Red Bike Leader

rip the training wheels off your leadership

Archive for the ‘historical leadership’ Category

Stay Home / fail

by Ryan Russell | July 5th, 2010 | Posted in historical leadership, leadership, strategy

Go nowhere. Dabble in no other realms, kingdoms or provinces. Seek the protection under the wing of your momma and the comfort of what you already know. Stay home! This is a sure fire way to stunt your growth as a leader. Sure, it’s rewarding (and possibly essential) to have a home base where you can rejuvenate, develop, connect with ‘easy friends’ and launch out from, but don’t stop there. Don’t get mired down in the usual stuff. Throw yourself out into new environments, adventures and situations. Take a trip. Volunteer on new projects. Seek out connections in cities beyond your current reach. Move to a next level challenge. Take some risks.

If Lebron James stays in Cleveland I will be far less interested in him as a leader. Sure, he may win championships there, but he will have passed up the opportunity to do it on the world’s largest stage. And in the process, he will have shied from the greater challenges and the larger exposure that made him great as a young guy when he skipped college and went right into the NBA.

* A short series of failures you can make as a young leader.

Small hills matter

by Richard Nichol | April 9th, 2010 | Posted in basics, communication, historical leadership, leadership

A key battle of the Civil War was obviously the battle of Gettysburg , the high water mark of the Confederate Army.  A key part of the victory for the Union forces was maintaining the left flank at Little Round Top hill.  This effort was lead by a professor from Bowdoin College in Maine  Joshua Chamberlain . Joshua enlisted against the College’s desires as they already saw what a key individual he was for their school.  He was offered the head of the Maine regiment but declined and asked for a lesser position to learn the ropes.

 We can learn much from this decisive stand on a seemingly insignificant hill by a professor from Maine with no military experience prior to the war.

The pivotal day of the battle of Gettysburg was July 2, 1863.  The day before the Confederate Army had pushed the Union Army back through the town to outlying ridges. On July 2 the Confederate Army wished to continue this push and key would be able to flank the Union Army.  On the left flank was the 20th Maine regiment led by professor Chamberlain.  The Confederate Army was relentless on attack .  Chamberlains 20th Maine was short on ammo to the point they barley had a round left per member.  

It was at this point in which Chamberlain executed what was a masterful counter attack. In the midst of the noise and exhaustion he was able to communicate to his troops to make a coordinated sweeping bayonet charge starting with the end of his line forming a hinged hook that essentially created a flanking and frontal assault on the Confederate advance.  This move caught the Confederate army off guard who were also low on ammo and severally exhausted and beat up.  Chamberlain knew if he waited he would not survive another assault so he took the initiative. This saved the left flank and strengthened the Union line which eventually repelled the Confederate charge the following day and won this pivotal battle.

While much has been written on this aspect of the battle I think it important we do gain leadership insights that over 50,000 men paid with their lives in this battle.

Leadership is leadership … a book worm professor who has learned good leadership principals then checked his ego when given opportunity to lead asks to come up through ranks instead to gain lower level experience.  Take a challenge to lead something out of your realm of understanding and see that leadership principals are transferable.

Don’t wait till it is too late.  With most time critical endeavors there is usually a window of opportunity that will close.  Knowing what that is and then decisively jumping through the window when it opens is key.

Know the importance of your position understood the strategic significance of the small hill.  The Art of War by Sun Tzu stressed the key to gaining and keeping the high ground.  This takes many forms and mostly figurativley on struggles within a non-war enganement.  

Communicate it well and to help this keep it simple.  I can think of no more difficult circumstance in which to communicate than in all the noise and mayhem of this battle.  Chamberlain did it though and was able to communicate a coordinated movement of his troops starting with outer troops and rolling into a strangling hook against the Confederates.  In midst of the action we need to communicate simply and clearly to each member so they know their role.

 ”When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it.” – Henry Ford.  Chamberlain who was probably one more charge away from defeat turned into the wind and that made all the difference.

A Contradiction in Terms?

by Richard Nichol | March 12th, 2010 | Posted in historical leadership, leadership

So often the biggest challenge in any leader is self-leadership.  History is littered with great promising leaders who failed to lead themselves and thus robbed their time and ours from what could have been.

Leadership is sometimes defined as motivating others to do something that they individually would of never done where the collective result is far greater than the sum of the individuals.

How do we apply that same concept to self-leadership, or is it a contradiction of terms?  I would like to propose that we look at part of self-leadership is the coordination or marshaling the efforts of mind, body, and soul to accomplish what they individually cannot.

Are we continually putting ourselves in a position to be challenged mentally?  Are we reading the best thinking in the areas we are engaged?  Are we pushing the envelope of what is thought as conventional wisdom?  I really cannot think of any great leaders who when you look behind them they were not veracious readers.  The list of self-taught leaders is extremely impressive with the likes of  the most prolific inventor of our age Thomas Edison who had 3 months of formal education. College drop outs Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, Alexander Graham Bell, broadcast legend Walter Cronkite and Michael Dell of Dell computer.  Others like author Charles Dickens who had to leave school in his teens to tend to family needs.

Taking care of the physical body in times past was challenging.  We have little excuse in many circumstances with modern medicine and nutrition and exercising.  This is truly a discipline of the individual. Thinking back to some notable figures who were caught by premature deaths probably avoidable by to today’s standard…, Alexander the Great who it is told that he once marched with his men with the back of his clothes cut open because he had diarrhea but wanted to keep marching.  While is it debated how he actually died it is thought to be ultimately of some form of gastric disorder from possibly drinking some bad wine or water.  President William Harrison who died 31 days into office from a cold he caught but did not take care to get rest needed due the pressing matters of his new Presidency.   It was said the White House was no place to rest… so he didn’t.

Lastly and probably the most devastating to our age is soul care.  The moral failings continue to pile up usually disqualifying them from leadership.  Borrowing from Alcohol Anonymous  dialog the solution to avoiding destructive actions is behavioral modification through spiritual progress.  Not necessarily intuitive but certainly demonstrated by many who have recovered from life destroying habits.  Watching the condition of our soul/spirit will also give us the courage and passion to balance the rest of our lives and engage those we lead with integrity.

Each of these areas require planning, time and follow through to be balanced and healthy.  So in the end self leadership is not just figuring out how to care for mind, body and soul but how to get the multiplication of leadership out of the coordination of the 3 to do more than the sum of each.

Leadership is Polarizing

by Landon Anderson | March 5th, 2010 | Posted in historical leadership, leadership

“No American politician in the Progressive Era had more loyal friends or more dedicated enemies. But it would have been difficult for Bryan to retain the former if he had found a way to mollify the latter.” – Michael Kazin, A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan p. 297

William Jennings Bryan, The Great Commoner, was the leader for the Democratic Party from the late 19th century into the early 20th century. He ran and lost the race for the Presidency 3 times on the Democratic ticket. He was one of the most popular orators of all time, rising to fame speaking out for a sense of liberalism that would cause the government to help out the people. Ever the evangelist, he stuck to his personal beliefs in the face of opposition and blatant disregard.

Although he is perhaps best known for his failure to gain the Presidency and his weakened attempt to keep evolution out of the public school system, Bryan is a classic case of polarization. His many admirers considered him to be a prophet-type, the one man able to lead the United States to its rightful position. His opponents considered him to be out of touch with reality and shallow in his political thought. Truth be told, he is most likely to be considered somewhere in between.

The truth we find in a leader like Bryan, is that leadership is polarizing. It is impossible to please everybody, and certainly not worth our time trying to do so. Strong leaders must recognize a vision and work hard towards accomplishing it. The goal is not to please people but to lead people. Clinging to your vision and making independent decisions will always develop dedicated enemies. But in the end, leadership is making the right choice not the popular one.

Lessons from Failed Expirements

by Landon Anderson | February 26th, 2010 | Posted in entrepreneur, historical leadership

“‘But,’ he told Harrington, ‘it is of no consequence whether it worked or not. It was an experiment as I told you once before, not made to show but to satisfy me that I was all right.’ And he furthermore explained to Craig that although ‘Mr. H says that some of our experiments were useless…after he has had more experience in this business, he will find that No experiments are useless.’ Edison recognized that failed experiments often provided important insights during the research process, but Harrington and other backers were interested only in positive results.” - Paul Israel, Edison: A Life of Invention (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1998), 61.

What seems to have set Thomas Edison apart was not a particular genius in inventing so much as a willingness to try. He had no fear of failure. He tried and tried and tried again. Failure simply became a building block for the future. While his financial backers might have struggled with his concept of failure because of their incessant need for results; Edison continued to plug away at his own pace and on his own sense of progress. I am amazed at how counterintuitive this is. Today’s culture is every bit as ‘positive results’ oriented as his was and failure is never an option, especially when finances are on the line. How many people and ideas have been labeled useless simply because they were not immediate financial hits?

The lesson here seems to be the need to press forward. Keep learning. Move past those who are willing to abandon or deride you for failure. It is in those failed attempts that true success might be found.

Conquer through Competition

by Jon Wren | February 19th, 2010 | Posted in historical leadership

“No wild beast is as dangerous to man as one Christian is to another.” – Julian the Apostate

Towards the end of the Roman Empire, one of the nephews of Constantine the Great, Julian, took the throne as the Augustus Emperor. He inherited an empire with some serious problems, namely the Parthian Empire (modern Iraq/Iran) was causing trouble, and Christianity was giving him fits.

Julian was a devout pagan who rejected the Christian faith and believed, like many others in Rome, that the decline of Imperial power was linked to the rise in Christianity. Julian took the throne and quickly went about restoring pagan Roman religion. And naturally, many Christians resisted and began causing problems for Julian – problems that he did not need. Soon the Parthians invaded

So how did Julian handle his Christian enemies? He gave them total freedom. Seriously. Earlier Emperors had played favorites with particular Christian sects and gave them special rights while outlawing and condemning other Christian sects. Julian gave all Christians, no matter what they believed or how they practiced their faith, total freedom and protection. He predicted that once the Christians could do as they pleased, they’d instantly turn on each other instead of being united against him.

It worked. Julian’s policy of total Christian toleration was the most liberal and generous religious policy in the late Empire. And after about a year of the policy, Julian had no further issues, uprisings, or problems with Christianity. He was able to concentrate on fighting off the Parthians and securing the borders of the eastern Empire.

Julian understood something that many leaders forget: often times our opponents will defeat themselves… if we let them. Julian gave Christians just enough rope to hang themselves with internal squabbling. It allowed him to concentrate on what he HAD to do instead of being pulled into minor distractions. The concept of a united opposition is all too often a myth.

Believe in Yourself

by Landon Anderson | February 5th, 2010 | Posted in historical leadership

“History teaches us that no man can be great unless a certain amount of vanity enters into his composition…For a man to be important it is also necessary to have a good opinion of one’s self, even if for no other purpose than to impress others.” –Washington Roebling

When the Brooklyn Bridge was built, it was the most magnificent bridge in the world. It not only set the record for the longest suspension bridge in the world but also became an enduring image of creativity and intelligence in the world of engineering. It was a symbol of pride for the people of New York and for everyone in America as well.
John Roebling developed the original bridge design. John was a giant in the industry known for his engineering innovations. However, prior to the bridge being built, Roebling passed away leaving a giant hole in leadership and massive questions about whether the bridge could and would be built.

It was in this void that Washington Roebling (John’s son) stepped in. He assumed responsibility, leadership, and decision making for the project. Over the next 13 years, Washington faced doubts, anger, frustration and constant questioning over his ability to do the job designed by his more famous and influential father. Every decision he made was met with intense scrutiny and more than once he was threatened with the loss of his job. Despite the odds, he finished the job and was the most influential force on the creation of the final bridge.

Leaders will always face critics whose mission is to find faults, cite mistakes, and point out flaws. In these moments, you must remember the reason you are in a place of leadership. To believe in yourself and your ability is to trust that you have come this far because you can succeed. If you are to be great, you must first convince yourself you can be great.

Choose your battles

by Richard Nichol | January 29th, 2010 | Posted in historical leadership

Choose your battles … but once you choose fight with all diligence.

In all great struggles be they public or private there is a prioritization of conflict and battle. To ensure victory this often requires leaving some uncomfortable or even compromising situations left unsettled initially.

In the formative years of the United States the colonies had little or no Naval strength. In that day nations with strong Navies ruled the world. In order to protect precious cargo to and from other parts of the world, the US congress authorized funds for bribes to be paid to Moroccan pirates for protection. While this was a common practice it certainly instigated hearty debates with our ethically sensitive forefathers.

John Adams told Thomas Jefferson regarding the pirates, “We ought not fight them at all, unless we determine to fight them forever.”

This certainly is being played out in our time with the ongoing battle against terrorism. What areas of our struggles should the tough call be made to wait to fight another day while we focus on the critical battle at hand?

An army in the field

by Jon Wren | January 21st, 2010 | Posted in historical leadership

Discipline is the soul of an army. It makes the small numbers formidable; procures success to the weak and esteem to all. — George Washington

During the Revolutionary War, the American effort for Independence from Great Britain hung on 2 factors.  The first was the Continental Congress which worked to create a government and raise money for the new Republic and the second was the Continental Army, commanded by George Washington.  Washington faced a daunting task.  He was pitted against the greatest military power the world had even known, the British Empire with a seemingly unlimited amount of ships, troops, weapons, commanders, and money.  Yes, Washington was a good general, but there was 1 of him and about 50 British Generals who had gained experience fighting Spain, France, and the Native Americans.

To win the war, Washington understood that it was crucially important to win the public relations battle in the colonies.  Namely, he had to make sure his army was never totally defeated.  If his army was totally defeated and he was forced to surrender, there would be no army to replace him and the the colonists would lose heart.  So even though he was willing to lose battles, he always made sure he avoided fights that would lead him to total disaster.  He figured if he kept the army in the field, in the fight, then the colonists would stay hopeful, and the Continental Congress would have an easier time raising money.

History proved Washington right.  France intervened and matched Britain’s resources and helped win the war.  Even in an extremely difficult situation, and even when you’re losing – there is something important about keeping an army in the field.  Leaders with more brains and less power can outlast opponents/situations with more power