These chapters, for that fact the entire book, is about humility. Humility is a concept that the United States has difficulty grasping. We have a tendency to believe that humility is allowing everyone to tread all over us. It is not that at all. The majority of the greatest leaders were humble. Humility is being able not to think of yourself higher than what you really are. The chapter on Being the Board is difficult to grasp if you are trying to play the game. If you are playing the game, then you have your own interest at heart. The board is there, evaluating and sometimes allowing consequences to happen. I think that part was missing in the book. The board has certain consequences in it in games such as Monopoly and Life. The board is the framework that the game is being played. When we play Monopoly, we evaluate were things are before we buy real estate. If we just bought several houses and hotels in hope of catching our opponent, but do not leave enough money for the dreaded street repair bill card, then we quickly downsize. Our opponent did nothing to us, but the framework of the game did. We need to continually look at the framework that surrounds our life and even become it in order to become successful and enjoy all that life has to offer.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteLike you, I felt the overriding theme of the end of The Art of Possibility was somewhat humbling compared to the rest of the book. The first two thirds of the reading heavily carry the tone of self-empowerment and self-realization, while the last third puts the rest of the book back into perspective. There are many leaders who function in their positions forgetting that their leadership exists within the context of a greater collective. And, without the enrollment and support of that collective, a leader ends up being more of a solo artist, compared to one who thinks of themselves in the context of those who they lead.
Interesting take on being the board. Most definitely there are scenarios that play out that seem to have nothing to do with the other "players"... making the board itself a "player." Interesting. It's, again, a balance between measurement and possibility, and, in your example, opening our vision of potential beyond what we think of as the other players. Interesting.
ReplyDelete