solution than I would have expected. Sure it discussed the problems with the current war, etc and what we should not have done and how people in the past have done things much better, but I did not feel as though he provided answers to the problems that we have.
I have started my next book that I picked up today and already I am a little worried. The book is entitled "U.S. vs. THEM: How a Half Century of Conservatism Has Undermined America's Security". According to the introduction, the federal government's highest concern in the field of weapons of mass destruction is nuclear weapons. I have a little bit of background knowledge in this field and that is completely opposite of the findings of the Department of Homeland Security. It is standard thought in DHS that our biggest threat in the front of domestically released weapons of mass destruction comes from the possbile biological threat, not nuclear weapons. In fact, it is least likely that a true nuclear weapon will be used in a terrorist attempt. The book states that nuclear weapons are simple and are easy to manufacture and that culturing biological agents is difficult. Anyone who has taken any sort of basic biology course knows that growing cultures of bacteria is very easy and that they can be aerosolized easily.
I tend to think that what the author meant is that the threat of "dirty" bombs are one of the biggests threats. While this is certainly an issue, there is a very big difference between nuclear weapons and "dirty" bombs. Nuclear weapons require fission (I'm pretty sure it's fission and not fusion...correct me if I'm wrong) to take place, a reaction that requires careful handling and heavy equipment. "Dirty" bombs are much simpler. Basically a dirty bombs is an explosive that has been laced with radioactive material, which can be acquired in a number of places in medical facilities that use X-ray, etc. These bombs can cause exposure and contamination to radiological materials. Depending on the type of material, it would have various effects on the intended victims.
The reason I discuss this is that it shows us the importance of making sure if you are writing as an expert on a topic that you get your basic vocabulary right. If you are writing this book, the reader expects that you are someone of an authority on the subject. If you are not and fail to use the correct language, two possibilities could occur. First, you could accidently communicate incorrect information to your readers. You certainly do not want to do that because you want to ensure that you communicate accurate information and, as a secondary consideration, you want to make sure that your repution as a legitimate writer is protected. Secondly, if your reader is more of an authority on one particular subject and you get something wrong, the reader will probably continue to think about that for the rest of your work and may disregard everything you say, even if the rest of it is accurate.
I'm trying to get past this little slip-up but we'll see how it goes. I'm only about 20 pages in, so I hope that it will improve.
On another note, I tend to think that after I finished this book I will need to read a few books of differing opinions.
Public writing is so important because opinions and probably policies are built on much that is written in the public sphere. So, it is vitally important the you can be as accurate as possible.
I have started my next book that I picked up today and already I am a little worried. The book is entitled "U.S. vs. THEM: How a Half Century of Conservatism Has Undermined America's Security". According to the introduction, the federal government's highest concern in the field of weapons of mass destruction is nuclear weapons. I have a little bit of background knowledge in this field and that is completely opposite of the findings of the Department of Homeland Security. It is standard thought in DHS that our biggest threat in the front of domestically released weapons of mass destruction comes from the possbile biological threat, not nuclear weapons. In fact, it is least likely that a true nuclear weapon will be used in a terrorist attempt. The book states that nuclear weapons are simple and are easy to manufacture and that culturing biological agents is difficult. Anyone who has taken any sort of basic biology course knows that growing cultures of bacteria is very easy and that they can be aerosolized easily.
I tend to think that what the author meant is that the threat of "dirty" bombs are one of the biggests threats. While this is certainly an issue, there is a very big difference between nuclear weapons and "dirty" bombs. Nuclear weapons require fission (I'm pretty sure it's fission and not fusion...correct me if I'm wrong) to take place, a reaction that requires careful handling and heavy equipment. "Dirty" bombs are much simpler. Basically a dirty bombs is an explosive that has been laced with radioactive material, which can be acquired in a number of places in medical facilities that use X-ray, etc. These bombs can cause exposure and contamination to radiological materials. Depending on the type of material, it would have various effects on the intended victims.
The reason I discuss this is that it shows us the importance of making sure if you are writing as an expert on a topic that you get your basic vocabulary right. If you are writing this book, the reader expects that you are someone of an authority on the subject. If you are not and fail to use the correct language, two possibilities could occur. First, you could accidently communicate incorrect information to your readers. You certainly do not want to do that because you want to ensure that you communicate accurate information and, as a secondary consideration, you want to make sure that your repution as a legitimate writer is protected. Secondly, if your reader is more of an authority on one particular subject and you get something wrong, the reader will probably continue to think about that for the rest of your work and may disregard everything you say, even if the rest of it is accurate.
I'm trying to get past this little slip-up but we'll see how it goes. I'm only about 20 pages in, so I hope that it will improve.
On another note, I tend to think that after I finished this book I will need to read a few books of differing opinions.
Public writing is so important because opinions and probably policies are built on much that is written in the public sphere. So, it is vitally important the you can be as accurate as possible.
Monday, June 9, 2008
A Time to Fight
On Saturday, I picked up a copy of Jim Webb's "A Time to Fight: Reclaiming a Fair and Just America". If you don't know who Jim Webb is, he is the junior U.S. Senator from Virginia. He will become the senior senator upon the retirement of John Warner in January 2009.
I am specifically interested in Senator Webb's comments on the middle class. While Senator Webb served in the Reagan administration, he has since taken on a much more liberal stance on economic issues. I recall one quote on page 39, speaking of the middle class of our great nation... (by the way, Ronald Reagan once referred to the United States as a "shining city on a hill")
"But the 'shining city' was no accident. It did not just happen. Nor was it simply the creation of a group of propertied intellectuals who sat down and wrote a document saying that this is what the country was going to look like and this is what its people were going to do. That shining city was built one brick at a time with human hands and human sacrifice, after a great deal of struggle by farmers, laborers, and soldiers who believed in the validity of our system, and who had to fight against the odds and the elements the get to the top of the hill before they could begin building the city in the first place."
I think that it is time that we have leaders who legitimately believe in the power of the middle class and that recognize that our economy is not a tool by which our leaders, whether in government or the private sector, can take advantage of the middle, working class in order to make themselves wealthier.
I'll post more with other insights about the rest of his book (I'm about half of the way through now).
Keep on believing.
I am specifically interested in Senator Webb's comments on the middle class. While Senator Webb served in the Reagan administration, he has since taken on a much more liberal stance on economic issues. I recall one quote on page 39, speaking of the middle class of our great nation... (by the way, Ronald Reagan once referred to the United States as a "shining city on a hill")
"But the 'shining city' was no accident. It did not just happen. Nor was it simply the creation of a group of propertied intellectuals who sat down and wrote a document saying that this is what the country was going to look like and this is what its people were going to do. That shining city was built one brick at a time with human hands and human sacrifice, after a great deal of struggle by farmers, laborers, and soldiers who believed in the validity of our system, and who had to fight against the odds and the elements the get to the top of the hill before they could begin building the city in the first place."
I think that it is time that we have leaders who legitimately believe in the power of the middle class and that recognize that our economy is not a tool by which our leaders, whether in government or the private sector, can take advantage of the middle, working class in order to make themselves wealthier.
I'll post more with other insights about the rest of his book (I'm about half of the way through now).
Keep on believing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)