Month: September 2017

One of the most crucial lessons in leadership that many people miss is this: People do not follow you because you have the best ideas, or the most logical problem-solving skills. People follow you because they want to. Simple as that.

John Maxwell describes five levels of leadership in his book, Developing the Leader Within You. The first is Position – where one leads simply because he has the title or position. If you are a positional leader, people follow you because they have to.

The next level is Permission, where people follow because they want to. This happens when the leader has developed good relationships within the organization. At this stage, people do not simply follow you out of obligation. They actually like you. They feel they understand you as you understand them. They are actually giving you consent to lead them.

This second level of leadership is key because it paves the way to the higher levels. Without it, you will forever be stuck on the first level and will never achieve results beyond the barest minimum that your followers will give you. They will follow only out of compliance, never out of desire or sheer enthusiasm.

To understand why this is so, we must understand that decision-making is an emotional process, not a logical one. As much as we like to think we are rational creatures who make well-reasoned and logical decisions most of the time, the fact is that we really don’t. Look around your house and see how many things are there that you bought but don’t really need.

As someone once said, “We make decisions based on our emotions and afterwards use logic to justify those decisions.”

Research by Antonio Damasio confirms this theory. Damasio studied patients who had a specific kind of brain damage that prevented them from feeling emotions. Everything else about the person seemed normal. One would expect these people to make logical and reasonable decisions every time, like a real-life version of Mr. Spock from Star Trek. However, Damasio discovered that instead of that expected outcome, these people were unable to make very simple decisions such as what to wear or what to eat.

This led him to conclude that decisions are indeed linked strongly to one’s emotions rather than one’s logic. It is the same way when people choose their leaders.

Effective leaders understand that their first task is to be liked — a knowledge that is sometimes dangerous especially to abusive leaders, because once people like you, they will tend to defend you no matter what decisions you make. There is a maxim often quoted about this it is almost a cliche, but it is nonetheless true: Nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care.

The key to getting people to follow you is by showing that you care about them, their lives, their families, their struggles, their hopes and their dreams. When you achieve this level of leadership, you can move on to the next, which is Production — getting your team to produce results that you want. At this stage, people follow you because of what you do for the organization. Then you move up to People Development — molding and grooming others into leadership positions, and here people follow you because of what you do for them.

Lao Tzu got it right when he wrote:

Go to the people. Live with them. Learn from them. Love them.

Start with what they know. Build with what they have.

But with the best leaders, when the work is done, the task accomplished,

the people will say “We have done this ourselves.”

 

Email me at andy@freethinking.me. View previous articles at www.freethinking.me.

In reaction to last week’s column, an acquaintance of mine, who is a harsh critic of the president, wrote to me saying:

I am interested to know why you still support Duterte up to this point even if he wants CHR defunded (which just happened earlier, along with other 2 agencies)? Even his rhetoric is murderous? etc… I am really curious as to why a seemingly smart, educated, rational, and ethical person like you still supports Digong.

Just to be clear about context, the person seemed to ask this with sincerity to understand, not simply for the sake of argument or confrontation. Before I answer the main question, let me address two assumptions in these statements that hinder productive dialogue between supporters and critics.

The first assumption is found in the phrase, “why you still support Duterte up to this point even if he wants CHR defunded.”

The original text stating my continued support came out over 3 weeks ago and the follow-up articles I wrote were in reference to those. Why would you assume that support continues “up to this point” when I have made no statements regarding the current situation? In fact, I saw the question only a few minutes after I glanced at some headlines about what congress did to CHR.

Is there now this expectation that I give my opinion on social media on whatever bit of news comes out, in order to judge my support or non-support? In fact, there seems to be an expectation that I sound off every now and then about politics, otherwise I am “silent.” Is that not a tad unrealistic, not to mention unfair? Life is not social media, and there are other venues of expression after all, with some even more productive.

The second assumption is found in the second sentence and while seeming innocent is actually a veiled insult, as if the only people who would support Digong are not smart, not educated, and are neither rational or ethical. This is similar to the mistaken generalizations of some atheists that religious people are unintelligent and irrational, which is far from the case. 96% of Davao City voters supported the president last elections. Are you implying then, that 96% of Davao City voters are irrational, stupid or unethical?

Anyway, moving forward and removing these assumptions, I would rephrase your question to the following: 1) Why DID I support the president? 2) Does he still have my continued support?

The first question has actually been answered in a few articles I have written previously. To summarize, we in Davao have felt Digong’s leadership most intimately, and despite his mouth, he has shown himself to be a loving, caring father to the city. Unlike most politicians, he neither demands nor expects special treatment. I personally know at least three people whom he himself has rescued from dangerous situations — two of them kidnap-for-ransom and the other was a hostage situation by a drug-crazed person. This is apart from less sensational stories swapped around by family and friends. In other words, the person whom you know only through his TV appearances and media stories, is someone who is more real to us. He is a friend’s ninong. He is my former teacher’s neighbor. He is my cousin’s schoolmate, and so on and so forth.

Now you may roll eyes at this, and dismiss it as another person has dismissed the stories as merely being “idol worship” similar to Cavitenos love for the Revillas or Ilocos’ love for the Marcoses, and perhaps there is some truth to that but it is what it is and that would be my honest answer to #1 — that we supported him because we know him, or think we know him better than anyone else not from here (I am of course speaking for those who share similar experiences and viewpoints as mine — not necessarily for those who are expressing blind support but do not share similar experiences).

Let’s now go to #2, does he still have my continued support? I look at the question of support not simply as a black or white question. It’s as if I have an internal scale that is ever-changing depending on how the president is acting or reacting to certain issues, so while the support may be at 80% at a certain time, it can also drop down to 60% at other times.

I had hoped for the best in electing Digong as president. I thought that he would mostly reign in his tongue and not make grossly careless statements. I thought that he would show swift and just actions towards erring policemen instead of seemingly coddling them.  I had hoped that his love affair with the Marcoses would end once he got the body buried. I believed that was merely an election strategy and now it seems I believed wrong.

One of my longtime readers emailed me saying, “Isn’t it beginning to look as if the role of President Duterte is the same as that played by John the Baptist over two thousand years ago – to prepare the way for the Coming of Bongbong, the Son of the Father?” And it tragically does indeed seem that way.

I had hoped he would fight for those he appointed that seemed to be performing well — Gina Lopez, Judy Taguiwalo — and not throw them under the bus.

I had hoped that he would show his best side — a side witnessed by so many people I know — but to my eyes at least, it seems that I am chalking up more and more X’es rather than checks.

Does he still have my support? Perhaps. Maybe. Barely. I don’t know.

Again, that answer may not satisfy you, but it is what it is for now. Ask me again after some time, perhaps there will be more clarity then.

Originally published in Sunstar Davao.

Email me at andy@freethinking.me. View previous articles at www.freethinking.me.

At first, there was Kian delos Santos, then there was Carl Arnaiz. Now there is Reynaldo de Guzman, a 14-year old boy found in Nueva Ecija whose body was found floating in a creek and bearing 30 stab wounds.

I am one with those feeling outrage and anger at these events. I am one with those who speak out that justice be done and  those responsible be brought to answer for their actions. I know that many share these sentiments, whatever their political color or allegiances might be.

Yet, I see a disturbing trend happening in social media. Instead of seeking ways for justice to really be done, many resort to fighting and blaming each other. The pro-Duterte will blame the anti-Duterte for sensationalizing and politicizing the tragedy. The antis will blame the pros for having a hand in these murders. There will be cries of “Yellowturds” and “Dutertards” all over again. The bickering will go back and forth and so much time and energy will be expended defending one’s position in all these things, and at the end of the day, we will still lack what we all have been desiring all along – justice for the victims, action and answers from those responsible.

It is no secret that as of this writing, the president still has my support — something that galls to no end some of my contacts who are vehemently against the president and see him as evil incarnate. They tag me in this post and that, mentioning my name, and ever wanting to remind me that I have “blood on my hands.” One even expressed approval when I asked, “So what do you want me to do? Slash my wrists because I voted for Duterte?”

One of them recently sent me a quote saying “neutrality helps the oppressor, never the oppressed,” and I agree to a certain extent. And though I seldom write about politics in my column because it is not my forte, I will express what I feel needs to be expressed at this time, but not necessarily what my detractors want to hear. Let me make this clear. My thoughts are my own and they are not intended to please anybody, so agree with me or go ballistic on me. I respect your reaction, but this is my opinion.

To those who ultimately blame Duterte (and/or all his voters) for these killings, I hope you understand that it is not necessary for us to share your hatred of the man in order to demand accountability and transparency. It is not even necessary for us to voice outrage on social media, as if that is the only valid venue for expressing such. There are many people I know who support the president but are angered at the recent spate of killings of these teenagers. I have many friends older than me who marched against Marcos at EDSA in 1985 (I was in fifth grade then), yet they still support Duterte, even to this minute.

Do you even bother to find out why? Do you bother talking to these people? Yes, these are people — human beings — as much as you are, not avatars of ideology, not some nameless faces you can demonize and knock down just like that.

Or is your rage such that anyone who does not share 100% of your convictions, or your brand of activism, is automatically worthy of your scorn and derision? Because if that is so, then you would be alienating many who otherwise might be moved to join hands with you  in the collective shout for justice.

I believe that many Filipinos are troubled by what has happened to Kian, to Carl and to Reynaldo, but instead of coming together as one to demand answers, we fall apart pointing fingers and asserting our own solutions as the only rational and valid ones. We jeer and lambast those opposed to us as if we alone hold all the right answers.

From personal experience, I know that bashing someone else’s religion won’t endear that person to change his beliefs or even to listen to me. I guess the same holds true for someone’s politics. It is very difficult to tear someone out of deep-seated beliefs and if this is your immediate goal, you will be quite frustrated indeed.

But whether you are pro or anti, perhaps we can agree that instead of wasting too much time on infighting, and on the blame game, and on how to “burn” others in social media, we could instead be proactively discussing how we can go about getting the justice we, and these kids, deserve.

Originally published in Sunstar Davao.

Email me at andy@freethinking.me. View previous articles at www.freethinking.me.

Last week, I published a piece I originally posted on Facebook that I said had “garnered more attention” than my other posts. To be exact, as of this writing, 1000 liked it, 63 loved it, 44 were sad, 10 were mad, 15 laughed, and 2 wow-ed. The usual critics turned up on the sad, mad, and laughing icons but I was surprised to see some vocal oppositionists “loving” it. It has been shared 323 times, and the original post has 111 comments.

It has taken me some time to go through the comments and reflect on them, with work and real life in the way. I wrote the post on a holiday, after all, and while I usually have work even on holidays, that was a rare occasion when I didn’t and had the luxury of a few hours.

I also wanted to process the comments without making knee-jerk reactions, without responding in kind to anger and sarcasm, which only tends to breed more of the same — and I am done with that phase of my life when I have to argue every statement and decision I make.

I go with what Frank A. Clark said so many years ago, “We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don’t.”

Most of the negative reactions to my post accused me of hand-washing the blood supposedly on my hands and of their disappointment that I only felt disappointment but did not regret my decision. To those who felt and still feel that way, let me just say this. I respect your right to feel however you do with me or with the president or with the government, but you simply cannot dictate to me how I am supposed to feel, any more than I can dictate to you to feel as I do.

It is funny how many who preach respect, freedom and tolerance are those who cannot respect, and are intolerant of those who do not align with their way of thinking.

One of the greatest modern thinkers of our time, Bertrand Russell, gave this nugget of wisdom in his old age: “Love is wise, hatred is foolish. In this world which is getting more and more closely interconnected, we have to learn to tolerate each other, we have to learn to put up with the fact that some people say things that we don’t like. We can only live together in that way — and if we are to live together and not die together, we must learn a kind of charity and a kind of tolerance, which is absolutely vital to the continuation of human life on this planet.”

In other words, yes, you might have the facts, and you might even be right, but if you are an insufferable prick about it, you won’t win over much to your side. And like it or not, any sort of collective outrage or movement ultimately needs the numbers to back it up.

To be fair, there were also those who welcomed my post in this light. They may not fully agree with how I felt but respected that anyway, and saw it as part of a process, and they likewise have my respect and thanks in return.

The buddha was once criticized for not being consistent with what he said. A critic confronted him saying that what he said recently flatly contradicted what he claimed over a year ago, and the critic revealed himself as having been the same person to ask him the same question a year ago, and had gotten a different answer.

The buddha brought the man to the riverbank and said, “Look at this river. It looks like it is the same river, but it is not. Every moment it is changing. The water that passes through it passes but once. It is the same with people. We may look the same, but we are ever changing in every moment. The person who asked the question a year ago is no longer the same. The person who answered that question is no longer the same.”

In the same way, the person who wrote that post is not necessarily the person writing this article. Many things have moved along the way, but you will never know if all you do is judge the river by its surface.

 

Originally published in Sunstar Davao.

Email me at andy@freethinking.me. View previous articles at www.freethinking.me.