Whats the Deal .... to Lead

'Think Positive', 'Be Proactive', 'Everybody is a Leader'...... and so on, day by day the list grows on and we are surrounded with more and more principles. And so am I. More we read and more we learn, we keep on accumulating plethora of hints to be a good human being. Isn't it really exciting? Indeed it is. But if we all know about these principles then why do we find everything around us just not following those golden principles?

What contemplated me more to think about this issue is the increased focus of senior management in training the employees. Robin Sharma has quoted in one of his articles that the corporate leadership wants him to inculcate leadership culture into its employees. They want the employees to imbibe in their mind that everyone is a leader irrespective of the designation. Good Thought! Just like a few I mentioned earlier. 

Then where exactly everything fails? Why do we still find most of the employees still thinking with narrow minded approach. Why cant they focus on the overall picture? And whom to blame if it is not sorted out ? The human tendency or the failure of leadership? 

I strongly feel there is a difference in willing to have it, acting to have it and having it. The leadership is willing to have the leadership principles inculcated in the company. But are they acting to have it is the BIG Question. Would the training suffice the need? I doubt.

I would like to pose some question over here. How many times does a senior leader have an effective communication with the individual employee? How many times do they keep aside the regular stuff of work and think together on the company's well being, the Customers, the Market. The outcome might not be something great but it is a great opportunity to understand each other. Such discussions at informal level help in reflecting the views on each other. And this would give birth to thought leadership. The individual employee can start thinking on some of the aspects related to organization about which he/she has never even imagined before. It will also help deviate the focus from daily routine tensions. The employee can then start thinking about the bigger problems in front of organization, and that is where we would achieve the first step.

I find training employees in this fashion is very much similar to teaching a first language to baby. The first language child starts speaking is considered as a 'Mother-Tongue'. And a mother (parents) has to teach the language to the child; they cant expect a baby-sitter to teach the Mother Tongue :). Having said this, if the management wants employees to understand and act on certain principles like leadership, then the leadership itself has to preach for it. 

The Leader of "OPPOSITION"

The Name has it all .... Generally people prefer to name their child with a successful personality. Like, Hindu parent prefers a name like 'RAM', 'Mahesh', 'Gautam' etc. A Muslim prefers 'Abdul', 'Husain','Nagama' etc. A follower of Christ chooses something from his/her background like 'George', 'Peter'. Even people name their business in similar fashion. If not by the name of famous personality, then by a  name that at least has a positive meaning.

With this assumption in mind, I always wonder, why do we call the second most preferred party leader in the democracy as Leader of "Opposition". Due to some minor differences in the ideology or agenda, the voters have elected one (or conglomeration) party over the other. What it means to me is that one thought stream is more preferred to serve the country than the other. Assuming all of them are going to work towards betterment of the countrymen in right sense, they still differ in their way of work. And we, as voters have chosen one of them saying "Lets give a chance to this group of policy makers'.

The typical psychological reason behind naming the loved ones (Child / Business) with the name indicating success / prosperity is the expectation that the name will bring it's good qualities along with it and the named one would be benefited by it's virtue.

Under the light of this assumption, I dont see any space for the word 'OPPOSITION'. Rather we have one additional stream of thoughts sitting along with the ruling one. So what do we exactly expect from the Leader of Opposition. Is it that the person sitting on that seat is always opposing the cause... be it right or wrong ?

Or do we expect him to behave in a manner that the name Opposition brings to him by virtue ?

If we go by wikipedia the same position is defined as :

The Leader of the Opposition is a title traditionally held by the leader of the largest party not in government

In US Politics it is referred to as a 'Minority Leader'. It seems quite sober than the 'Leader of Opposition'.

People name their loved ones with the Name indicating something positive... Be it myth or be it belief. If it is true.... then isnt it that the failure of our politics because of weak opposition is routed in its name itself ?