visionary leadership: the ability to not be unduly swayed by goals of those outside your own tent.

[rbnyc]

I was reading this article about not-for-profit fundraising and it seemed to have a lot of applications to current events and our struggle with our political leadership.

The article is mainly about a not-for-profit that has an untraditional business model and the struggle within their leadership to stay on course despite pressures from a variety of stakeholders.

This microcosm does differ significantly from our current social/political situation because in the case described, everyone has good intentions. In our situation, those who wield their influence are indeed malicious.

Here’s the snip from the article I’m most interested to discuss:

…we are swayed by the influences of those around us. We have conversations with our team, or our funders, or our auditor, or any of the other myriad stakeholders. Often we give inordinate heed to experts, over the voices familiar with our own agendas. This is a risky proposition we would be well served to examine.

Perhaps a useful definition of visionary leadership is the ability to not be unduly swayed by the implied or expressed goals of those outside your own tent. I applaud those few who consistently are able to do so. For the rest of us, I suggest a conscious habit of examining and aligning around appropriate goals. The best defense against unhelpful influences is clarity around our own agenda.

Since my first days at DU, there has been a never-ending debate that might be generally, if perhaps not accurately, described as political pragmatism vs. political idealism. We see our leaders betray our core values. We caution one another not to withdraw our support because the opposition is so much worse, because leaders who cannot compromise cannot be successful, because if we don’t stand behind our leaders, they will never have the strength to stop betraying us.

How do we hold our leaders accountable in an environment where we must also stand united against our corporate overlords and their Republican minions? We must stand united AND we must hold our leaders accountable. I really have no idea how to do this. That’s one reason I’ve always found it easier to work against the Republicans than for the Democrats (although I do both.)

When I read this article, this definition of visionary leadership really appealed to me and I wanted to share it. I would love it if more of our leaders saw themselves this way.

Full article: http://nonprofitfinancefund.org/blog/nice-sprint-you-really-need-work-your-swimming

[MineralMan]

1. Unless you can assemble a collection of like-minded voters who

will make up a majority of voters, you will not find success in electing representatives at any level who will always meet your expectations. That's the hard truth. To expect ideological compliance with your particular set of ideals from a representative who must gain a majority of votes to be elected is to court constant disappointment.

That's what pragmatism is about. Realizing that a majority does not share a particular set of ideals is the first step in understanding how political reality works in the United States of America.

We will never elect something who meets everyone's expectations. There is no such person. It is impossible. Look at the electorate to find your representatives. They will reflect that electorate, generally. To expect more is foolish.

[rbnyc]

6. I'm not talking about pleasing the majority.

I'm not talking about pleasing everybody or meeting everybody's expectations. I'm just wondering how all these negotiations would have gone (from health care to our current right-wing extortion scheme) if the quality of leadership described in the article were somewhat more expressed by our Democratic leaders.

The reason I said that pragmatism v. idealism may not be a totally accurate description is because I don't think pragmatism is the enemy. Pragmatism is just letting one's actions be guided by their functionality - does this action advance my goal? Such an action may even include compromise. But there comes a point where a leader does not let other people influence the basic goals if those people aren't bought into your basic agenda.

"The best defense against unhelpful influences is clarity around our own agenda."

[MineralMan]

7. Thanks. That's a well-thought-out answer. n/t

[rbnyc]

9. Thank you.

The issues are complicated. I appreciate the conversation.

[kctim]

2. The first step

is to acknowledge that it is a huge freakin tent and not a pup tent way over in the far left corner.

[rbnyc]

3. I'm really talking about the basic things that unify us.

I'm not talking about fringe issues.

[kctim]

4. Fair enough

but not everybody agree's to the same degree, not even on the things that unify us.

[rbnyc]

5. Are there some things that don't have degrees?

Are there some things that are just kind of binary; they're either on or they are off?

I don't know.

We all are unified in our belief in human rights - but to varying degrees?

Regardless, I think there are some basic Democratic values and tenants that do generally unify us and it is a sort of betrayal to see those things traded out in bargains that don't have to happen. The injury is compounded when we are told our concerns are marginal. We all work together to move the center to the right when we feed the perception that tenants such as civil rights, labor rights and a basic social safety net are coming from the far left.

[kctim]

12. IMO, the 'either on or they are off' way of thinking

is why the Democratic Party is so divided at times.

It is not the belief in civil rights, labor rights, a basic social safety net etc... that feeds the perception of them coming from the far left, it is the degree of what they include and the degree of how they are supported. For example, not every Dem believes in universal health care, some want to ensure those who need it can get it but they still want to keep their freedom choice. Others are willing to give up that freedom of choice so that everybody is covered.

The higher of degree, the further away from individual rights.

[StarsInHerHair]

8. recc'd to zero,,, trolls everywhere

[rbnyc]

10. I thought no one was hitting rec at all.

I had no idea recs and unrecs were canceling each other out. That might be a first for me.

:evilgrin:

[StarsInHerHair]

13. yeah, it's why so many dislike the unrec

[rbnyc]

11. One more kick before I go to bed.

I'll check in in the morning and then let it go.

I just thought the theme of the article was fitting, and lately I see everything through the lens of not-for-profit fundraising. It's a great field full of transferable lessons.