Fishing

There’s a lot about fishing I don’t like: 

The pounding of the boat as we make our way out and back in;

• It’s often cold;
• The possibility of seasickness
• Disappointment (when we, especially my son, don’t catch any fish or we lose a fish before landing it)
•  Boredom

But I have to admit that, even though I never actually fish, on balance, I like going fishing.  This is probably why, when my husband and son go fishing, I almost always join them.  So what do I like about fishing?

• Being on the water
• The excitement when someone actually catches a fish
• Watching my son do something he loves and about which he has developed a certain level of expertise
• Boredom

My whole life, I have loved the salt water, and can’t truly imagine living too far away from it.  I love the smell, I love its beauty, I am in awe of its power.  Out on the water, you are away from land (obviously) and its cares and responsibilities.  Instead, you have a solitude and a sense of you and nature, and you against nature.  It can be scary, exhilarating, breathtakingly beautiful, boring, tedious and even miserable.  But regardless of the circumstances, when you’re on a boat you’re limited in what you can do (I think it’s sad that big boats now have internet connections – a cell phone seems like plenty and way more than we used to have when a radio was the only communication to land).  But there are also always things you have to do.  You have to pay attention, even if you’re not driving, and this requires you to focus. 

Once we get to our fishing grounds, I drive the boat.  Here’s where I like the boredom.  I drive the boat slowly in big ovals, back and forth over a wreck, back and forth past a green can.  I have to pay attention enough to keep us on course, and very occasionally to avoid other boats, but mostly I am free to think.  My mind wanders freely, usually about work, but sometimes about projects for the house or planning meals or a party.  The vast ocean spreads out to horizon.  Depending on the weather, we can see the Rhode Island coast, but to the east, the next stop is Ireland.  It’s usually a steely blue and somewhat choppy, though sometimes gray and sometimes there are waves of several feet (in which case we don’t stay long) and sometimes it’s even quite calm.  But it’s always there, breaking on the deserted beach  where sandy colored cliffs rise to meet the sky.  The cliffs slope down to a point that disappears into a bar hiding under the waves.  A stone light house has warned mariners of the dangers for 144 years, but countless ships have still failed to heed the warning, only to run aground, often with grave consequences, especially in winter.  Always there extending to the horizon – you can understand why ancient sailors thought they would fall off the edge of the earth.  Sometimes I just keep driving in those slow ovals, watching the electronic chart and thinking, listening to my husband and son talk about lures and rods as you listen to someone speaking a foreign language, until it gets too late and we have to head back.  More often than not, at some point, suddenly the fishing line will start to hum.  A fish is on the line!  I put the engine in neutral.  The person’s whose rod it is picks it up and goes through the rhythmic process of reeling the fish in, bring it in, let it out, bring it in, let it out, the rod rises and falls, the fisherman straining amidst general speculation about the size of the fish, and as it gets closer to the boat, the variety.  They always hope for striped bass; a bluefish, despite the sport of the fight they put up, is always a disappointment (though, to be honest, I’m not sure why).  Once the fish is by the side of the boat, the person without the rod leans over to grab its mouth in the boca.  The fisherman takes hold of his prize, we note the weight on the boca, and as it flaps desperately we document the catch with a photo.  Then someone carefully removes the hook and throws the fish back into that endless expense of deep blue sea, to swim for another day.  The fisherman returns home triumphant.

Balance: Impossible

Last week, I mentioned that I had attended a workshop entitled, “Forget Balance, Try for Sanity Instead” led by Lisa Belkin, the author of The New York Times “Life’s Work” column and now a blog/column called “Motherlode.”  Belkin also wrote the controversial 2003 New York Times Magazine article, “The Opt-Out Revolution,” in which she chronicled a number of well-educated, successful women’s decisions to leave the workforce to concentrate on their families.  She is the author of several books including Life’s Work: Confessions of an Unbalanced Mom. 

Belkin began the workshop (which it turns out was much like her book) by sharing her personal history, beginning with growing up in a Long Island suburb with her working mother (teacher first, later a lawyer) and her orthodontist father.  After college, she landed a highly coveted job as a “clerk” at The New York Times.  In between answering the phone, fetching coffee, and filing, she could write articles that the editors might accept.  She LOVED this job and soon propelled herself into a real reporter position.  She worked 24/7 -- her work was her life and she couldn’t imagine anything different. 

Then she met Bruce and they quickly fell in love.  Bruce was a medical student soon moving to Houston for a fellowship.   Belkin tried to persuade the Times to hire her in their Houston office, but when they refused, she quit and moved to Houston with Bruce.   She freelanced, discovering in the process that you don’t actually have to be physically in the same place as your editor. 

She and Bruce got married, started a family, and moved back to New York, this time to the suburbs.  After trying various unsatisfactory arrangements, she decided to quit The Times again and work freelance from home.  Technology helped, but this solution also failed fully to satisfy.  Recounting stories familiar to all of us who have ever been working mothers, she describes editing an article with a deadline simultaneous to a pediatrician’s appointment that included shots; she poured over the galleys in the waiting room while another mother glared at her.  Another time, she conducted an important interview (by phone) in the midst of potty training her son; you can imagine his background commentary. 

Her bottom line: big surprise, having children changes your worklife.    All the babysitters, au pairs, nannies, home offices, flex time, and technology cannot make it possible to work the way she did when she began at The Times and be an even moderately effective mother.  We can’t be fully present for work at the same time we’re fully present for homelife. “Not a one of us seems to be able to give 100 percent of themselves to their job and 100 percent of themselves to their family and 100 percent of themselves to taking care of themselves. . . .  No one can do it, because it can’t be done.”[i]  So we have to make some choices about how we allocate our time and energy.

I’ve often talked in this column about not worrying about being perfect, about choosing what we like to do, and only making the homemade cookies if we actually enjoy that excercise.  We can’t be all things to all people.  Belkin would certainly agree.  “. . . let’s start forgiving ourselves when we cannot do it.” [ii]  We need to give ourselves license to eat take out, have an untidy house, offer storebought whatevers, both because it is simply impossible to do everything and because we need to prioritize what’s important. 

I would add that the 1950s, when many women devoted themselves to household management, were in many ways stultifying.  The feminist movement grew out of this period for a reason.   We should be grateful that we have choices, and make them, rather than trying to be both June Cleaver and Murphy Brown simultaneously. 

Which brings me to one of Belkin’s most interesting and important points: gatekeeping.  We all know the statistics about how much more time women spend on household chores than men.  Working women and equal rights advocates bemoan this state of affairs and often implicitly blame men.  However, several scholars, including Naomi Cahn at George Wasthinington University Law School and Berkeley sociologist Arlie Hochschild whose book Second Shift pioneered its eponymous concept, argue that women themselves bear part of the responsibility.  There are responsibilities we insist on keeping for ourselves, clinging to the belief that only we can do them.  Belkin cites shoe shopping as her example – only she ever took her sons shoe shopping.  But, as she points out, her husband wears shoes, shoes he purchases for himself.  He’s probably just as capable of buying shoes for their sons as she is.  Belkin claims the shoe shopping and then criticizes her husband for not knowing their sons’ shoe sizes.  As Hochschild explains, “Certain acts of motherhood become hypersymbolized and we have to learn to let that symbolism fall away.” [iii]  I had quite a long list of tasks I kept behind the gate; shopping for my son’s clothes was one of them.  However, I can say that, over time and mostly out of necessity rather than humility, I have let most of them go (though, of course, not all – my son’s haircuts absolutely require my attendance).  While I don’t always agree with everything my husband does, he is an enormous help and I try to hold my tongue and appreciate all his support.

What led GW professor Cahn to this topic was a realization that “workplace change will be hampered until women relinquish some of the power that they have at home.”[iv]  Belkin believes that the “emotional and economic tug-of-war” that comes from “collisions that happen daily at th[e] intersection . . . of life and work” is “the central story of our generation.”[v]  Whether it’s the central one, I don’t know, but I’ll grant her that it is an important one.  I covet my family time, and dearly wish I had more time for them and for myself.  However, I also recognize that I have the job I do out of choice; I could do something else with the same earning power that would give me more time.  Plus, and this is even more important, I quibble with the distinction between life and work.  Those of us who work outside the home spend a great deal of time doing it.  If our work is not part of life, then we are wasting a huge percentage of our lives.  I would hope that everyone would be able to find some sources of satisfaction in their jobs, if only in a task well done and the companionship of colleagues. 

Most of us do not have careers that allow us to go freelance and work at home.  I’m all for creating equality at home, but we also need to continue to work on workplace reforms that allow us to remain economically competitive while giving both men and women better quality of life  -- meaning work and family.  And this is only going to happen if women keep pursuing these issues while rallying male allies to help us.  Belkin pointed out that academia and the law are two areas where the process for advancement are most disadvantageous for women because the timing for tenure and partner decisions conflict with women’s biology.  Yet these are both areas where there are large numbers of women – as we all know, half the students in law schools are female.  And even though the sheer number of women in these fields has been significant for some time now, little has changed.  As a result, many women “opt out,” to use Belkin’s phrase.  While this may prove a good personal decision, these choices are disadvantageous economically; we lose too many well-educated, talented women from the workforce.  In addition, we lose the people who might fight for change. 

In the midst of thinking about all Belkin has to say, I came across Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook COO’s commencement speech at Barnard College.  She challenges the class of 2011 to take on what she calls “this generation’s central moral problem . . . gender equality.”  She offers another angle on the same issues, and one we need to consider.  Which we will, next week.

               

---

[i] Lisa Belkin, Life’s Work: Confessions of an Unbalanced Mom (New York 2002), 16.

[ii] Belkin, 16.

[iii]Belkin, 73.

[iv] Belkin, 72.

[v] Belkin, 14.

She Roars: A Women’s Weekend

Several weeks ago, I travelled up to Princeton to attend a conference entitled “She Roars: Celebrating Women at Princeton.” I will admit that I am still on a high from this exhilarating experience. I have several takeaways from the weekend, and also some specific topics I’d like to address in the future. With 1300 women returning, representing fully 5 percent of all female graduates, the Alumni Office could count the weekend a success based purely on numbers. A far more important measure, however, was the fact that, as one of my friends said, “Everyone is beaming.” That response says much about the University’s careful planning and what women want and need. And that, of course, is why I’m writing about an experience that might seem quite irrelevant to you, my faithful reader.

First, the Alumni Office didn’t presume to know what the University’s female graduates would want from a women’s conference. Instead, they decided to ask. They scheduled planning sessions in cities all over the country, inviting anyone who had ever volunteered for the University to dinner. I attended the Washington planning session which proved a fun opportunity to catch up with friends and acquaintances but also an effective way to collect input while simultaneously promoting the conference. Each dinner table had a note taker and we had specific questions to answer. Nothing was left to chance though there was ample opportunity for wide ranging conversation and a variety of perspectives. It was especially interesting to have alumnae from the 1970s to the 2000s at my table. While I doubt our thoughts differed markedly from those gleaned in other cities, it was nice to see the actual conference schedule reflect our suggestions.

We wanted to hear from some of our most notable female alumnae, especially Sonia Sotomayor ‘74 or Elena Kagan ’81; we wanted to learn about women’s experience on campus today; we wanted to talk about the balancing of work, career and family; and we wanted to be able to network. Lesson #1: women liked to be involved and have a say in the activities in which they are involved; likewise the activities will be more successful if the planners get input. Lesson #2: educated women share the same interests and concerns the nation-round.  We like hearing from prominent women; we are concerned about work, career and family balance issues; we seek opportunities to network; and we care about the women who follow us.

The conference offerings featured a series of workshops and keynotes, all echoing the input from the planning events. There were sessions on undergraduate women and leadership, work-life balance, children, literature environmentalism, parenthood, women in the nation’s service, STEM, athletics, journalism, the arts and business—you name it. While all the sessions had an element of presentation, they were structured to include significant interaction. As women from the first coeducational classes in the early 1970s to recent graduates shared perspectives, questions, and concerns, we experienced the true essence of the weekend.

One of the highpoints was interactive, but didn’t involve the audience. University President Shirley Tilghman and Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor ’74 had a conversation before an audience of 1000 plus. Responding to questions as wide-ranging as how she ended up at Princeton and relationships among justices on the Supreme Court, Sotomayor came across as humble, warm, funny, diplomatic and determined. We all fell in love with her. And again, the structure was distinctly female: the justice didn’t stand before as and give a speech. Instead, she and President Tilghman had a conversation, with all of us eavesdropping. We got to know the justice through the context of their relationship.

Justice Sotomayor was sitting near us at dinner and I introduced myself. She warmly invited our students to visit her. But one of the highlights of the weekend occurred after dinner when familiar 1970s music got us to our feet. Soon we were all dancing with a Supreme Court Justice! That was sisterhood we won’t soon forget!

By the way, orange pashminas were draped over the backs of each of our chairs at dinner. The next day, the orange wraps were the fashion statements. If I could, I’d figure out a way to wear mine every day.

Meg Whitman ‘77, former eBay CEO and California gubernatorial candidate, was most gracious as she spoke on Saturday in the courtyard of the college that bears her name. Whitman made her gift of $30 million—at the time the largest gift in Princeton’s history  —very early in her tenure as a trustee. It was also early in President Tilghman’s tenure. Whitman explained that she was motivated in part to make such a generous donation to help Tilghman, Princeton’s first female president, as fundraising is often a measure of a university president’s success. Whitman didn’t originally want the college named for her, but Tilghman persuaded her to abandon her modesty. Naming the college in her honor allowed Whitman to serve as a more effective role model for female philanthropy, all the more important since women tend to be less financially generous than men. It was notable that Whitman didn’t speak about eBay or about her campaign for governor; instead, she used her bully pulpit to talk about philanthropy and about leadership. We, especially those of us in female institutions, need more women to generously and publicly support the institutions that have made a difference in their lives. By doing so, we will ensure that the same opportunities exist for the generations that follow them.

Perhaps my favorite part of the weekend was a Saturday morning discussion entitled “Forget Balance, Try for Sanity Instead” led by New York Times writer Lisa Belkin ’82. You may be familiar with Belkin from her “Life’s Work” column or her “Motherlode” blog. You also might recognize her from her controversial 2003 New York Times Magazine article, “The Opt-Out Revolution,” in which she chronicled a number of well-educated, successful women’s (many of them Princeton graduates) decisions to leave the workforce to concentrate on their families. Women eager to receive Belkin’s wisdom and share their own experiences filled the large lecture hall (where Belkin remembered dropping out of Econ 101). I will delve deeper into this discussion in a later column, but I want to share my primary takeaway from this session: women crave these opportunities to bond through shared challenges, sorrows, joys, and triumphs. However, unlike men, who play golf or basketball together or who, as a classmate of mine pointed out, go out for drinks after work, we do not have natural gathering activities – especially working mothers who are so constantly pressed for time and feel that every moment free from work should be devoted to their families. I mentioned this observation to the woman sitting next to me who agreed and credited the popularity of book clubs to this need.

So I have challenged my readers intentionally to create sustained opportunities for this kind of bonding --  be it a book club, a giving circle, an investment club, a singing group—you name it.  And think about girls schools as great venues to host your group.  Let’s build our sisterhood, and if we’re lucky, maybe we’ll arrange for pashminas in a color of your choosing!

Let's Go Outside

Spring finally seems to have arrived (although I barely dare say so), and it seems fitting to return to some of my original twelve pieces of advice, particularly:

1.       Make sure she spends time outside

2.       Don’t overschedule her

Now that the weather has improved, sending children outside is easier.  Directly related to spending more time outside is not overscheduling our children.  Having free time outdoors allows children to experience the salutary effects of nature and provides opportunities for children to play, something many of them don’t do enough.

If you read this column often, you have probably figured out that I love technology.  However, I also believe that technology easily enslaves us and that we owe it to ourselves and our children to take breaks from our screens, and do something else, preferably together and outside. 

We do not need scientists or social scientists to tell us that our children have less unstructured free time than we did at their age, nor do we need these experts to inform us that these young people spend less time outside (with the exception of organized sports) than we did.  In fact, between 1997 and 2003, the number of children ages 9-12 engaged in “outside activities such as hiking, walking, fishing, beach play, and gardening” declined by 50% according to University of Maryland professor Sandra Hofferth.  She also found that children’s free, unstructured time decreased by nine hours per week over a 25-year period.[i]

According to Richard Louv, author of Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder, nature positively affects children and adults in numerous ways.  Adopting the renowned Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson’s argument that humans have “the urge to affiliate with other forms of life,” a condition he calls “biophilia,” Louv believes that we have an inherent need to connect with nature, flora and fauna, an imperative essential to our healthy development.[ii]  Without this connection, we suffer.

A ten-year study of patients whose gall bladders had been removed found that those whose rooms looked out on trees recovered faster than those whose windows looked at a brick wall.  Likewise, prisoners whose cell windows offered a vista of farmland got sick less often than those inmates who looked out onto the prison courtyard.  Yet another study revealed that viewing pictures of nature after a stressful experience significantly reduced “muscle tension, pulse, and skin-conductance readings” in only five minutes.[iii]  Peter Kahn in The Human Relationship with Nature reviewed more than 100 studies showing that spending time in nature decreases stress in adults. Cornell professor of design and environmental analysis Nancy Wells conducted research that concluded “that life’s stressful events appear not to cause as much psychological stress in children who live in high nature conditions as compared with children who live in low-nature conditions.”[iv]   Wells’ and her colleague Gary Evans’ examination of the impact of living in a more natural environment on children’s levels of anxiety, depression and behavioral disorders determined that more nature meant fewer emotional problems.  In addition, “children with more nature near their homes also rated themselves higher than their corresponding peers on a global measure of self-worth.” [v]  Some studies even suggest that spending time in nature “may reduce the symptoms of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.”[vi]

In 2002, The State Education and Environmental Roundtable, a nationwide initiative to analyze environment-based education issued a report based on 10 years researching the best environment-based education programs around the country;  the report contends that such programs “produce[s] student gains in social studies, science, language arts, and math; improves standardized test scores and grade-point averages; and develop[s] skills in problem solving, critical thinking, and decision-making.” [vii] Now, I’m not sure that this was just about the nature aspect, but rather that this form of education is experiential and project based, pedagogies that enhance learning (and that are integral parts of Holton’s new strategic plan), but certainly nature provides an excellent environment in which to use these approaches.   We all know that, left to their own devices, children in a natural environment, following their own whims, will naturally explore and learn.

North Carolina State University professor Robin Moore devotes his work to promoting children spending time in nature.  Nature is important, he believes, because it provides multi-sensory experiences that involve a kind of interaction and engagement necessary for the ”healthy development of an interior life.  .  .  .  This type of self-activated, autonomous interaction is what we call free play. . . .   A rich open environment will continuously present alternative choices for creative engagement.”   He contrasts this with the “often distorted, dual sensory (vision and sound only), one way experience of television and other electronic media.”[viii]

As Moore suggest, one of the most important reasons for children and young people to go outside is that nature  encourages play, an activity far more essential to healthy emotional and cognitive development than we may think – more on the value of play next week. 

So spending time in the out of doors helps us to be healthier, less stressed, and generally emotionally and mentally more balanced.  Nature feeds curiosity and creativity.  There really are no downsides and only upsides to fresh air.

Our girls go outside quite a lot.  Lower Schoolers enjoy outside recess of unstructured time everyday weather permits.  Last fall, they built a shrine for a dead chipmunk they found on the turf field.  The fifth graders work in their garden and explore the creek.  6^th through 8^th graders go on outdoor education trips.  Older girls might take a run through the neighborhood.  On nice days, they sit out in the gardens studying and chatting.  And we could probably do more on our beautiful campus. 

Last weekend, I persuaded my husband and son to support a student fundraiser, and take a bike ride on the Capital Crescent Trail.  We rode all the way to the Georgetown waterfront where we had lunch by the river and watched crew races.  Afterwards, we rode back to Bethesda.  I had never been on the Capital Crescent Trail; it was so pretty riding through the budding foliage, along the canal and the river.  We enjoyed each other’s company as well as the camaraderie of other school folks.  We had a great time, returning both tired and refreshed.  Even my son, who hadn’t wanted to go, admitted it was fun. 

I hope you’ll take advantage of the most beautiful season in this part of the world.  Send your children outside – just let them go for awhile.  And don’t be afraid; according to Louv, we have grossly exaggerated the dangers our children might encounter.  Encourage them to spend time in solitude and reflection as well as play in groups free of structure and adult organization.  As a family, take a walk or a bike ride; have a picnic.  Get a hammock.  Play croquet or badminton.  Take a deep breath.  It’s all way cheaper than even going to the movies! 

---

[i] Richard Louv, Last Child in the Woods: Saving our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder (North Carolina, 2008), 34.

[ii] Louv, 43.

[iii] Louv, 46.

[iv] Louv, 50.

[v] Louv, 51.

[vi] Louv, 35.

[vii] Louv, 206.

[viii] Louv, 66.

Leadership

Self-reflection is a critical quality of leadership, and I do a great deal of reflecting about leadership generally and my own actions specifically.   I have served as a senior administrator in independent schools for twenty years (a fact I find rather hard to believe!), and those two decades have given me ample opportunities to consider the qualities that define effective leaders, as well as practice leadership in a variety of settings and situations.  Over the years, I have read a number of books and articles and listened to speakers on the topic of leadership and even helped develop a leadership course.  From all that, three works stand out.   First is an article by Theodore Sergi, Connecticut Commissioner of Education, about servant leadership.  I can’t find this article anywhere, but the idea that a great leader really serves the people s/he leads, and not the other way around, made a deep and lasting impression on me.  More recently, Patrick Lenceoni’s Five Dysfunctions of a Team and Jim Collins’ Good to Great have significantly influenced my thinking.

Years of studying and teaching history and the historical figures who populate those pages have truly determined my definition of leadership.   I particularly admire Queen Elizabeth I, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s leadership styles.  I admire Queen Elizabeth for her ability to effect compromise and create relative harmony in dangerously contentious situations.  She also identified talented people and gave them freedom to do what they were good at – Sir Francis Drake comes to mind. But most of all, I admire the way she toured her realm each year, making sure that she went out and met her subjects.  Abraham Lincoln I admire for his ability to capitalize on his opponents by embracing them instead of marginalizing them.  He also knew when to compromise, when to be firm, and how to use the system to his advantage.  He was as savvy a politician as has ever served as President.  He employed humor and stories with great skill, but most of all, he was a person of unshakable integrity.  Though stunningly political, he never compromised his principles about what really mattered, a quality that gave him strength and credibility during our nation’s ultimate test.  Finally, FDR gathered around him a disparate group of people who generated a range of ideas and solutions, giving Roosevelt a variety of options for solving problems.  He wasn’t afraid to experiment nor did he shrink from abandoning an ineffective program to replace it with something he hoped might work better.  Finally, during the fight over the Supreme Court, he observed that, at one point, he turned around and realized no one was following him; he had lost the popular support.  You can’t be a leader without followers.

So as you can tell by this digest, there are several core qualities and behaviors that I believe effective leadership demands.  None of these characteristics alone makes a leader, but rather they are necessary in the aggregate.  For example, one can be a person of integrity, but not a leader; however, a leader must be a person of integrity.

Integrity : A leader must have a moral compass on which to rely, especially when faced with difficult challenges.  S/he must always do what’s right, even if doing so risks being unpopular and even when others may not be able to understand one’s actions.  You have to be able to know in your heart that you did the right thing.  Sometimes the right course of action is not obvious.  In these cases, I try to think about the people affected – what will the impact on them be; how will the decision reflect on the institution; and most importantly, in the context of school, I always try to put the interests of the students first.

Courage: Being courageous is harder, I think, than having integrity, but equally essential.  Sometimes the courage required is no more than overcoming the anxiety of making a speech.  Other times, one must steel oneself to take on a tough challenge; have a hard conversation; hold someone accountable; or make a difficult decision.  One must be ready to engage with – even reach out to -- people who disagree with you, and to listen to criticism.  When appropriate, one must also acknowledge and take responsibility for mistakes.  Mustering courage takes tremendous emotional energy, but summoning that energy from a strong ethical core – one’s integrity – makes it easier.

Commitment to serve: While people often think of leadership in terms of power, I believe that power, at least on the part of the leader, is quite unimportant.  Not to sound corny, but leadership is really about empowering others; or about leveraging power to realize a vision.  Exercise of personal power undermines true leadership.  Instead, I think about leadership in terms of serving the people, particularly the students in the case of a school, and the institution.  This is where the Theodore Sergi article I can’t find comes in, but the idea of servant leadership has gained much currency.  A key component of this philosophy is never asking others to do something I wouldn’t do.  It also means that the tough jobs are mine, not someone else’s.  I put the students and the school first, that is whom and what I serve, and to the extent I have power or resources, they should be employed towards those ends.

Vision: The ability to develop and articulate a vision often sets leaders apart from others.  To move an institution or group of people forward, the leader must have a vision, a description of the future that others can understand and get excited about.  To be successful, a vision needs grounding in the institutional or group culture while also moving the institution to a new place. 

Effective communication: A vision has no value if it isn’t communicated.  In addition, all the human relationships that form the basis of communities and teams, depend on effective communication.  Effective communication, in turn, depends on understanding the culture and community so you know what resonates.  One gains this understanding through careful observation and listening.  I also find that Dan and Chris Heath’s theories about change and the need to manage both emotions and rational thinking extremely helpful in developing effective communication.

Listening and Compassion:  Effective listening enables effective communication, and it also conveys a sense that the leader cares about people, their thoughts and their concerns.  Though it’s very unlikely that everyone will like a leader, and it may even be hard to get everyone to respect you, through listening and showing compassion you build trust.  Each of us is an individual with likes and dislikes, joys and sorrows, and a leader builds a stronger community and greater commitment when people feel that the leader cares.

Collaboration and ability to build a team: I firmly believe that more heads tackling any problem will devise a better solution than one person.  So whenever possible, I try to collaborate with colleagues.   For this reason, I also believe in having a team approach to management and leadership.  Team building is therefore another important attribute of leadership.  Trust undergirds any effective team, and trust develops through open, honest communication along with support among teammates.  This is a cyclical process that demands commitment to building a team on the part of members.  The leader needs to offer encouragement and advice to ensure that the process keeps moving forward.

By no means do I feel as though I embody all these characteristics, but I certainly try by constantly reflecting about my leadership.   I strive every day not only to do the best job I can, but a better job than the day before.