To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzes reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Nearly all of the examples given within the book are taken out of context and evaulated biased to the desired perspective of the writers. The summary of some (many) stories contradicts the intended persuasion of the topic. Such lack of awareness in failed clarity is great for a 'leadership' cultish mindset but not actually guide the leaders to exercise the specific skills to actually portray the MSC leader persona that the writers are trying to convey. Unfortunately, it's just another one of that ' self-help by generality' rather than by 'skills'. For example, "successful people are determined" or "true following comes from self-awareness as a leader". These sound more like ideologies that people would nod their heads to but not actually true to what the outcome of reality. In the book, the anecdotal situations mentioned, a banker who's successful in his banking industry and a department head in a Health ministry of some country, all accomplished their success without the MSC leadership approach, and only after they have become successful in their career, then they had the time to venture into this meditative lifestyle....which means....they were successful leader in accomplishments first before they can be reflective leader for the sake of...well....better personal wellness?
I wanted to like The Mind of a Leader: How to Lead Yourself, Your People, And Your Organization for Extraordinary Results to be a good book. The Amazon reviews were all four and five stars. I liked the basic premise of the book: you need to lead yourself before you can lead others. I read articles by authors and they were pretty good.
The book, alas, was not pretty good. It was not good. It was awful. Here’s why I didn’t finish this awful book.
The authors stated their claims without supporting them. In the introduction, they say they worked with several colleagues and several companies “utilizing the practices of mindfulness.” They claim “The outcomes have been thoroughly researched and proven to deliver remarkable results.”
That’s great, but what was the research? What were the remarkable results? Work with clients is not research, it’s work with clients. If that work produces remarkable results those results can be the starting point for research.
Then the authors say they asked themselves what leaders need beyond mindfulness, and they surveyed and assessed over 30,000 leaders from thousands of companies and over 100 countries. They interviewed some leaders. And then they say this.
“Based on this research, we have conclusively found that three mental qualities stand out as being foundational.”
That’s a good statement of what they concluded, but it’s not a description of what they did and how they reached their conclusion. It’s sloppy and self-promotional.
The authors use common leadership terms in unconventional ways. They say internal drivers of intrinsic motivation are “meaningful engagement, connectedness, and feeling valued.” That ignores the work of Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, who have been researching intrinsic motivation since the 1970s. According to their research, and other research supporting their Self-Determination Theory, key drivers of intrinsic motivation are autonomy, relatedness, and competence.
There’s no reason the authors of The Mind of a Leader have to agree with that. They can come up with something different. If you’re writing a business book where what you say conflicts with other, well-established, research you owe it your reader, to tell me how you differ and how you reached your conclusion.
Another example is their use of the term “flow.” According to the authors, “When you’re focused but on autopilot, your state of mind can be described as being in ‘flow.’”
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, the researcher who coined the term flow, defines flow as total absorption in what you’re doing. That’s very different from being on autopilot. Again, there’s no reason the authors can’t differ with Csikszentmihalyi. Just tell me why you differ.
Again and again, I got angry with the authors. Finally, I quit reading. If facts, research, and clear explanations of reasoning are important to you, skip this book