“Great leaders don’t do it alone� “Great leaders know how to delegate and empower.� (Shep Hyken, Only the Best on Leadership) Leaders realize that they can’t do everything, so they need people to implement their ideas. Especially in a team work, leaders play a key role on distributing the works to others in fulfilling team’s tasks. But, what’s the principle that the leader should use? How to let people to do their works? Kouzes & Posner provided the answer. In the words of Kouzes & Posner, “thus the most effective leadership situations are those in which each member of the team trusts the others.� In my view, it is a fundamental rule in leadership. Also, it reminds me of the same idea about leadership in ancient China. Chen Liang（１１４３～１１９４） noted, “never doubt the person you hire, never hire the person you doubt.� These insights are very important to us, because “when you creat a climate of trust, you take away the controls and allow people to be free to innovate and contribute. Trusting leaders nurture openness, involvement, personal satisfaction, and high levels of commitment to excellence.� (Kouzes & Posner)

I love the quote Bryan contributed: “to be a bridge in the community, sometimes you have to allow yourself to be walked on.� How true.

Many times throughout my career I've needed to give in to others, against my better judgment, to allow a more important issue to be accepted. It's good to pick your battles and let the other ones go.

As well, perhaps your battle may not be the best solution for the common good. Taking time to think through things is essential, especially as a leader. It's easy, otherwise, to be viewed as one who believes "it's my way or the highway," even when you sincerely believe you're correct. I often give on the smaller issues (making mistakes over time has taught me that wisdom, although even today sometimes it's easy to forget).

I try hard to determine how important the issue is. If the decision won't hurt, break or injure anyone or anything that much in the long run, then I tend to give in to folks when I see resistance to my thoughts.

Don't give me any kudos for this contribution -- I've messed up plenty of times! It's easier to look at things from the outside than when in the middle of issues.

In this same vein of collaboration vs. individual advantage, I have been involved with a variety of pieces of proposed legislation over the past five years. One bill in particular has been promoted by a progressive legislator for several years in a row and has never made it out of committee. This legislator has been a tireless advocate and a national leader on the issue; thus has deep passion and commitment to the bill.

This year, local advocates wanted a more "middle-of-the-road" legislator to carry it forward hoping that a new champion would inspire greater support of the bill. It's a tactic that has a proven track record of success.

Still, as you may assume, the original author who has been promoting it is not amenable to the idea of letting it go---even though it would increase the likelihood of successful adoption.

How do you think you would respond as a leader? Could you let go of your "baby"?

Dear Janelle -- You pose a question that is, to me, at the heart of the difference between hierarchical behavior and shared-power-world behavior. I respond from three perspectives this morning: as a mother of two teenagers who are popping their flight feathers fast and furiously; as a Humphrey Institute MPA graduate student; and as a participant and observer in public policy over the past 25 years. All three learning laboratories have provided abundant evidence that the best methods for ensuring a "baby" reaches full potential are collaborative, not unilateral. According to scholars in child development and leadership, each individual changes his or her own mind according to a unique chemistry of motivations, learning opportunities, and abilities. K&P propose leadership tactics that respect all parties involved.

The Minnesota legislature is a fascinating place. I do not claim expertise about any one issue or that process, for it changes all the time. Across 25 years, I've come to be acquainted with a significant number of people who serve roles like structural "warp" threads in that process, and many, many more who play roles more like "weft" threads that contribute to the overall design. The Constitution ensures that every legislative biennium (two sessions across two years) generally looks the same from a distance, like a collection of native-woven rugs hanging on the roadside a half-mile away. But get closer, and there are distinct patterns in each one made by intricate choices that got made, as well as those that were abandoned, along the way. Some of it is preordained; legislative leaders and their staffs are responsible, legally, for conducting the state's business within a timeframe allowed by the Constitution in collaboration with the Executive Branch that must administer the programs (structure) they authorize (mission), fund (resources), and entrust with expectations (accountability). Anyone who wants to engage with public policy is wise to study what already exists, legislators and citizens alike. Too few invest the time, unfortunately. Crosby & Bryson call it "leadership in context," the ability to position within highly complex factors that are -- like it or not -- beyond individual control. It's worth a session with Nutt's text, "Why Decisions Fail," or the policy change cycle sections of "Leadership for the Common Good" to discipline understanding about why something didn't work before rushing to a new solution that may also not work.

Every two years, 201 legislators come to the new biennium with a pile of ideas. Over 2,000 typically make it into bill form with a number. Your metaphor is about letting go of those babies and mine is about weaving those threads into an emerging design that is somewhat pre-ordained. We're talking about the same thing: what leadership capabilities will successfully raise this issue? With a nod to the importance of Noddings research about caring, I might suggest that you determine what the players in this situation actually care about. This issue seems to be "stirring" around in one of Terry's zones of reality. To answer his thesis question, you need to figure out, "What is really going on?" with each person, each organization, and the issue as it sits in the big picture.

Does this individual legislator care about their own credit with a small or big win, or the issue itself? Is their mood angry or analytical about the bill not prevailing yet again? Is this leader looking backward to learn from the past, as we are advised, willing to transfer knowledge to you, or not? Has this person been developing more effective leadership capabilities better suited to the current realities, or doing more of what hasn't worked before?

I will look forward to hearing more over the coming weeks as you assemble a perspective on this complex, and interesting, situation!