[Vnbiz] Leadership -- What are you looking for in your leader?

[Tran Dinh Hoanh]

Dear CACC,

Thanks chi Tea for the wonderful short list and brothers Andi & Brother
Thien for the critical look at Tea's response.  While waiting for more short
lists to come, I'd like to make a quick comment on brothers Andi's and
Thien's responses, because the wonderful analytical questions from them have
the potential to lead us into a great confusion if we don't try to clear the
air as fast as we can.

Anh Andi question belongs to the "definition" category.  How do we define
"wise" or "integrity"?  This question carries with it two other definition
questions:  First, we need further concepts to define what "wise" or
"integrity" really is.   And second, the problem of subjectivity:  "Wise" to
this person may mean "unwise" to another person.

These questions are superb philosophical questions.  And if you really act
like a philosopoher, your chain of questions may go indefinitely--as soon as
someone gives you an answer, you will be able to push for another sesires of
questions (of the Socrates style).  Can't win :-)

But let me say this:  There is a general agreement among us humans about
many things, and there is disagreement only in borderline cases.  Say, in
general, we all will agree that helping the poor is good, stealing is bad.
But in some borderline cases, someone may say he is doing something (like
lending money) to help the poor, while others may say that he
actually steals from the poor (by charging a high interest rate on his
loans).  These borderline cases may bring disagreement and dispute, and
bring into question what we consider good or bad.  But they cannot stop us
from agreeing worldwide that helping the poor is good and stealing is bad.

Once I heard someone say: "Don't sit there and argue what 'good' really
means.  Just go out and try to be good."  The author implies correctly
that most of us has our own definition of "good" and most of the time our
own definition agrees with other people's definitions around the world, even
though there may be differences in borderline cases here and there.  The
main things is that we don't sit until we can define everything absolutely
clearly -- because we're NEVER able to define anything with absolute
clarity; human language always has a great degree of vagueness in it.

I believe that in general we all know what wisdom and integrity mean,
although we may disagree where Mr. X is wise or not.

On another point, anh Andi is correct that we will sacrify clarity for
brevity.  That may be true, but as a matter of learning and practice, in
almost every single subject we need to focus on one or two or three core
elements ad the guiding principles for everything else.  Say, when I teach
people to write, I tell them to focus on one thing: "Simplicity, simplicity,
simplicity.  You have to be able to write about Einstein relativity theory
in a way that a junior high school student will understand you. If you can't
do that, you are not a good writer."  When I teach martial arts, I say:
"Lots of things are important--strength, speed, flexibility, stamina,
strategy.  But we want to focus on speed, because if you practice speed, you
will build up your strength, your flexibility, your stamina, and your
strategy.  It is useless to be strong if you cannot hit a fast guy."

Christianity teaches a great many many things, but all of them come from the
central idea of "lovling your neighbor as you love yourself" and "Do
unto your neighbor what you would have done unto you."  Western Democracy
encompasses many things, but they all flow from the concept that "everyone
is born equal" and "living together with our differences."   Communism also
teaches many things, but they all flow from the concept that "everyone is
born equal, but the bad guys (i.e., captialists and the like) have created
and maintained inequality and must be destroyed."

In any subject, there are great many things to learn, but for us not to get
lost, there must one on or two things acting like the North Star. to act as
a point of reference for everything else.  That is what I call "core
element."

In a separate message, I will attempt to "clear the air" on Brother Thien's
message. Also, anh Shane's wonderful list has one or two points that I would
love to analylize further, soon.

In the meantime, it would be great with other brothers/sisters volunteer
some core elements of leadership.

Have a great day!

Hoanh

On 7/18/07, AD Marshall <admarshall at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [ Vietnam Business Forum ]
>
>
>
> Good reduction, Chi Tea.  In fact, i'd bet that if someone had real
> wisdom, they'd have virtue, integrity, and several other good, basic
> qualities, too.
>
> But there seems to be a trade-off between brevity and clarity or
> verifiability arising here.  Someone could say, "Just show me a real wise
> guy, or gal, and s/he'll be my leader."  Someone else might justifiable ask,
> "Wise?"  You might answer, "To know the difference between good and bad
> knowledge or actions and to always choose and do good." and you'd have
> provided an apparently good response.  But would it be sufficient?
>
> Wouldn't we need some further criteria we could use to identify or verify
> the wisdom, virtue and integrity of such a person?  And what if a
> pre-pubescent child, like the Dalai Lama candidates, is shown to have
> intuitive wisdom, virtue and integrity?  Should we follow him or her?  Or
> does wisdom need to be balanced by, say, for example, experience?
>
> And should we also ask good for who and what?  Is what is "good" for a
> wise Buddhist monk the same as what a wise business-person or a wise
> politician will consider "good"?   For example, how would we expect each of
> them to judge the principle of buying low and selling high among poor people
> buying goods and selling their labour?  Or, if they live in an
> over-populated emergent economy in a world faced with imminent human-induced
> environmental collapse, what policies would we expect them to make or
> enforce about family planning or advertising products and services related
> to raising families?  Just questions...
>
>
> (Btw, another potential leadership model i've run into, for any Buddhist
> business-folks here, might be Thich Minh Thanh of the South Central
> Monastery in Binh Thanh, HCMC.  I recently introduced him to gmail and
> blogger.com and he's gone hog-wild with online publishing.  He was already
> proficient in computer usage, English and Chinese.  Widely read and
> travelled.  Interpreted English to Vietnamese for the Dalai Lama in New York
> a few years back.  See, for example,
> http://www.blogger.com/profile/11063141492749437626 for a list of all his
> new blogs.  The Giac Ngo English Club (GNEC) blog is in (what else?)
> English, at http://giacngoenglishclub.blogspot.com/.  The rest are mainly
> in Vietnamese.  Due disclosure: i'm his [part-time, temporary] "assistant"
> for the GNEC. ;))
>
>
> --
> Tran Dinh Hoanh, LLB, JD
> Washington DC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.saigon.com/pipermail/vnbiz/attachments/20070718/a32bacea/attachment-0001.html