[Vnbiz] Staying to be a leader - the de facto leader

[Tran Dinh Hoanh]

 Dear Brother Viet & CACC,

Thanks for the very good note, brother Viet.  It is true that
leadership skill, the ability to convince other people and the negotiation
skill have a lot in common--the skill to convince other people.  That is the
gist of the study and that is where many different roads start.

How to convince others?  There are a million ways to do that.  You can
convince someone with a gun to his head, with a bunch of money, with a
promise of heaven, a promise of love, a promise of future good things or a
pie in the sky.  Thus, there are a million kinds of leader:  Good leader,
bad leader, ugly leader, sleazy leader, honest leader, dumb leader, smart
leader, loving leader, cruel leader, etc.

And that would be our problem:  Studying "leadership" in the abstract is
almost an impossibility.  We study to be some kind of leader--good or bad,
honest or dishonest.  There is no such things as "leader" in the abstract.
This is important because if we don't know what we are studying for, we may
end up learning things we should not learn.

Now, let's go back to what brother Viet was saying.  I think basically what
we have is "Give to people what they want and they will agree with you."
Very much this is the truth.  But my experience is that from this simple
truth come out so many different kinds of leader, depending on their
attitude when they apply this simple truth.

I remember reading an article by this lawyer named Dennis Something (I
forgot this last name). He was Clinton's chief negotiator on Iraq or
something like that.   He wrote this article on "Washingtonian," the
magazine for Washington, reciting his experience as Clinton's
chief negotiator. And his attitude is very much: "Give people what they
want, and you will win."  He sounds very much like he can manipulate people
into doing anything and it is just a matter of him knowing what they want.
I was upset when I read the article, because he sounds like (1) typical
egoistic lawyer and (2) a guy who looks at other people merely as something
he can manipulate.  (But I was not surprised, because Washington is full of
people like that).  You know the result:  The Arab conflicts got worse over
the years and today they are worse than ever.  What was lacking is "the true
respect for the human heart."  When a leader or negotiator lacks this
respect element, they cannot see other people's hearts.  They only see
things in the outside:  They see that these people don't have money, don't
have life conveniences, but they can't see that these people need respect,
need true understand of the heart, and care little about death.

So, yes, give people what they want.  But how do we know what everyone
wants?  Sometimes it is easy to know what someone wants--He says he needs
money for lunch, chances are he wants money for lunch.  But most of the
time, it is not easy to know what someone wants.  Say, invite a lady out to
dinner, she replies: "I am busy tonight."  Do you know what she wants?  Does
she want some other night instead?  Or does she want a more elaborate
invitation? Or she just want to refuse the first invitation?  Or she wants
you to leave her alone?

And when you lead a group of 20 persons, how easy is it to know what
20 persons know individually?

How do we know what someone wants?  How does your mother always know what
you want?  How do you always know what your spouse wants?  How do
you always know what a friend wants?

How do we know each other's heart?

Each of us may have a different way into each other's heart.  But here
is some suggestion from me:

1.  We really have to train our heart and mind to CARE for others.  Say, if
we think "I want to know what you want, so that I can give it to you, so
that I can get what I want."  Such ultimate selfish motive may bring you a
lot of result in life, but you will not be able to lead like a great
leader.  Great leaders always care for others first.

(Of course, it is OK if you only want to be a "minor leader."  But keep in
mind, great leaders--for great works--have to be selfless).

2.  We have to train our heart and mind to really RESPECT others.  Say,
whenever I talk to a much younger person, I never think that I have much to
teach him/her.  I always think that this person may have so many fascinating
things that I may learn from.  If I keep talking to him/her, I may learn so
many things from the hearts and minds of another generation.  (And I am not
saying this as a matter of flowery speech.  I am so serious about that kind
of attitude that my mind refuses to think otherwise).

3.  We have to learn to PAY ATTENTION to others.  This is the hard part for
me, because my head is usually in the air.  But it is crucial to pay
attention to others. Meaning, when they speak listen carefully and try to
understand what they feel.  And I say "What they feel."  What they feel may
be different from what they say. Someone may say, "I'm OK" while he is not
OK.  He may say, "We need to be a little more innovative" while he means
"You need to be a little less dictatorial."  Here we go again; we are going
back to the crucial issue that we have spent so much time in this series:
"How do we really listen to someone?"

*  Put yourself in the other's shoes.  Imagine if you are her, how would you
feel about it?  What would you wish for?  What would you dislike?

*  Listen carefully with the ears.

*  Listen carefully with the eyes.  Body language is a big part of
communication.

*  Listen with the heart.  If someone cries when he is talking to you and
you feel inside like you are watching Hong Van's comedy, then you must ask:
"What's wrong with my heart?  Why am I so insensitive to his pain?"   You
have to be able to "feel" what the other person is feeling in order to
listen with the heart.

Once we know how to listen and understand others, it will be very easy to
structure things in a way that would make everyone happy.  Say, you have a
meeting with 20 people in your group.  You sit and listen (with ears, eyes
and heart) to all 20.  And of course you have your own idea and
vision.  After all the listening, you should be able to structure a program
in a way that you would satisfy all 21 concerns and wishes.  The deeper your
understanding of everyone's heart is, the better your proposal would be.

(You will realize that in this scenarios your proposal comes last, after you
have listened to everyone.  If you give out your proposal first and try to
convince everyone about your proposal, you may have a very hard time.  But
if you listen first, then come up with a proposal, your proposal will get a
much better chance to be approved by everyone).

It is that simple.  And it may sound like so many techniques are involved in
this leadership skill, which really scares us off.  But actually it is much
simpler than that.  Great leaders don't care much about techniques.  They
care about their heart.  When the heart is right, everything comes out
right.

If we train our heart to truly care about others, truly respect others,
automatically we will know how to understand what they say, what they feel.

Of course, as a leader you must have a clear vision. Say, you want to do an
English club, or a community project, you must tell other very clearly about
your vision and the people who agree with your vision will be with you.
Others will not be with you.  But now that you have a group of "comrades"
(chie^'n hu+~u), how do you talk in a way that they would agree with you
every time.  The answer is: Listen first with your ears, your eyes and your
heart (full of care, respect and humbleness). Then come up with a proposal.
You will have a great chance to come up with a great proposal.

Thanks brother Viet and everyone. Keep brainstorming.

Hoanh


On 4/17/07, Viet Le <viet.aikidorb at gmail.com > wrote:
>
> [ Vietnam Business Forum ]
>
>
>
> Dear CACC and bro Hoanh,
>
> Thank you for sharing bro Hoanh. I agree with you to concentrate our
> studies on the "de facto leader phenomenon".
>
> In respond to your questions, I'd like to share some observations (pretty
> basic). I will analyze audience and the status quo. Analysis of negotiator,
> who actually plays key role in any negotiation, will be addressed in later
> emails.
>
> How does a person get convinced? He steps into an agreement as he believes
> that the terms and conditions fulfill some of or all his requirements
> (ethically-correct, politically-correct, interest-guaranteed,
> ego-fulfilling). What do you think about lobbying? I think that is a
> classical example of how negotiations are done. You promise to share profits
> appropriately to the parties in order to get voted as a leader. In short,
> convincing means promising/guaranting to give a person his desired (or at
> least deserving) part of profit (moral, monetary, political) or even
> desired relationships (just recall the fair tales, where princesses will be
> married to knights once those men accomplish their missions). From that we
> draw a conclusion: know your audience. Just think what you will give fish: a
> dirty worm or a piece of well-branded Pizza Hut?
>
> Another question: Why do we need to negotiate? Negotiation is made in
> order to keep to change the status quo to the desired status. So the next
> study subject is the status quo. It is very important to know the current
> context and current situation and current relationships between the parties.
> Too abstract! Just think: ain't it much easier to offer a job to a the guy
> who is unemployed than to the guy who has a fulfilling job? Different
> context will require different sharing agreement of the profits. If you want
> to recruit a talented guy (only you discovered his talent) who is earning
> 3000USD/month and you offer 3500USD/month. Most probably, he would turn you
> down. But an offer of 7000USD/month and a managerial position will help him
> to think more "logically".
>
> Knowing well the audience and the status quo will enable us to find
> appropriate stategy. Have been participated in some fundraising campaigns
> for a student organization, I experienced how to approach the sponsors.
> Convincing the sponsors is not an easy job as they know the status quo very
> well. At first we find "native contacts" (those who are related to us
> somehow, such as alumni/those were we know/...) and people who are in charge
> of the relevant issues. Then we study their needs. Like for a telco, they
> wanted to promote new technologies (SMS-related, RFID, broadcasting). Then
> we worked out plan how to "exhibit" those technologies in action with our
> talks, roadshows and workshops. In our turn, we asked cash and
> goods-in-kind. In short, all we have done, doing and will do is to draw the
> path between their needs and our abilities/capacities, to show them that we
> have solutions for their needs/problems and demonstrate those solutions.
>
> I also want to note that in some cases, where status quo doesn't allow
> people to make any choice. For example, winning countries dictate post-war
> conventions.
>
> Before finishing, just want to ask: Is the one who is able to convince
> people will rule the group as a de facto leader?
>
> Looking forward to your sharing, dear CACC and bro Hoanh.
>
> Best regards,
> Viet.
>
> Viet.
>
>

-- 
Tran Dinh Hoanh, LLB, JD
Attorney of Law
Washington DC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.saigon.com/pipermail/vnbiz/attachments/20070417/bd9930d2/attachment.html