<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Builder&#8217;s Manifesto: Breaking Free from 20th Century Leadership</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thesocialleader.com/2009/12/builders-manifesto-breaking-free-20th-century-leadership/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thesocialleader.com/2009/12/builders-manifesto-breaking-free-20th-century-leadership/</link>
	<description>Empowering Ordinary Citizens to Achieve Extraordinary Greatness</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 05:45:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dale</title>
		<link>http://www.thesocialleader.com/2009/12/builders-manifesto-breaking-free-20th-century-leadership/comment-page-1/#comment-3297</link>
		<dc:creator>Dale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:20:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thesocialleader.com/?p=1544#comment-3297</guid>
		<description>I thought the article was overall a great article. More so, from your overview perspective and the concept of adding the competency of &quot;builders.&quot; However, there are some fallacies in argument (e.g. implied definition) regarding leadership itself or what specifically is 20th Century leadership is defined as (noting that there are many arguable theories of leadership). Second, the fallacy in implied definition in the assumption that all organizations are broken or do not work. While we are seeing many examples of this in both government and the corporate world, there are a few examples of innovative and collaborative organizations that are working well. It could be argued that the examples given for builders, are just another type of leader, or a type of transformational and authentic leader that has embraced a vision, and has the courage to follow through with action imho.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought the article was overall a great article. More so, from your overview perspective and the concept of adding the competency of &#8220;builders.&#8221; However, there are some fallacies in argument (e.g. implied definition) regarding leadership itself or what specifically is 20th Century leadership is defined as (noting that there are many arguable theories of leadership). Second, the fallacy in implied definition in the assumption that all organizations are broken or do not work. While we are seeing many examples of this in both government and the corporate world, there are a few examples of innovative and collaborative organizations that are working well. It could be argued that the examples given for builders, are just another type of leader, or a type of transformational and authentic leader that has embraced a vision, and has the courage to follow through with action imho.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Donna</title>
		<link>http://www.thesocialleader.com/2009/12/builders-manifesto-breaking-free-20th-century-leadership/comment-page-1/#comment-3292</link>
		<dc:creator>Donna</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:18:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thesocialleader.com/?p=1544#comment-3292</guid>
		<description>Great article, he is shifting from issues to forms and this was great 4th to 1st turning thinking. 

I feel progressivism is a passe relic as it looks at change at any cost and is blind to its own Utopian flaws. It is poor form.  Even so, it has media to give it gloss and sell it.

The challenge is to learn from the past, understand human nature, and understand the true nature of things. If builders do not, the forms they built will be faulty.  Worldview impacts the forms we build. So, as with all building, the foundation is crucial. Build yes, but upon rock, not sand.

Thanks for the great article!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great article, he is shifting from issues to forms and this was great 4th to 1st turning thinking. </p>
<p>I feel progressivism is a passe relic as it looks at change at any cost and is blind to its own Utopian flaws. It is poor form.  Even so, it has media to give it gloss and sell it.</p>
<p>The challenge is to learn from the past, understand human nature, and understand the true nature of things. If builders do not, the forms they built will be faulty.  Worldview impacts the forms we build. So, as with all building, the foundation is crucial. Build yes, but upon rock, not sand.</p>
<p>Thanks for the great article!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike W.</title>
		<link>http://www.thesocialleader.com/2009/12/builders-manifesto-breaking-free-20th-century-leadership/comment-page-1/#comment-3291</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike W.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:12:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thesocialleader.com/?p=1544#comment-3291</guid>
		<description>Steve, 

That article is fantastic. Thanks for pointing me to it. The current view of leader is broken and needs to be re-defined as Mr. Haque states. I especially like the contrast between Bernanke and Yunnus.

Great piece.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Steve, </p>
<p>That article is fantastic. Thanks for pointing me to it. The current view of leader is broken and needs to be re-defined as Mr. Haque states. I especially like the contrast between Bernanke and Yunnus.</p>
<p>Great piece.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

