Why Be Realistic?

Why be realistic?

Prior to cell phones, if someone would have told you that you would carry a little device with no wires and be able to speak to someone on the other side of the world, you may have thought they were crazy and unrealistic.

Prior to electricity, if someone would have told you that you could flick a switch and lights would turn on enough to light a city, you would have thought this person was delusional and unrealistic.

Prior to planes, if someone would have told you that you could bend a piece of metal and fly over the ocean, you would have called this insanity and unrealistic.

Obviously we can talk to anyone around the world on a cell phone, we have electricity, and can fly around the world and back on airplanes; all because people were unrealistic.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." 

-George Bernard Shaw

So why be realistic?

Delusional: Having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions

According to Psychology Today, Psychologists have determined that delusional people are both happier and more productive. Those who are delusional will be generally more energetic in their goal pursuits, and will generally aim higher than those who are more realistic. According to a psychological study, unrealistic people will usually accomplish more than an unrealistic person.

When I am reading a blog and see a video about Steve Jobs, I see an unrealistic person and someone that changed the world. When I read a blog empowering women and discussing a revolution for a true equality for women, I see someone that people would have scorned at years ago and women that stepped out of the norm to progress such a movement.  I could go on to describe such people, but there is no doubt that it is the unrealistic people that change the world.

So now, when someone talks about something that does not seem possible, when someone has a seemingly unduly confidence in their success despite their circumstance, or when someone seems delusional, do not be quick to count them out; they may just change the world.

It is not strictly an unrealistic attitude that will progress someone forward, but coupled with other necessary leadership traits, it serves as a catalyst and brings enough optimism to see a dream through fruition. 

Be unrealistic. Be delusional. Become a leader. And…as Mr Jobs would say, “Think Different.”

Give 'em The Finger[s]

Bank of America: “I have over $2 billion dollars in assets and I am going to make an independent decision to charge you money for using your debit card.”

Consumer: “Don’t mess with me; I have a Facebook profile and 500 friends.”

Bank of America: “Ok sorry. We won't charge you.”

When big organizations such as corporations or governments try to exercise unapproved authority over consumers or citizens now, they get the fingers.

Kristen Christian, an Echo Park, California resident started a consumer holiday by just posting a rant as her Facebook status. The holiday: “Bank Transfer Day.” The 27 year old has had over 75,000 people pledge to participate in transferring their bank accounts to non-profit credit unions by Saturday.

22-year old Molly Katchpole started a petition on change.org to stop the proposed bank fee and had more than 300,000 people join the campaign.

What do these two girls have in common? The two girls in their 20’s took on the mega-bank and started a movement by taking less than a minute to type and post their views. 


Since September 29, about 650,000 U.S. consumers opened credit union accounts, an amount estimated to be around 4.5 billion dollars. Looks like the big banks have lost much of their power. 

The power now lies with consumers who speak with their fingers and vote with their feet.

Facebook is free, Twitter is free, and now debit card usage is free.

Even the corporation that created the biggest social media platform faces the wrath of the monster it created. In the past, Facebook changed privacy settings based on the backlash it received from upset users. There is a clear power shift and we are witnessing something that will change the way the world works right in front of our eyes.

Before, people would stand in front of grocery stores and try to talk others into signing a petition. The result: a few signatures and a lot of awkward looks. Each of us has avoided “those people” who try to solicit their views. Now people we trust can click on the word “Share” on their friend’s Facebook status and immediately share it with all of their friends.

This is effective because of the trust factor. Friends trust their friends, not some stranger on the street advocating a cause. When a friend shares a message, we listen, we are more likely to believe it, and more likely to share the message with our friends because it is easy. It happens with a click of a button. I can click "share" on my profile and have over 2,500 friends in every continent read what I say and share it with their friends.

Social media is a worldwide phenomenon.

The New York Times even called the uprising in North Africa “A Facebook Revolution.” It offers a platform to say “you are not alone; see you in Tahrir Square [in Egypt].” The Egyptian government tried to paralyze the movement by shutting down the internet, but it was too late.

During the Iranian movement, Twitter even claimed that it had delayed scheduled downtime for maintenance because of Iranian protesters’ need for its service.

Facebook and Twitter cannot take credit alone for many uprisings, but it truly deserves due credit. Social media starts the idea, but the protests following take more than just a few clicks of a button. People need to take action. 


Social media connects the people and provides momentum. It empowers them.  

There is power in numbers. The numbers following a dollar sign are far less powerful now than numbers of people connected. There has been some clear power shift and the world will never be the same. 

America! America!

Sometimes it is easy to see America as an old man that once was a great leader watching all of the young ones prosper and grow as his body slowly deteriorates. We see the population go out in masses and getting arrested and tear gassed by the police, it is fiscally in bad shape, the leaders constantly badger each other and put each other down, and it seems as though the country is waiting for a miracle to happen to get the unemployment and housing market back up. 

Speaking on America, Umair Haque writes in the Harvard Business Review:

Consider this thought experiment. If you were really, really, really rich — say, not just part of the routinely opulent 1%, but a card-carrying member of the eye-poppingly decadent .01% — what part of your life would be American? If you had the money, I'd bet you'd drive a German car, wear British shoes and an Italian suit, keep your savings in a Swiss bank, vacation in Koh Samui with shopping expeditions to Cannes, fly Emirates, develop a palate for South African wine, hire a French-trained chef, buy a few dozen Indian and Chinese companies, and pay Dubai-style taxes.

Outside of the United States, a new generation is debuting — South Korea, China, India, Brazil and more. This is a good thing. As those countries prosper, hundreds of millions of people move from misery into decent lives.  These countries, like China seem to be doing so much better than the United States, and is our biggest creditor holding at least $1.115 trillion in U.S. debt. Are we doing that bad?

America is still a country where millions would love to flock. Can we be better? Of course. Do we need great leadership, without a doubt! There is a lack of hope in the country. The light that we felt when Obama was running for president has seemed to dim and it is easy to lack the luster we once felt. However, there is need for a reminder.

We can see how blessed we truly are when we look at what we do have in this country, not what we are missing. In this country we can worship freely, we can walk the streets and not be in the middle of a war, we can start a business; we have endless opportunities, and so much more. We have freedom. It is very easy to look at the dark side of things, but we must not keep our eyes shut to the good things we have.

This does not, by any means, say that we should keep our mouths shut about what needs to be improved. Just don’t forget be grateful. You may just find yourself happier.

No matter how much America seems to be struggling or how many view it with its many issues, I am utterly grateful for the opportunity to live in such a country and call myself a citizen. I am grateful that I can worship freely, that I can write this freely on a computer bought because of the freedoms that I have. I am grateful for this country despite its many faults. I am grateful to be an American.

There is much to be grateful for.

“O beautiful for heroes proved

In liberating strife.

Who more than self their country loved

And mercy more than life!

America! America!

May God thy gold refine

Till all success be nobleness

And every gain divine!”

-America the Beautiful

Is Herman Cain Insane?

If you worried that any man who named his business after a mafia don would have inordinate sympathies for gangsters and crooks, you would be forgiven.  When listening to Herman Cain’s praise of the banker crooks who, in his view “only want to help,” those suspicions would be confirmed.  Unfortunately for Mr. Cain, the problems of the real estate market and the economy in general are a little more complicated than a B gangster movie or a pizza joint.

Herman Cain, the owner of Godfather Pizza and presidential hopeful, told CNN in an interview his solution to stopping foreclosures in the United States. He said:

“Here’s how you encourage banks: Remove the barriers that are keeping them from doing business the way that they would want to. Most banks would want to renegotiate with people on their mortgages, but I’m telling you there are restrictions that are more government driven that are keeping them — I’ve had bankers tell me this. They didn’t give me a list of all the things that, you know, could be done. They want to help people, they really do.”

Let’s see: The same banks that gave tricky mortgages to those they knew couldn’t afford it, the same banks who tricked people into negative amortizing loans, and the same banks that exist simply to make a profit “really care about people.”

It is stated that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 (which removed barriers in the market among banking, insurance, and securities companies from consolidating and is said to have led to deregulation) and the Responsible Lending Act of 2005 (which was pushed by banks and removed strict state-level regulations against predatory lending) helped cause the housing crisis in the first place. 

When banks had the freedom to do as they wished, they qualified people for mortgages they couldn’t afford, required little or no documentation, and even approved people with bad credit.  Just in case you are confused like Mr. Cain, this was not done to help them.

Banks also hired so called robo-signers, a team people to sign off on hundreds or thousands of real estate documents a day without actually looking at any details of the particular real estate case.  Some of them didn’t even know what some of the terms in the documents meant. Again, this was not done to help the people; they were doing it clearly for a profit.  Banks have also lied about mortgage portfolios that they sold.

It is either that Mr. Cain truly has inordinate sympathies for gangsters and crooks (predatory lenders and unethical banks) or he is blind. Either way, this is not someone I want as the “boss” of the country.

Clearly, not all bankers are crooks, but all the wrongdoings in banks and on Wall Street help show us that capitalists are not all saints and that their actions have far-reaching effects. Common sense and a basic knowledge of this should show us the need for regulation; not a government takeover, but regulation. 

Banking was not the only sector to blame, however it doesn’t mean that it didn’t play a major part.

Mr. Cain, here is an analogy that may help you understand this:

Once upon a time there was a team of robbers known as the “Bank Crooks” who one day took a girls money and kicked her until she was down and severely hurt. The robbers were caught and put in jail. Then came a man named Sheriff Cain. He saw the girl limping and broke with no money. He quickly wanted to let the robbers out to help her.  

This is a simplistic view of a complex case, however it is simple logic. In the story Sheriff Cain is crazy and in real life, Herman Cain is crazy.

Suggestion for Mr.Cain:

1. Go to Google.com
2. Type in housing crisis
3. Do some research
4. Meet with experts
5. THEN go on national television and report

If your answer is still the same and you want to take away regulations from the banks, you may be known as Herman “Insane” Cain and you definitely should not be the president. 

Interesting Op-Ed's:

Advice for Gov't Leaders...

Leadership Required to Fix our Broken System... (Old, but still relevant?)

America: With God On Our Side...

Case For Being Unreasonable

Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.

 –George Bernard Shaw

After reading this quote, I wanted to see who the news was calling unreasonable.  When typing in unreasonable in Google News, I saw articles about Steve Jobs and Facebook.  Facebook and Steve Jobs did not adapt to the world, but took this world to another level.  This did not come without cost.  The battles and resistance that Mark Zuckerberg (Founder of Facebook) and Steve Jobs (Founder of Apple and Pixar) faced is dramatic. Despite opposition, these men's creations changed our lives.  


About Steve Jobs, Adam Savage (Host of Documentary on Jobs) said:

“Steve Jobs was an unreasonable man. He didn’t simply give the public what they wanted, he defined entirely new ways of thinking about our lives in the digital space." 

In the study of psychology, there have been many reasons put forward for such resistance to change. The single most important consideration would be the risk of change is greater than the risk of staying put. This is because while current practices have been tried and simulated on historical cases, a new practice requires one to venture into uncharted territories as there are no models for the new practice.

"Change is hard because people overestimate the value of what they have—and underestimate the value of what they may gain by giving that up."

— James Belasco and Ralph Stayer

Flight of the Buffalo (1994)

We stand in awe as we watch one person make a difference, but what we do not fully know is the courage that was required to stand against opposition.  Dramatic change does not come without its opposition. 

We now regard Galileo, an Italian astronomer, mathematician, physicist, and philosopher, as one of the “greatest scientific thinkers of all time.”  However, during his life in the early 1600s, due to his theory, courage and convictions which violated Catholic Church teachings that the Earth was not the center of the Universe, he spent the last years of his life under house arrest. Some people can’t help but look with discomfort or fear as someone goes against tradition.  

Is it worth it?

There cannot be leadership without courage.  It requires the unpopular decision sometimes, Aristotle called courage the first virtue, because it makes all of the other virtues possible. Thomas S. Monson said the everyone has fear, but it is people that face their fear with dignity that have courage. Despite fears, everyone has a desire to be courageous in some form and the ability to do so.  It takes courage to make a difference in one's own life.  It takes courage to stand in front of others and lead them in a world that is known to resist change. Courage, not fear progresses society forward.


Deep down inside, many of us look in awe wishing we had the courage to stand boldly with our deepest convictions and make history.  Whether it is fear of the unknown or because people overvalue what they have, there is always resistance when change is happening. That is why courage is a necessary aspect of leadership.  It is almost inevitable that there will be resistance, but if we want to make a change, we will need courage.  We will need to be "unreasonable."  

It is easier to find a score of men wise enough to discover the truth 

than to find one intrepid enough, in the face of opposition, to 

stand up for it. --A.A. Hodge

Raising the Anchor on LeaderShip Development.

Raising the Anchor on LeaderShip Development.

As we look at the life of Adolf Hitler, it is unbelievable how much one man can impact a generation.  The power he gained, that so many people were willing to follow him, gave him his place in history’s pages.  In many of the same history books, we read about Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and will one day read about Barack Obama.  The one thing each of these men has in common is leadership. Leadership does not necessarily mean a position.  There are many people that have held the title of President or other important positions in history, but we only read about a select few. Leadership is therefore distinct from "supervision" or what might be termed "headship (Jago)." It is through their leadership that they gained willing followers. Leadership is a real and vastly consequential phenomenon, perhaps the single most important issue in the human sciences.  It is one of the most important issues in applied psychology. Volumes appear on the topic every year, and a recent review lists over 7,000 books, articles, or presentations. Gaining a clearer understanding of leadership and its continuous evolution will help us be more prepared to understand the successes and failings in our society, most importantly, the necessity for leadership development. The impact that an individual or organization can have on society, both negatively and positively, can affect millions of people through their leadership however refined it may be.  Every person has an influence, whether great or small.  Parents need to lead their children, a teacher needs to lead her classes, clergy need to lead their congregation, and presidents need to lead their country.  In further understanding influence through leadership and its effects on society, we will see that leadership development is important enough that we do not casually seek it out, but we must strive for such development with a sense of urgency.

The primary focus in leadership concerns how to get people to willingly follow a great strategy or vision. Failure to do so often results in teams losing, armies defeated, economies dwindling, and nations failing. Although this post will not describe each leadership trait in its full capacity, it is important to gain a better understanding of what leadership behaviors consist of, what types of leaders there are, what qualities are necessary for effective leadership, and the different approaches to leadership.  Broadly speaking, the leaders in any complex modern social group, such as an army, a church, or a large industrial organization, are of three types:

(i) The man who maintains his authority mainly by virtue of the established social prestige attached to his position;

 (ii) The man who maintains his authority mainly by virtue of his personal capacity to impress and dominate his followers; and

 (iii) The man who maintains his authority mainly by Virtue of his personal capacity to express and persuade his followers.

The first is the institutional type, the second the dominant type, and the third the persuasive type.

Social psychologists assume that leaders are group members who: exert more influence than others; tend to be seen as more trustworthy, prestigious, valued, credible and fair; and who play the most important role in the group in terms of directing it towards its goals, holding the group together socially and emotionally, and inspiring and motivating members to work towards and live up to a collective vision anchored in a common identity. The key point, however, is that we seek to understand the causal processes which produce great outcomes. It may or may not be the case, for example, that a particular kind of leader or leadership style is more effective than another, but irrespective of whether leaders are effective or not, why do group members follow some people and not others? What are the processes which lead members to find a person or authority persuasive, credible, legitimate, likely to prove right, etc.?

Organizational success depends in part on effective leadership. For more than four decades, studies in diverse disciplines have established the significant influence that trust in leaders has on the behavior of followers and on team performance (Gomibuchi). Trust, although a vital key to effective leadership is not the only characteristic necessary for effective leadership. Effective leaders engage in both professional leadership behaviors (e.g. setting a mission, creating a process for achieving goals, aligning processes and procedures) and personal leadership behaviors (e.g. building trust, caring for people, acting morally) (Angelo). The main purpose of leadership is to obtain willing cooperation. “Willing” is a key term in this concept. Leadership is persuasion, not domination; persons who can require others to do their bidding because of their power are not leaders. Leadership only occurs when others willingly adopt, for a period of time, the goals of a group as their own (Hogan). A key element in obtaining willing cooperation is engaging members by creating a “benefit” for cooperation.  Willing cooperation is a dependent measure [for leadership] (Angelo). According to a study in The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, personal leadership (i.e demonstrating expertise, trust, caring, sharing and morals) and professional leadership (i.e. providing direction, process, and coordination) will be positively related to willing cooperation (Angelo). Willingly cooperating implies a conscious effort on behalf of a person to follow a particular individual or organization.  Leadership is expressed or displayed through interaction between people and necessarily implies its complement, "followership." For one to influence, another must permit himself to be influenced (Jago).

Leadership is not only some quality or characteristic that one possesses or is perceived to possess; it can be something that one does. It therefore can describe an act as well as a person. Leadership does not involve the use of force, coercion or domination and is not necessarily implied by the use of such titles as manager, supervisor, or superior (Jago). On the other hand, leadership can be used as an institutional symbol like a priest is to a church. If this is the case, the secret of his success depends mainly upon his doing nothing to disturb the social sentiments that are attached to certain established institutions of his group. Ultimately, this leader’s position is based on the coercion of the supervisors above him/her.  This situation can be seen in large institutions such as the relationship between priest and the church.  The minute a priest deviates from the teachings and the traditions of the church, he or she may be removed from their office because they no longer serve as the symbol for that institution. At an early age, I had an experience that taught me this lesson clearly. As the class president, I voiced my opinion about the strong resistance of the class I represented in the date and location of our prom.  It was going to be at a museum a month and a half earlier from graduation and many approached me to vocalize their opinions.  Upon approaching our advisors, I was quickly referred to the administration who cautioned me to “go with it and support them.”  Upon stating that my job was to represent the class and not the administration, I was, in a very sneaky way, quietly removed from office and replaced with someone who would do as they said. It was clear that my position was contingent on those in power and my alignment with authority, and my role was clearly as a symbol of the institution.

Alan Hooper, director of the Centre for Leadership Studies at the University of Exeter, says: “If someone wants to be a leader, you can develop it (Mark).” From the turn of the century through the 1940's leadership research was dominated by attempts to show that leaders possessed some intrinsic quality or characteristic that differentiated them from followers. The search was directed toward identifying that property possessed by the likes of Napoleon, Hitler, Abraham Lincoln,Martin Luther King, Jr., Gandhi, John F. Kennedy (and their lesser known counterparts in educational, military and industrial settings) that would ultimately prove to be the essence of successful and effective leadership. Research concentrated on the measurement and quantification of leadership traits and the relationship between such traits and criteria of leader effectiveness (Jago).  There are 8 major leadership theories: “Great Man” Theories, Trait Theories, Contingency Theories, Situational Theories, Behavioral Theories,  Participative Theories, Management Theories, and Relationship Theories. We can elaborate on each of these; however we will simply split them into two groups: Born Leader theories and developed leader theories. The first two theories focus on the thought that great leaders are born, not made. The following six theories focus on developmental theories that are found on the premise that great leaders are made. It may seem tempting to single out one perspective on leadership (or, more narrowly, one theory of leadership within a given perspective) as having contributed the greatest knowledge or as having the greatest practical utility. To make such a judgment, however, would inappropriately undervalue the very real contributions made in other approaches (Jago). There are characteristics that some are born with that enable them to have a greater capacity to lead, however there are also great leaders that are created. Even the leaders that are “born” need to continue to develop their talents.

Sarasate, the greatest Spanish violinist of the nineteenth century, was once called a genius by a famous critic. In reply to this, Sarasate declared, “Genius! For thirty-seven years I’ve practiced fourteen hours a day, and now they call me a genius.” –John Maxwell

Leadership is an evolving, dynamic process (Jago). As early as 386 BC, Plato initiated one of the first leadership training centers in the world, an institute he called the Academy. Now we have thousands of leadership books, seminars, and gurus such as Anthony Robbins giving guidance across the world.  Leadership has changed as cultures have evolved.  The world is becoming more complex, and it is more important than ever to develop leadership capacity and to help leaders understand the profound societal and global interconnects (Smith). There are fundamental characteristics to leadership, some of which were described earlier; however as technology, culture, and people change, leaders must gain a better understanding of the most effective way to lead the particular generation or constituency they hope to receive willing cooperation from.  The world is more interconnected now that the internet and social media, such as Facebook, give many more people a platform to share their voice.  These changes affect everyone.  

Many parents whose responsibility to lead their children who have access to technology and media they know nothing about, have a difficult time adequately influencing their children. If one does not understand this evolution of culture, then he or she will not be effective as a leader. Valarie Joyce Smith, a professor of leadership at the Royal Roads University in Canada, observed that [leaders] current understanding of leadership is the best and therefore, the basis for the most effective way to lead. In other words their current beliefs about leading others are held to be the only truth about leadership. For example, an autocratic  leader who uses power and control to get work done and a human-centered leader who uses consensus to engage people in work  both believe their values and style are the most effective and maybe the only way to lead. Then when conditions change in their sphere and new leadership values emerges, the old values are left behind or possibly integrated into a new understanding that becomes the basis for the new most effective way to lead (Smith). As the famous poet Maya Angelou says simply, “If they know better, than they can do better.”  So in order to cultivate a society of better leaders, one must understand the importance of leadership development. Some leaders stay at the same understanding of leadership their entire careers and others move through several leadership paradigms (Smith). The understanding of the change that Facebook alone has created can give someone insight to the important role of development in leadership.  Furthermore, this shows us that culture changes, and people who do not continue in their development of leadership will find that they are merely speaking or wasting their energies, not leading.

There is also a change in who the people want to follow on a macro level.  Historically we have had different structures including kings and rulers, the church, and democracy. Over time, organizations have evolved from those with an authoritarian style to ones with a more comfortable work environment, and then to organizations where people are empowered, encouraged, and supported in their personal and professional growth.  The Industrial Revolution shifted America’s economy from an agriculture base to an industrial one and, thereby, ushered in a change in how leaders would treat their followers. The Industrial Revolution created a paradigm shift to a new theory of leadership in which “common” people gained power by virtue of their skills (Clawson, 1999). New technology, however, was accompanied and reinforced by mechanization of human thought and action, thus creating hierarchical bureaucracies (Morgan, 1997).  In the 1980s a new view of leadership began to come to life, one still being developed. The central view is that leadership is a group process and depends on the existence of a shared social identity between the leader and other group members. This view offers an explanation of the underlying psychological processes that make leadership possible.  This type of connection is important in our day as technology continues to influence the individual or organization trying to lead.  Times change and we now see that common people now have a voice while some who used to dominate in power have lost a lot of it.  An individual or small group of individuals could have a big positive or negative impact, such as those who helped initiate the Occupy Wall Street Protests or the Catholic church who does not have the power it once had, as it used to institute its own laws, lands, and taxes. Each must adapt and learn to develop itself to have willing cooperation from the people.

Interestingly, “leadership development” often focuses on the professional side of leadership, such as a focus on communication, time management, and performance management. Research suggests that organizations would benefit from training and development on the personal side of leadership (Angelo). If an individual or organization seeks to implement leadership development, which is essential for progressive success, there is no shortage of who is willing to offer that training.  If “leadership development training” is typed into a search engine, hundreds of “developers” will offer their services.  Some begin with self-assessments, culture and climate training, human behavior models, motivational tips, among many.  This is not a discussion on how to develop leadership, but in understanding the importance of development. Once it is clear that such is necessary, one can shop around for the training.

Every worthwhile accomplishment has a price tag attached to it. The question is always whether you are willing to pay the price to attain it – in hard work, sacrifice, patience, faith, and endurance. – John C. Maxwell

The effect that leadership has on society is profound.  There were always “good” leaders and “bad leaders” as we can see from the hesitancy set forth by Plato (1952) and other moral philosophers such as Aristotle (1985), Aquinas (1963), Pascal (1990), Locke (1971).  It takes leadership to be both a Somali warlord who is trying to bring together a group of clansmen to control food supplies and an inner-city Chicago minister who is trying to bring together a group of parishioners to help the homeless (Hogan). At the historical level one might reflect on the horrific consequences of the leadership of Adolph Hitler in Germany from 1933 to 1945 and Joseph Stalin in Russia from 1927 to 1953. Millions of people suffered and died as a consequence of the visions of these two flawed geniuses, and the consequences of their rule persist even today (Hogan). Also, the fact that Lincoln’s army was inert until Ulysses S. Grant assumed command and that some coaches can move from team to team transforming losers into winners is, for most people, evidence that leadership matters (Hogan). There is no doubt that strong leaders make all the difference.  The more clearly this is understood, the more proactive an individual or organization will be in seeking leadership development.

Becoming a leader is never defined by one single event or act. It is who we have become that can make it seem that an individual moment defines our leadership (Timothy). Jokingly, Eddie Cantor, a comedian stated a profound truth: “It takes twenty years to make an overnight success.” Leadership development is a process and a journey, but it is only a journey if we decide to take that path. Everyone from parents, to teachers, to clergy, to world leaders need to develop good leadership.  People and culture change through time and this generation is a different generation to lead.  It will take a different type of parenting, teaching, ministering, and inspiring to reach this generation than it has previously. Leadership is valuable and necessary and leadership development is an undertaking of great importance.  

Angelo Mastrangelo, Erik R Eddy, and Steven J Lorenzet. "The importance of personal and professional leadership. " Leadership & Organization Development Journal  25.5/6 (2004): 435. ABI/INFORM Global, ProQuest. Web.  8 Oct. 2011.

Christopher Day. The passion of successful leadership, School

Leadership & Management, 24:4 (2004), 425-437

Gomibuchi, Seishi. "Trust and Leadership." Sage Journals Online. Political Science. Web. 08 Oct. 2011. <http://pnz.sagepub.com/content/56/2/27.short>.

Hogan, Robert, Gordon J. Curphy, and Joyce Hogan. "What we Know about Leadership: Effectiveness and Personality." American Psychologist 49.6 (1994): 493,493-504. PsycINFO. Web. 8 Oct. 2011.

Jago, Arthur. "Leadership: Perspectives in Theory and Research." Management Science 28.3 (1982): 315-36. JStor. INFORMS. Web. 8 Oct. 2011. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2630884>.

King, Andrew J., Mark Van Vugt, and Dominic D.P. Johnson. "The Origins and Evolution of Leadership." Current Biology 19.19 (2009): R911-916. USC Libraries :: Electronic Resources :: E-Journals & E-Books. Web. 08 Oct. 2011. <http://zb5lh7ed7a.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004>.

Mark Whitehead.  "Everyone's a leader now. " Supply Management  25 Apr. 2002: ABI/INFORM Global, ProQuest. Web.  8 Oct. 2011.

Smith, Valerie Joyce. "The Evolution of Leadership." Royal Roads University (Canada), 2002. Canada: ProQuest.Web. 8 Oct. 2011.

Timothy A Shepherd.  "Everyone is a Leader. " Resource  1 Jan. 2005: Social Science Module, ProQuest. Web.  8 Oct. 2011.