imported post
sohighlyunlikely wrote:
LMTD, You speak in a manner that makes me believe the political chess game of keeping friendly with some whom despise your efforts, to defeat the common foeI'm sure is asound theory.But it is to much politicking for me. Just not my style.
Oh no Sir, it is nothing like chess at all. Chess has rules and boundaries under which one can employ a variety of tactics and plans to control the output.
The regaining of rights stripped from us is a lot more like high stakes poker. Some of the players bluff (Obama promised to restrict rights more, however he has yet to play that hand) we have legislators whom have pledged support only to sit on bills never even bringing them to committee. They may find that term limits from the voice of the voter get employed.
The problem with poker is, most folks have the illusion it is about wining the hand when in reality it is about raking the pot. Having pocket aces (2a and Mo A1,23) are great starting hands, but if you do not watch the game and the players involved, it is not wise to go all in every time you have the best starting hand.
While I understand your position completely and respect it 100%, I am also aware that you understand that folks whom are well versed in the political game need to be bending ears in your favor at a higher rate than anti's or your efforts will indeed fail to rake the pot.
Three basic roles to leadership, Commander, Partner, facilitator.
The commander makes a call without input, demands performance, expects unquestioned compliance.
The partner seeks out input, evaluates many options, presents the call he makes to those he leads for buy in, initiates the call, expects everyone's best performance.
The facilitator request constant input, molds that input into an effective plan, asks leading questions to get those they lead to develop the plan themselves and then ask them to initiate their plan effectively, he expects them to perform far beyond what they think their abilities are as they have ownership of the plan and vested interest in its success so they will work harder than those thinking someone else did it.
A basic ideal is that any group needs to progress through those steps and different persons need to work within the role that suites them best. Most effective leaders use some of each of those roles and understands when it is time to move forward or even backwards when striving for a goal.
Someone with the my way or the highway commander leadership style only will have those whom shall follow, if they are really good at it, they may develop more than a few. They also will have those whom support their cause, but lack effort as they never feel a part of the team.
On a final note, if one never considers the impact their words and actions have on others, why would others ever consider ones actions?