I was talking to a coordinator of a research institute a few weeks ago and we talked about how community supporters can help in bridging the academe with community issues through their involvement and advice in their institute. 

Good idea, right?

Well, this idea is not new and had been proposed for several years but the supervisor refused to budge on the topic for various reasons: Money, adding up to work, etc.

When bureaucracy says no, almost all the time, it's just protecting the status quo and eliminating any threats to its  state of being. Community involvement means work but it will open up the institute to far greater input, new ideas, new partners, which will then lead to greater impact.

Results are not what bureaucracies are for, in general. When questioned, they tend to have a zero vision about outcomes, impacts, or resonance with real-world issues.

If our academic institutions are solely run on past successes and are afraid of building allies, then we should all be worried about our future generation!

I immigrated in Canada with nothing.

Okay, two luggage and a box and I stayed with my uncle for a few months until I got a job.

But, during those times, I only have my past education and work experiences as my assets.

The rest, I had to quickly build, such as social networks through networking, referrals, information interviews, and so on.

With the fact that there were thousands of job seekers during that time, I considered my journey far less arduous than my counterparts. I got a full-time job after two months.

As I was talking with a colleague of mine a few weeks ago.

We realized that it's not ethnicity, religious background, accent, culture, or education that will move your career.

It's about your talent, discipline, and good attitude.

The fact that these components are not overly emphasized during the interview process bothered me.

It's not the company DEI or their preferential treatment that will increase employee engagement. It's the overall ability of the organization to spot and nurture talent whoever they are and wherever they come from in the world.

The battle for the best talent in major companies is truly the grittiest.

No one know where these best talents are but if you look closer, they can come in different stripes and shapes. 

They are the people in your neighborhood that you wouldn't necessarily get their CVs from your employees, networks, or professional circles.

If you're willing to try a newcomer for a job, they are also willing to try their destiny on you.

How about that? 
​

​

I was in a consultation meeting reviewing the latest Strategy document of an organization that I'm collaborating with when I discussed the importance of leadership development as one of the capacity strengthening priorities.

One of the consultants in the room, remarked that "some people don't want to become leaders in the organization." That it's not for everyone. 

So I reasoned out that, we need to be mindful of the barriers and disincentives of leading when in fact, the culture is not supportive and rewarding to become one.

I don't blame them.

Leaders get shot at first or fired.

They seldom get rewarded for what they did/doing/will do.

Often times, the organization has unrealistic/unachievable expectations of them.

There are many training, workshop, coaches, advisors, and audits to train anyone for a leadership role since high school, but a genuine self-assessment is a dime and a dozen.

They eat last (Sinek) but more than that, they don't eat until the rest of the team eats.

They are alone/solitary in their decision-making and personal development.

It takes a whole amount of vulnerability, commitment to continuing learning and improvement, regular receipt of useful feedback and self-sacrifices and self-abandonment to become a leader.

Yes, I agree, some would be great supervisors, managers, and directors without invoking to become leaders in the process.

But I doubt, that being a supervisor or manager, will cut it in these modern and complex organizations we find ourselves now. Emergent models of business, structure, delivery, operational efficiencies, among others require not just great managers but a more enlightened, empathetic, and 'just-right' amount of leadership too.

In my book: Provocateurs, I talked how well-meaning, intentional leaders can make a huge impact by being grounded about who they are and their willingness to share themselves with others. They lead from within themselves through their passion, purpose, provision, practice, and paradigms. 

In my opinion, this is a "Permission to Lead" situation. Managers must be permitted to lead by those they are closely working with and also permit themselves to become one.

We have in our generation, the capacity riches (gazillion of tools and know-how), rationale, and wherewithal to become effective leaders. 

Our ancestors who had less in life, who fought in World War 1 and 2 and other wars stepped up as leaders, even without much preparation, tools, or even choice. They just did it. 

We have a choice to lead and it doesn't mean the top position/role in a company/organization/community.

We can lead in our families, neighborhood, and anywhere where we can influence.

It's a golden opportunity to grow and become a better human in the process.

Take it with open arms.