While reading Leading with Integrity by Alan Kolp and Peter Rea, several
ideas stood out to me. “Character is more than behavior; character is one’s way
of both being and doing in the world… Character entertains not only the
question “What do I do?” but also the equally important question “Who am I?”
(Kolp & Rea, 2009, pg. 19). These are not only questions of character and
therefore leadership being explore, but the same questions of mystical traditions
as well. Kolp and Rea site Aristotle, Plato and Socrates as providing us with
these notions of identity and character (2009, pg 19), but Buddha and Jesus, as
well as other spiritual traditions ask these same questions as ways of guiding
the seeker into a more meaningful life.
“Who am I?” is a question that invokes a deeper search for meaning, but also
serves to help define character. In the search, we often must confront that
what life looks like does not, in fact, represent what we truly want or would
make us happy. “What do I do?” is often the second question asked once there is
recognition that the choices we have provide no easy answers. Kolp and Rea
(2009) quote Nannerl O. Keohane when they talk about leadership showing up
through “three types of behavior… as problem-solving, as making things happen
and as taking a stand” (pg. 26-27). It is the courage to take a stand that
tests character the most, however, and leads us into a deeper understanding of
who we are. Many are able to solve a problem – even children do this on a daily
basis. Making something happen takes more skill and influence, but even a bad
salesman can make something happen without necessarily being a leader. Taking a
stand however goes against our primal instincts to remain safe within the
group. Taking a stand forces us to take a hard look at what we believe about
what is right and wrong, about what we’re willing to risk and why. Taking a
stand is a defining action that shouts to the world who we really are.
Instinctively, we all know this, which I believe, is why so few rise to the
level of true leadership out of the masses who approach it. Self-discovery is a
challenging process that we all embark on, but few are willing to fully embrace
as a way of life. To truly take a stand means choosing change, and choosing
risk. It is not for the faint of heart.
Do leaders need to know themselves before taking a stand? Or does that
situation become part of the learning process? I believe both. Self-awareness
must become a way of life, not just part of the after-math of a challenging
situation.
Your comments about taking a stand going against our primal instincts for safety really resonated with me. I think about how easy it was for me to share my opinions based on my personal values and beliefs early on in my leadership career. As the years have gone by I have learned some tact but along with that I have also learned to squash some of my true feelings in order to be politically correct. This begins to eat at you after awhile. My goals in the past couple of years have been to find a way to reconcile my personal beliefs and values with the professional boundaries that I am charged with keeping.
The concept of leadership as process of self-discovery brings my mind automatically to a vision of quite the opposite of these concepts. I think instead to the other side of the spectrum, to the mentally ill, the addicted and those stricken by generational poverty. I have wondered myself, what then must inhibit personal leadership skills, and what type of consequences does this have on a body, an identity and a life.
Large and profound questions like “who am I?” “What are my values?” and “what are my boundaries?” are not questions asked by an individual who finds themselves too far down Maslow’s hierarchy. Instead the questions revolve mostly around a very basic, survival type process that asks and answers only immediate difficulties of food, comfort and danger. This type of first-order thinking never wonders, “what purpose do I have?” or “who do I want to be?”
I like the image of taking a stand, as the impetus for examining our moral scale and your “willingness to risk and why” in order to become a leader. It makes me think that lifting individuals out of the grips of mental illness, addiction and generational poverty will require first the resources to invest passion and possibility, and the leaders to pose the question, “who are you?” “Who do you want to be?” and “what do you believe in?”
It’s certainly affirming and invigorating to be reminded through our chosen textbook that the crux of effective leadership incorporates character. Your emphasis on taking a stand speaks to this essential ingredient. How else could one plot a course or communicate a direction for the success or safety of others? Convictions based on character compel leaders to take a stand, to voice their insight and influence others toward their vision of success. Like you, I also found Kolp and Rea’s (2006) two processes of character discovery—“Who am I?” and “What do I do?” to be simple but profound dimensions of continual personal discovery (p. 19). I was particularly drawn to the definition of character as a verb they provided—“cut, notch, engrave, or impress”—and their summary “that no person comes with character as a finished product” (Kolp and Rea, 2006, p. 19). I found it enlightening to consider such a metaphor: that life’s litany of events (fortunate or not) represent an artist’s touch, a piece never quite complete. Your conclusion is spot on: “Self awareness must become a way of life…” we must be willing to continually learn from life, about ourselves and others.
Purpose. Maybe that is what leadership is – when we come into our sense of purpose. Who am I – What do I do? When these things make sense and align in the world, I think we are expressing who we were meant to be. And so, as in the leadership skills inventory for Transforming Leadership Principles “every person in every situation is having an impact” — when we lead with character, we are on-purpose and our impact is one that makes the world a better place. As for taking a stand, people are willing to stand up for the things that have meaning and purpose. So, in a sense, isn’t it purpose (character = knowing who I am, knowing what I do = purpose) that makes leaders who stand for something.
>“Character is more than behavior; character is >one’s way of both being and doing in the world…
Behavior is “doing” in the world. Our actions represent us in the physical world. What many people overlook is how their thoughts and energy affect their own actions as well as the actions of those around us. “Being” in the world is also an action. If I chose to meditate in the park and show peace and serenity to those around me that is also action and behavior. As individuals we participate in “behavior” on different levels. Being in the park meditating is not a simple action. I cannot know how my action will affect the thoughts of someone jogging past or the children on the playground that do or do not wonder what it is I am doing. I cannot see the question “What do I do?” or better “What am I doing or have I done?” as a simple question. Physically I sat in the park and meditated. What did I do spiritually, energetically? How did that ripple outward?
“Who am I?” is also a loaded question. It’s easy to turn to labels, but expressing values is more informative.
I do not believe a leader has to know themselves in depth to be a leader. In some circumstances a leader emerges when a situation arises that is so incongruous with their values or nature that they will take a stand and act courageously.
Self discovery in a leadership context is very interesting to ponder. What areas of leadership do we discuss? Business? Politics? Military? Scientific? Literary? Church or Spiritual?
Ah, so many ways to go!
Also, it is much easier for someone to learn and know something in the head than to live it in the heart and bring it forth in all their actions. Incongruity seems to be the rule rather than the exception.
Leadership is so often discussed as something chosen to do, aspired to and developed.
In my experience in the organizational development field in corporate settings I have found leadership to be displayed in it’s most authentic form not by those who decide they want to be leaders, but by those who are chosen to be leaders.
There are those individuals who others line up behind and follow their lead, regardless of title. These individuals have influence and so often are unaware of how much they are emulated.
So what makes them leaders? Followers. The choice of others to listen to what they have to say, to trust in their decisions, to believe in their intentions.
What creates trust, clear intentions and the integrity to be worthy of being followed?
I might suggest one’s desire to develop self for the purpose of self-actualization and alignment with personal values and commitment to character, not for the purpose of leading others.
In an organic team with no appointed formal leader a team must choose it’s leader.
There are those who will demand to be the leader, and those who allow the team to choose. Which is the better leader, and which allows for more functional team dynamics?
Abril Goetz
Thanks again for the blog post.Much thanks again. Keep writing.