Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Traits of An Effective Leader

Leadership is a process of influencing and motivating others to accomplish a certain task. However, it does not simply mean that a leader would just instruct his subordinates and command them of what they should do. Leadership is also about setting the balance between ruling and serving. He has to learn how to accept ideas from others and how to communicate with everyone for a better outcome. An effective leader does not conquer but rather acts as the organizer of the group. All great leaders have something unique about them and yet they were bound by greatness that helped them to lead masses to innovation and new ideologies.
Since the oldest times known to men, masses have been led by efficient leaders. Such men and women have been responsible for guiding their people into a new and more modern world as we know of it now. Although times have changed, the contributions of these great leaders cannot be forgotten and although practices and ways of doing things have changed as well, the ways of these great leaders cannot be overlooked. What made them great might still be applicable in today’s day and age. But what are the effective traits of being a great leader?

1. A leader must be decisive. One of the most basic duties of any leader is to make decisions. Highly effective leaders aren’t afraid to be decisive and to make tough calls quickly when circumstances require it. Once you have all the information you need to make an informed decision, then don’t hesitate--make it. And once you make a decision, then stick with it unless there is a particularly compelling reason for you to change it.

Hyperlink:http://www.inc.com/peter-economy/7-traits-highly-effective-leaders.html



   2. An effective leader knows how to motivate. A motivational leader enjoys their task. They are optimistic about their purpose.  Change requires taking risks, personal growth and challenges.  A motivational leader does not back down from a challenge but is willing to lead the way as an inspirational leader.
   





3.  A leader knows how to be fair in judgment. Fairness means dealing with others consistently and justly. A leader must check all the facts and hear everyone out before passing judgment. He or she must avoid leaping to conclusions based on incomplete evidence. When people feel they that are being treated fairly, they reward a leader with loyalty and dedication.
       

  4. An effective leader is a visionary. A leader must be a dreamer.   A productive leader is someone who can see into the future.  The challenge for every visionary leader is not to get so far ahead of the team in what they see that they leave them behind, lost, wandering about the future direction.  A visionary is a dreamer but they are also a strong communicator of their dream. Effective leadership has certain, basic, visionary, characteristics. The aim of a strong leader is to translate their “vision” into reality.


5. A good leader must know how to communicateCommunication is essential for a leader to relate his vision to the group. It is needed so that everyone would have the same goal though they are given variety of tasks to accomplish. More so, a leader does not decide on matters alone but also considers the sentiments of others. He knows how to listen to his subordinates and is always open to new suggestions and ideas. 




6. A leader rules by example. A leader walks what he talks. An effective leader practice what he preaches and becomes responsible with his action. Assuming that everybody is observing him, he must serve as a role model for others to be inspired and imitate his actions.  Hyperlink: http://www.soulcraft.co/essays/lead_by_example.html

7. A leader must be committed. A true leader must be committed to his duties. Being committed can mean being hardworking. An effective loves his work and does his tasks in an excellent way. By showing this positive trait to is employees, he earns the respect of workers. They too become motivated as they see their leader or "boss" as a role model. When a leader is committed to his job, all other positive traits will follow. He will be honest and truthful. He would also be able.to influence his colleagues in a positive way. There will be no corruption as the leader becomes very dedicated to his work. There is passion for his job.


8. A leader must know how to be funny at times in order to lighten up the mood of the task. Everyone wants a leader who is funny and showing that there is happiness even in the toughest times. No one ever wants a leader who gives hard tasks, always serious, and expects you to do things perfectly in time. And becoming a hilarious leader gives positive motivation to the group and higher chances that they would want you more as their leader.



World Leaders with their Commendable Gestures

1. Jose Mujica

     
     He has been described as "the world's 'humblest' president", due to his austere lifestyle and his donation of around 90 percent of his $12 000 monthly salary to charities that benefit poor people and small entrepreneurs.



2. Pope Francis 


Jorge Mario Bergoglio, famously known as Pope Francis, could be considered an effective leader. He his gestures are just simple but it made great impact to others. Being the leader of the whole Catholic Church, he showed great humility and simplicity which gave the world a different perspective in life. He uses a simple car when travelling, rides the “pope mobile” with the bulletproof glass covering and washes the feet of young prisoners. His openness to everyone, even to non-Catholics reflected from his actions towards the people. He also has this possible outlook in life believing in the capabilities the world has. These attitudes possessed by the Pope gave him the popularity he has now and the confidence of the laity.

Hyperlink: http://www.forbes.com/sites/margiewarrell/2013/08/28/lead-from-the-heart-then-the-head-a-lesson-from-pope-francis/


3. Sec. Jesse Robredo

When Jesse became the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government, he elevated his Naga City initiatives on transparency and accountability to the national level by issuing a memorandum circular requiring all local government units and the DILG regional offices to fully disclose their financial transactions and operations.

4. Nelson Mandela


He was the first African American to be elected in a democratic country. Although imprisoned for 30 years, this did not stop his idea of anti-apartheid movements. He was against racism. This only proved his commitment to his idea because being in prison did not become a hindrance for him to be successful or to achieve his goal of equality. Other traits of Nelson Mandela are determination, persistence, focus, and will. He became very famous as he was able to unite and motivate not only his countrymen but also other citizens from around the world. His life became an inspiring one and he was considered as legendary.

5. Mahatma Gandhi

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, better known as Mahatma Gandhi, was born an ordinary boy with a determination to excel at what he did. After completing law from London, he became the most important part of the Indian freedom struggle against the colonial rule.  His policy of non-violence and protest through civil disobedience eventually succeeded when he led his country to freedom in 1947.





6.    Julius Caesar

Easily one of the greatest military leaders of all time, Caesar was also one of the best political leaders the world has ever seen. He led several campaigns with numerous victories and was single handedly responsible for the expansion of the Roman Empire. He was also responsible for reforming the Roman government and thus laying the foundation to a great empire.




7.    Alexander, The Great

Known as the Man Who Conquered The World, Alexander the Great is often said to be the greatest military leader of all time. He was born in 356 BC and by the age of 33, he had the largest empire in the history which stretched from Greece to Egypt to India. He was the king of the Kingdom of Macedonia and perhaps, he was the greatest military commander to have ever lived. He did the noble deed of unifying many Greek city states. He was undefeated in battle and succumbed to malaria and died in 323 BC. His fortes were his foresight, vision and military capabilities.















Saturday, January 17, 2015

Thoughts about the Charlie Hebdo Attack...



Source: https://ionenewsone.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/charlie_hebdo_640x426.jpg

                 
On Wednesday of January 7, a group of terrorists attacked the offices of Satirical Magazine/Newspaper Charlie Hebdo and killed 12 cartoonists including the editor of the said newspaper. Charlie Hebdo, a French Magazine where 12 people were slain, was renowned for publishing content that ridiculed Muhammad, the founder of Islam.

Never fight fire with fire

In our opinion, both parties (Charlie Hebdo and the terrorists) have their equal share of faults regarding this issue. Charlie Hebdo made a provocative deed (through ridiculing Prophet Muhammad) that lit the fire burning within the terrorists’ soul. While the terrorists’ response on the other hand, is not quite acceptable because they responded with violence. Yes, they only did something morbid because they have been provoked, provoked that others are making fun of their religious leader. Just like what Pope Francis set as an example, imagine if someone made fun of your mom, your most immediate response is to punch that person, right? That explains why the terrorists resulted with such an act of killing. BUT, killing still isn’t justifiable. There are still many other ways on how to resolve this issue and violence isn’t one of them. NEVER FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE. A mistake will never correct another mistake that has been committed. It will just worsen the situation so what’s left is that, it never did any good to their religion plus they’ve already killed a lot of people. To think that killing is also against the laws of their faith. They should have thought of other ways to stop Charlie Hebdo in peaceful ways, not in a foul play.

Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cartoonists-world-respond-charlie-hebdo-attack-gallery-1.2070944


Free speech has its limits

The fault of Charlie Hebdo is that, it went far more than its freedom of speech. Yes, we all have the right to liberty in expressing our ideas and thoughts but not to the point that we would sort to ridiculing other peoples’ religion. “Free speech does not imply total license to insult or offend another’s faith…” They should have kept in mind the limitations of their newspaper when it comes to expressing. If only they’ve learned to respect others’ religion that would have never happened to them. As Pope Francis has said, “One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people’s faith, one cannot make fun of faith.” Respect begets respect. If they have only known what respect is, there would have been no bloodbath. 

Source: http://palmertalk.blogspot.com/2012/09/limitations-on-free-speech-color.html

We should never ridicule someone else's religion just for the sake of entertainment...

Freedom of speech has its limitations. It is indeed our right to voice out our opinions and ideas but we should always keep in mind if these opinions and ideas would hurt anybody. Not all opinions should be voiced-out in public. There are those which we have to keep to ourselves especially if these concern the faith and religion of other people. We should always remember that we have to respect others' rights in order for us to be respected as well. Freedom of speech should not be used to condemn others but should be a tool for us to make a significant change in other peoples’ lives. Let us bear in mind that although we have the right to freedom of speech, we should never abuse this right. Always be mindful of the consequences of voicing out our opinions. 

Commentary on how the news was presented:

Source: https://ph.images.search.yahoo.com/images/view
Media is all around us. In our generation today, we can have access to media from any source. With just holding our phone, media is already at the tip of our fingers. If we’re walking down the streets, we can already see newspapers, wide screens, and billboard ads which will provide us all sorts of information that we need to know and we would want to know. Even through our tablets and iPods, media can be reached. Indeed, one cannot say that he is deprived of information because whether you’re not looking for it, it will just come to you because of what media can do. But the question is, does media really provide you the information you need to know? Or the information they want you to know?

Just recently, the Charlie Hebdo attack has been on the news. Media played a huge role of disseminating information so that people would know what really happened. We will discuss here how the news was presented by various known media.

The article from BBC news narrated specific details about the Charlie Hebdo attack. It was explained on how the terrorists entered the offices of the said magazine company and how they murdered the writers, cartoonists, and other staff. It also revealed what route they took after, what they did, and how they were captured and killed by the police officers. The point of view was taken from that of the reporter. As we can see, the content of this article is objective because it presented only the actual events or what actually happened in the incident. The way the news was demonstrated was neutral, showing no criticism on both parties.

This is link of the news article:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30708237 



The next article tackled about the effects of the Charlie Hebdo attack to the society. We can see that it showed strong objection against terrorism and favored the victims of the said attack. It also presented different personalities who opposed terrorism and believed that there’ s no reason, no matter how serious it can be, would  justify such crime(Charlie Hebdo attack).





On the other hand, this articlepresented informa- tion about the key figures of the Charlie Hebdo attack, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi. It narrated things about their family and how they grew up. It also discussed the different characteristics of the two through the information provided by the people around them back then. We could say that the article showed sympathy to the Charlie Hebdo attackers.



The article presented the side of the Muslims. It stated the point of view of Muslims wherein they said that they are against terrorism but also opposes those who mock their religion. It clearly showed that people should not generalize all Muslims just because of what 2 Muslim terrorists did. This article discussed how Muslims defended themselves from the tendency of the society to generalize and see them as people of criminals or terrorists.



In the Charlie Hebdo attack, media covered the issue in a very diverse way. Some sympathized for the familes of the 12 people who were killed, some defended the side of the Muslims saying that they only sorted out to such crime because they just want to defend prophet Mohammad, and some favored no side because they believe that both are at fault. It's just up to us people to decide if we'll let media control our beliefs or not. 

We can't really tell which ones are purely made up of truth, but we do have say on which ones are worth believing.