 Do an individual relational meeting with yourself and/or     have an experienced organizer do one with you. What are your principal public interests? Who do you know who shares these interests? Who do you know of with whom you might be able to get a meeting either yourself or with help from someone you know? What would you like to accomplish in relation to these interests and these people? This should allow you to identify at least one and hopefully 3-5 possible arenas. Choose among them based on your degree of interest, access, and aims.  Begin with someone you know, or someone that someone you know can connect you with. Failing that, begin with someone in your arena of interest who is in a publically identifiable leadership role but not inaccessible.  Get as much background on them as possible  Google  Person referring  Observation  Begin with where they are …  Good first questions include:  So what brought you (to this neighborhood, city, country, etc; to organization X, to working in field Y)  Questions which build off something you have noticed in their office.  Questions which praise an achievement and ask how they did it (then probe for why).  Ask agitational questions  Get their story/stories  Be interested. If you are not you may as well leave.  Probe using more agitational questions:     Why did you do that? What are/were you trying to accomplish? Who helped you? What did you learn?  Keep the questions appropriate to what is going on (don’t just pull them off a set list; it should be a conversation).  Especially in second and later meetings you should reinterpret what the person has said in a way that lays the groundwork for a further relationship.  Have you ever thought of …?  Would you be interested in meeting other people who have similar interests?  What would you do if someone asked you to …?  Or, if they are already acting or moving toward action ask:  What do you plan to do?  What would help?  Who would help?  End before the meeting is over.  Thank the person for their time.  Ask who else you should be talking to.  Followers are interested only in their own problems, have few public relationships and will only act to resolve problems that affect them personnally.  Tertiary leaders understand that their problems also affect other people and are connected to related problems. They have followers and will act on problems affecting those in their network.  Secondary leaders understand that particular problems are manifestations of much broader problems. They have networks of tertiary and other secondary leaders who they mobilize to address these broader problems. They organize issue campaigns and create movements.  Primary leaders are interested in principles and values. They have networks of primary, secondary, and tertiary leaders. They conserve, build, or transform enduring organizations or major institutions.  A broad vision, and a well developed set of principles and values. This doesn’t necessarily mean being a scholar or even formally educated; it does mean engaging big picture questions.  A network which includes at least some secondary leaders who are themselves able to “turn out” substantial numbers of people for actions which are not part of the ordinary activities of their organizations and which are explicitly aimed at affecting change.  They work to build organizations and institutions which embody and promote their principles and values over the longue duree.  An interest in broad problems which go beyond the ordinary functioning of their organizations. They want to change things, often in a really big way, but they do not have the breadth of perspective regarding where these issues fit in the big picture which characterizes primary leaders.  Spontaneously they tend to have networks of other secondary leaders. These networks tend to support each other’s “causes” without actually building a mass base. Secondary leaders can be trained to build networks of tertiary leaders who can tap into the interests of ordinary people and build a much larger base.  They often see themselves as part of a movement (political, religious, social, etc.)  Interested in problems. These may be very complex and important like climate change or renewable energy or very simple and concrete. But even if the problem is big they approach it technically rather than politically (by looking for a better way to do things rather than building power and changing policies or structures or civilizational ideals)  Have followers, generally spontaneously recruited, who they can turn out in small numbers for actions outside the ordinary functioning of their organization, because of personal ties or because people respect their work.  Primary Leaders: Institutions which are defined by a set of principles and values (religious institutions, political parties which are ideologically defined, some labor, civic, and fraternal organizations).  Secondary Leaders: Organizations focused on effecting change on one or more concrete issues.  Remember that people can lead based on any of the various forms of power or a combination thereof: organized money, organized people, or organized mana.  They can use their own resources, those of others, or a combination.  The higher the level of leadership the broader its spatiotemporal effects, but also the more difficult they may be to discern. We live in a bureaucratic society in which positions are:  Ranked based the money, power, and status they are supposed to carry.  This rarely corresponds to reality, but higher ranked positions do give a certain preferential access to money and relationships, largely based on a specific form of mana (legal rational authority).  This must, however be activated good organizing skills. Higher up does not automatically mean more powerful. And because bureaucratic jurisdictions are limited some positions may make it more difficult to build and exercise power in certain arenas. Here is my self-interest map  What I want to accomplish: Define a new spiritual/civilizational ideal Make significant spiritual progress in accord with this ideal, achieving at least nonconceptual/experiential/connatural knowledge of the first principle (mystical union/stream-enterer)  Build new institutions or transform old ones to carry this ideal including:   Scholarly and teaching institutions which can develop and promote this ideal, A political-theological leadership organization which can develop and implement a strategy for realizing the ideal in the public arena, and  A religious community which can support a new form of consecrated life which integrates contemplation and action, marriage and parenthood    What supports I need to do this: time and space for my scholarship (respect, autonomy, modest financial security, solitude and peace)  Students, relationships with primary and secondary leaders in the academic, religious, and political sectors, and with mentors and friends who can support my spiritual development  Sources of inspiration: beauty, travel (pilgrimage and exploration)   Focus: increasingly longue duree --centuries and lifetimes.  Primary sources of mana:  Publication record (8 books and one under contract; numerous articles)  scholarly, religious and political lineages from: Bellah, Houtart, Harris, Cortes, Cardenal;  degrees from Berkeley (GTU), Yale, Chicago;  Track record at UDC, UAS, CC, UNM, UACJ, CCSJ, Dallas.  My own character  Primary Relationships  life partnership: Maggie Mansueto (Coeli and Zhe Zhe)  relationships with scholars and organizers listed above as well as weaker relationships with a few more primary leaders (Tu, Nasr) and numerous secondary and tertiary leaders in academic administration (Bain, Caulfield, Chesney), interfaith dialogue; very weak/old relationships with religious/political/community leaders in Dallas, Chicago, Gallup  Primary sources of funding  Almost completely dependent on salary income  Small consulting, royalty, and investment income  Scholarship/research  Basic: social theory, philosophy, theology  Applied: sociocultural intelligence  Creative: fiction, painting (magic realism/science fiction)  Organizing  Strategic relationship building/mission definition and positioning strategy  Operational level leadership in academic and political arenas  Pastoral:  Helping individuals find their way, using a nonconfessional approach drawing on my research and organizing skills.  Academic  Administration  Faculty  Nonprofit Leadership/Government/Consulting:  Interfaith Dialog, Deliberation, and Organizing  Public Humanities  Leadership Advisory and Organizational Development Consulting  Alternatives/complementary activities  Alternative practitioner (Guide for the Perplexed)  Writing fiction and developing serious alternate reality games which promote engagement with fundamental questions of meaning and value and engagement in the public arena. INDIVIDUAL RELATIONAL MEETING ANALYSES FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS ANALYSIS SHOULD • Demonstrate your skill in conducting individual relational meetings, especially in asking agitational questions, probing on leads, building a relationship, and exploring networks. • Convey to the reader the best possible sense of this person’s value as a political asset, including interests, networks, and leadership capacities. INTERESTS: LEVELS OF INSIGHT  Competent: a basic statement, based on observation or a direct statement on the part of the subject, of what they do. The subject wants to start their own business, work on reducing homelessness, work with kids, etc.  Proficient: at least a first level probe which gets deeper insight in their motivations. This will usually be a story explaining how they became involved in what they are doing together with an analysis which draws conclusions which explain at the broadest level what they are trying to do in life and why.  Superior: multiple probes resulting in numerous insights like the above OR a more in-depth analysis which nuances our understanding of what the person’s motivations are. Yes they are interested in starting a business or working with kids or reducing homelessness but their real “number one” motivator is economic security, fame, status, actually doing justice, etc.  Outstanding: A comprehensive, in-depth picture of the subject’s interests which gives a probably reliable estimate of their global hierarchy of motivations. The person is, for example, authentically interested in economic development which will sustain indigenous rural communities but status and rule following are also very important. INTERESTS: EVALUATING LEADERSHIP CAPACITIES • Passive: principal interests are in pleasure, security, etc. • Follower: principal interests are in supporting their family, pursuing any of a range of activities which develop them and support the common good; generally show some understanding that achieving these goods requires prudence, having the right priorities, moderation, effort and struggle • Tertiary Leaders: principal interests are in resolving problems which bear in some way on the common good. These may be framed concretely (getting rid of an abusive principal at the local school, higher wages for workers, etc.) or abstractly (unifying relativity and quantum theory, achieving or promoting enlightenment or creating a just society) but they are pursued largely as technical, scientific, philosophical, theological, or spiritual problems, not as political problems. • Secondary Leaders: In addition to being interested in problems of the sort which engage tertiary leaders, secondary leaders politicize, defining issues and leading campaigns in a way which advances the capacity of organizations and institutions to act effectively on those problems in service to the common good. They are likely to be involved in working to affect policy or develop major new initiatives in the organizations and institutions they serve. They may also be involved in shaping mission, strategy, or broader organizational or institutional struggle but their focus remains on the issues important to them and not on the institution as such. • Primary Leaders: In addition to the below primary leaders work to embody principles, values, missions, strategies, etc. in enduring organizations and institutions and to strengthen the ability to those institutions to advance the common good over the very long haul. They focus on identifying, building relationships with, training, and mentoring other leaders and on developing enduring patterns of interaction (not just formal bureaucratic structures) which sustain those leaders and their work. RELATIONSHIP NETWORKS: LEVELS OF INSIGHT • Competent: Identifies one or more relationships which has been important to helping the subject advance their interests OR is able to describe in very general terms the types of relationships on which the subject has relied (e.g. what they are as opposed to how they have worked) OR states that there are no public relationships OR states that it was impossible to obtain data. • Proficient: Shows some depth of insight regarding why a particular relationship or relationships have been important OR provides a moderately developed analysis of the types of relationships on which the subject has relied (e.g. something about how they have worked, not just what they are) OR provides evidence that there are no public relationships OR explains why it was impossible to obtain data. • Superior: Identifies and explains how multiple relationships have worked to advance the subject’s interests OR provides comparable analysis of types of relationships when confidentiality requirements clearly prevent disclosure of particular relationships OR provides explanation of why there are no public relationships. • Outstanding: Provides a systematic analysis of the subject’s network identifying relative importance of relationships with and how they all work to enable the subject to realize their interests, with a high degree of probability. RELATIONSHIP NETWORKS: EVALUATING LEADERSHIP CAPACITIES: PASSIVES, FOLLOWERS, TERTIARY LEADERS • Passive: no public relationships or unware that they have public relationships and then to treat them as private. • Followers: public relationships are largely those within formal organizations (a workgroup or employing organization, a local congregation or other spiritual organization, possibility a local fraternal or civic organization) in which they play a subaltern role. They may, nonetheless, understand these relationships as public (whether or not they use that terminology) and use them effectively to advance their interests and serve the common good. • Tertiary leaders: public relationships are largely with people working on solving similar problems. These may be of essentially any geographical scope and if the problems are posed broadly and abstractly they may important scholars, scientists, etc. but are likely effective primarily within a narrow specialization. At the higher level they may be well known, even globally renowned, problem solvers frequently called into help organizations address the problems in which they specialize. At the lower levels the relationships are with followers and other tertiary leaders. At the higher levels there may be relationships with primary and secondary leaders but in an advisory or subaltern role. RELATIONSHIP NETWORKS: EVALUATING LEADERSHIP CAPACITIES: PRIMARY AND SECONDARY LEADERS • Secondary leaders: public relationships are with a broad range of people across multiple sectors who must be engaged in order to effectively politicize problems as issues. Secondary leaders consciously build networks of people who will help them build the power necessary to affect policies or promote major new initiatives. The focus, though, is on mobilizing support for campaigns and initiatives. Because of the interdependence which characterizes our society, even if primarily a local actor a mature secondary leader will likely have significant relationships at the metropolitan/provincial level and may well have significant global connections. There will be broad networks of tertiary leaders, collaborative relationships with other secondary leaders, and connections with primary leaders who serve as mentors or sponsors. • Primary leaders: public relationships are with a broad range of people across multiple sectors who must be engaged in order to build, conserve, and transform institutions. Primary leaders systematically build networks, which may be largely hidden, of complex and mature people who can help them build enduring organizations and institutions ordered to the common good. They engage these people holistically, cultivating their understanding of and commitment to the common good and nurturing their political capacities while working to create enduring patterns of action which serve the common good as they understand it. Even if primarily local actors they will likely have at least some global connections and operate across very protracted timescales. EVALUATING LEADERSHIP CAPACITIES • Consider both interests and relationships. • Make an argument as to where the individual falls on the spectrum. • You should try to place them on the spectrum but may note that they have interests that are more advanced than their relationship networks can support, etc. I am looking for an argument. The aim is to be intention about the way we assess assets, not to pigeonhole everyone.