It’s been a few months since I’ve done any blogging, in those months I reflected on whether or not I should keep my blog going. I’m now working from home, having both daughters at home during that time after all Universities here went from Face2Face to online studies didn’t help much because when I wasn’t working a huge chunk of my time was spent, proofing, editing and assisting them in research, which left very little time to do anything else. The WordPress upgrade didn’t help much either because it meant having to work my way through learning the new set up. The initial purpose of this blog was to help motivate me to write more, however, in the past few years, I haven’t written much, except for my books, which I’m still plodding through, and a few bits of poetry, here and there. But over the years my blog grew…
COVID-19 reminds us that we live in a world full of uncertainty—and this will continue well beyond the pandemic. But it only intensifies something we were already seeing in the world of work: organizations need to adapt constantly to keep up with market dynamics. Unfortunately, this can take a toll on employees if businesses focus on efficiency but don’t create an environment where people feel they belong. And with today’s digital economy and globalized markets making organizations more and more decentralized, it’s getting harder than ever for workers to create meaningful relationships with others.
A recent MIT study underscores this. It surveyed top professionals from more than 120 countries about the skills needed for effective leadership in the decade ahead. It found that even more than in the past, leaders need to articulate a clear vision and strategy and provide a sense of shared purpose.
Employees are expressing this, too. Millennials and Generation Z crave purpose as well as ethical behaviors from their bosses. We saw that when more than 32,000 students in France signed a pledge to work for environmentally conscious companies, or when thousands of Google employees signed a letter protesting the company’s involvement in a government program that uses artificial intelligence to enhance military tactics.
Today’s workers also want autonomy and empowerment. They look for a work environment where they can decide how the job gets done. A Gallup study of the American workforce found that 42 percent of Millennials would switch to a job that allows them to work independently on a project of their choosing, and 63 percent to a job that allows them flexible hours.
This kind of workplace demands a different kind of leader: people who follow their inner convictions and passions, and who engage with others in an authentic and open way.
Leaders who behave like this are especially well-positioned to make a difference—let’s call them genuine leaders. They have a deep understanding of themselves, including their values, ambitions, and goals. They also lead with generosity: they care about others and empower their teams to fulfill their own ambitions. These leaders show you who they are as human beings, rather than hiding behind a mantle of power. They are not afraid to share their personal stories in a way that resonates with others and are able to shape a collective narrative that fosters trust and a common purpose—enabling others to find meaning in their own work.
When people work alongside genuine leaders, they become more willing to give their whole hearts and minds to the mission. They feel motivated to work with others, to innovate, and to strive for extraordinary results.
For my new book, The Expanding Circle, I interviewed three dozen genuine leaders across industries. While each of them has their own unique style for getting the job done, we can distill five common themes:
1. Achieving clarity of purpose. Genuine leaders have a deep understanding of their values, ambitions, and goals, and project their true selves for all to see. This self-awareness helps them lead with confidence and share their true passion and commitment. This authenticity helps create trust with others. It’s also critical to ensuring collaboration.
2. Crafting a genuine personal story. Humans are hardwired to learn through storytelling. By sharing a personal story that reflects their values and convictions, these leaders help others understand who they are and what they stand for. A story that resonates with others helps build trust and establishes a common ground for working together.
3. Seeking to understand others. Many people rely on their past experiences or even “intuition” to guess what others want. But intuition is a shortcut—and not a particularly good one. Genuine leaders spend time listening to others, asking questions, and exchanging ideas. They avoid prejudging others, which allows them to really see the people they are trying to reach—who they are and what they care about.
4. Shaping a shared narrative. Based on this deep understanding of others, these leaders develop a shared narrative, providing a common purpose and strategic direction: where we need to go, why it matters, and how we’re going to get there. This kind of narrative establishes a framework for teams to work together.
5. Empowering others. Fundamentally, these leaders see their role as creating the right conditions for all team members to take the initiative and contribute their best. They don’t try to micromanage or impose their own working style. They set the strategic direction and trust their team to get things done. And they create space for others to find purpose for themselves and develop their full potential.
BROOKLYN, N.Y. (CNS) — The Diocese of Brooklyn filed a lawsuit in federal court Oct. 8 against the state of New York, charging that Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s new orders reducing church capacity violates th
It is Communist China the source of COVID-19, and a country that has, as its openly stated aim, global domination. Equally dangerous are those in league with Beijing. Their eyes are on cheap labor and a market of 1.5 billion consumers. These sympathizers
Are you like many leaders, or aspiring leaders, and ask yourself, What kind of leader am I? Or do you wonder about the type of leader you want to be? If so, you most likely have consulted many of the published websites, books, and models that exist to answer these essential questions. In this search, you have probably reviewed Bass and Avolio’s full range of leadership model. The full range of leadership model compares transactional to transformational leadership styles based on the types of behaviors leaders exhibit (Bass & Avolio, 1994). The model argues transformational leadership is what we should aspire to practice as leaders.
However, many leadership scholars and researchers, including myself, would argue this popular model does not truly capture the full range of leadership. Precisely, the model does not capture the potential serving aspect of leadership, nor is there any mention of toxic leaders. I argue, based on my research, understanding these two powerful types of leadership is critical in understanding leadership. Furthermore, leaders should understand servant leadership and toxic leadership to truly comprehend the influence they have on their followers. To assist with this knowledge, I provide a quick overview of both types of leadership.
Servant Leadership
Robert Greenleaf created the term servant leadership to define a distinct leadership philosophy. Servant leaders are leaders who want to serve others and view leadership as a way they can serve in a greater capacity (Greenleaf, 1990). Servant leaders strive to improve the lives of those in their care and influence their lives in positive ways. Specifically, Greenleaf (1990) offered a “best test” for servant leadership by sharing that the followers of servant leaders would be more autonomous, healthier, wiser, and more likely to serve themselves. In other words, servant leaders create environments where their followers can grow.
Common behaviors of servant leadership include:
Being honest, trustworthy, authentic, and humble;
Leading in a way that allows followers to grow;
Expressing care and concern for followers;
Listening deeply and honestly to understand;
Valuing and encouraging collaboration;
Creating and articulating a shared connection;
Utilizing systems-thinking to connect systems with ethical issues and challenges; and
Leading with moral authority and ethical bounds (Sipe & Frick, 2015).
Toxic Leadership
Toxic leaders are leaders who engage in behaviors that are damaging to their followers (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Toxic leaders are more concerned with power, prestige, and their image than doing what is right for others or an organization (Burns, 2017). As a result, toxic leaders leave followers worse than when they found them. Specifically, toxic leaders influence their followers in many negative ways. The current research shows the followers of toxic leaders are typically less satisfied with their jobs, experience higher levels of stress, experience health and emotional ailments, and are more likely to engage in counterproductive workplace behaviors themselves. In other words, toxic leaders create environments where their followers are harmed and, as a result, typically do not grow.
Common behaviors of toxic leadership include:
Ridiculing followers and telling them (or others) they are incompetent;
Being inconsiderate of followers’ commitments outside of work;
Controlling how followers complete tasks;
Making all decisions within a team whether they are important or not;
Believing they are more capable than others;
Denying responsibility for mistakes and accepting credit for successes of others;
Having explosive outbursts and varying in their degree of approachability; and
Pitting others against one another (Schmidt, 2008).
Comparing and contrasting servant leadership and toxic leadership
The prior two sections outlined two powerful types of leadership: servant leadership and toxic leadership. I contend these two types of leadership are opposing types of leadership. Servant leaders choose to lead because of their desire to serve and help others (Greenleaf, 1990). These leaders put others first through mentoring followers, involving them in decisions, and by sharing power and control. Because of these actions, the followers they serve grow as individuals.
On the other hand, toxic leaders are compelled to lead by their ego (Lipman-Blumen, 2005; Schmidt, 2008). Toxic leaders want others to see them as powerful and important. Because of this, these leaders will manipulate, coerce, and abuse followers to achieve this goal. As a result, toxic leaders’ followers are hurt or damaged, which I argue is the exact opposite of what happens to the followers of servant leaders.
Why understanding these opposing types of leadership is important
I argue, like many leadership researchers, that knowing all facets of leadership is essential when determining what kind of leader you are or want to be. Likewise, I contend studying the “traditional” types of leadership is not enough as often two of the most influential types of leadership are missed. Specifically, servant leadership and toxic leadership are powerful forms of leadership. These two types of leadership amplify something we too often miss when discussing leadership: the influence on the followers.
A key component of servant leadership is the growth of followers. Meaning, servant leaders are supposed to help followers grow. In toxic leadership, the followers, as the current literature shows, are harmed in numerous ways. I argue and contend we, as leaders or aspiring leaders, need to understand these two types of leadership to truly understand our power. Specifically, leaders influence the lives of their followers. Servant leaders do so in a positive way, while toxic leaders negatively influence their followers’ lives. Thus, we need to recognize these influences to be able to understand the power we have as leaders and, hopefully, understand how we can use this power for good. Without this knowledge, how can we truly understand what it means to be a leader?
Two possibilities should be considered for the origin of SARS-CoV-2: natural evolution or laboratory creation. In our earlier report titled “Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route”, we disproved the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 arising naturally through evolution and instead proved that SARS-CoV-2 must have been a product of laboratory modification. Despite this and similar efforts, the laboratory creation theory continues to be downplayed or even diminished. This is fundamentally because the natural origin theory remains supported by several novel coronaviruses published after the start of the outbreak. These viruses (the RaTG13 bat coronavirus, a series of pangolin coronaviruses, and the RmYN02 bat coronavirus) reportedly share high sequence homology with SARS-CoV-2 and have altogether constructed a seemingly plausible pathway for the natural evolution of SARS-CoV-2. Here, however, we use in-depth analyses of the available data and literature to prove that these novel animal coronaviruses do not exist in nature and their sequences have been fabricated. In addition, we also offer our insights on the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 may have originated naturally from a coronavirus that infected the Mojiang miners.
Revelation of these virus fabrications renders the natural origin theory unfounded. It also strengthens our earlier assertion that SARS-CoV-2 is a product of laboratory modification, which can be created in approximately six months using a template virus owned by a laboratory of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The fact that data fabrications were used to cover up the true origin of SARS-CoV-2 further implicates that the laboratory modification here is beyond simple gain-of-function research.
The scale and the coordinated nature of this scientific fraud signifies the degree of corruption in the fields of academic research and public health. As a result of such corruption, damages have been made both to the reputation of the scientific community and to the well-being of the global community.
Importantly, while SARS-CoV-2 meets the criteria of a bioweapon specified by the PLA, its impact is well beyond what is conceived for a typical bioweapon. In addition, records indicate that the unleashing of this weaponized pathogen should have been intentional rather than accidental. We therefore define SARS-CoV-2 as an Unrestricted Bioweapon and the current pandemic a result of Unrestricted Biowarfare. We further suggest that investigations should be carried out on the suspected government and individuals and the responsible ones be held accountable for this brutal attack on the global community.
(Natural News) Li-Meng Yan, the Chinese virologist who was censored off various social media platforms, has published a second co-authored report warning that SARS-CoV-2 is an “unrestricted bio-weapon” that was not only created in a Wuhan lab, but was also released INTENTIONALLY by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Li-Meng Yan worked undercover at the University of Hong Kong and in a reference lab for the World Health Organization before coming clean about the scientific fraud behind China’s bio-weapon release. She and her colleagues discovered biological evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was created from a template virus (ZC45/ZXC21) and owned by military research laboratories that answer to the Chinese Communist Party.
Virologists warns that SARS-CoV-2 was created as a bio-weapon
The paper exposed how the template virus, owned by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), was engineered over a six-month time frame to become SARS-CoV2. The paper reveals that Wuhan virologists went beyond gain-of-function research to engineer the new bio-weapon, and even used data fabrications to cover up the origin of SARS-CoV2.
The report also takes a closer look at the RaTG13 virus, which was allegedly obtained from bat feces in 2013. The sequencing of this virus, published at GenBank, has been compared to SARS-CoV-2 and shown to be 96 percent identical. Because of RaTG13’s similarities with SARS-CoV-2, the Chinese Communist Party has alleged that both are naturally-occurring viruses. The CCP declared that RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2 must be naturally occurring because they are taken from a fecal sample. Fecal samples are typically 70-90 percent bacterial; but these sequences were only 1.7 percent fecal matter. Furthermore, RaTG13 contains segments of DNA not just from bats, but also from foxes, flying foxes, squirrels, and other animals.
Since no live virus or intact genome has ever been isolated or recovered in nature for RaTG13, the naturally-occurring theory is dis-proven. Therefore, these two viruses are part of an ongoing line of virus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.
According to the paper, the process for sequencing DNA itself “leaves room for potential fraud.” The RaTG13 genome “could easily be fabricated.” Its entry on GenBank proves the viral genomic sequences and its associated sequencing reads are assembled and do not offer definitive proof that the viral genome is correctly represented.
The paper details how the RNA viral genome can be fabricated on GenBank with careful execution. After the genomic sequence is created on a computer, segments of the genome can be synthesized based on the sequence. After amplifying each DNA segment through PCR, the researcher can send the PCR products for sequencing. These may contain sequencing samples from an alleged host that are mixed with genetic material from the host, which is ultimately (fraudulently) used to determine the sequence of the virus from these “raw sequencing reads” which are then published on GenBank. This laboratory concoction, fused with a host and amplified, can then be used as false evidence to declare the virus to be a “natural-occurring” version of the corresponding virus.
Furthermore, the researchers took a closer look at the spike genes of SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13. They found no evidence of natural evolution when compared to sequences of naturally-evolving coronaviruses. The report finds that the RBM region of the S1/spike of the RaTG13 strain had be edited in order to retain the 96.2 percent sequence identity. The report also finds that “All fabricated coronaviruses share a 100% amino acid sequence identity on the E protein with ZC45 and ZXC21,” a process that served as a template for the creation of SARS-CoV-2.
We must stop China’s bio-weapon research now and hold them accountable for war crimes
Because the genomic sequence is readily manipulated, what if the tests for covid-19 are unable to locate the precise genomic sequence? What if the vaccines currently in development do not contain the correct strain? What if multiple bio-weapon strains already exist, with various degrees of infectivity? What if China’s bio-weapon research is already ten steps ahead of the public health hysteria, and the CCP is preparing to unleash even more lethal bio-weapons? If China’s scientific fraud and bio-weapon research is not halted, then what’s stopping the rogue communist regime from unleashing a new bio-weapon every six months to stealthily perpetuate outbreaks that can be engineered to subvert detection?
Zul Mohamed, who’s running to become the mayor of Carrollton, a city roughly one hour north of Dallas. Zul, the Texasmayoral candidate was arrested Wednesday night and faces felony voterfraud charges after allegedly sending 84 applications for mail-in ballots.
Asked why he was running for the office, Mohamed answered, “I am a young, fresh face for office that represents a shifting demographic of our city. In recent years, I had felt Carrollton had fallen behind in terms of what is modern and innovative.” Asked what were the three…
My Awesome Fearless Blog 