Leading from the Soul (Part 4 of 4)

Part IV: Moral Purpose

The final element of leading from the soul is moral purpose.  There is a terrific book on this issue by consultant Simon Sinek, titled, Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action.[1]  Sinek argues that while most of us and the organizations we work for can readily articulate what we do and how we do it, all too often there is confusion or even no understanding of why. Why provides the beliefs and convictions that direct the what and how.  If the why is missing, everything else is the product of randomness and, even more troubling, its absence provides a vacuum that will be filled by divergent interests and nefarious actors.  As Sinek points out, Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., had a dream, and he shared it on August 28, 1963 with 250,000 people on the mall in Washington DC.  People gathered from all over the United States without having received an invitation by way of Facebook, Twitter, email, or cellphone.  The three most prevalent phrases in King’s speech are “I have a dream,” “Let freedom ring,” and “Now is the time.”[2]  King left us no doubt what he believed, nor of the urgency of his purpose.  Like King, Steve Jobs of Apple also has a why.  Jobs’ why, is to place the power of computing in the hands of every individual in the world.  Today that might not sound impressive, but when Jobs started his quest in 1976, it was patently absurd; computers were never envisioned for use by anyone unless they were employed by a large corporation that would buy them from a company called International Business Machines.  Jobs and his partner Steve Wozniak were determined to change all that, and in so doing they, like King, changed the world.

            The search for why may be the single most important and illusive challenge we face in our lives, but it is also a challenge that must not be ignored, however frustrating it may be at times.  Why are we here?  What is our purpose in life?  What gives our life meaning?  And, perhaps the most perplexing question, how do we know what we know?  We can and must ask ourselves these questions, as well as ask them of others — especially our leaders.  I study presidents and foreign policy.  The what happened and how it happened are usually self-evident.  The why is a much more difficult question.  Why did George W. Bush believe there were WMD and al-Qaeda in Iraq when there were not?  Why did Bill Clinton wait so long to support action in the Balkans while the evidence of genocide was obvious?  Why did Reagan decide he could trust Mikhail Gorbachev, the leader of an empire he claimed was evil?  Why was Carter compelled to seek peace in the Middle East, or give the Panama Canal back to Panama?  I’ll offer you a methodology that works with presidents and can also be applied to your own lives: look for integrity by and between the what, how, and why.  If there is a pattern of consistency — if the three are aligned — you probably have identified the why.  I can tell you with presidents the ‘public’ why they offer seldom reconciles with the facts of what and how.  There is usually a ‘private’ why that emanates from what I call their unique “cognetic profile,” which is somewhat analogous, in this context, to their soul.  If our own answers or those of our leaders do not reconcile — if they do not have internal integrity — we must demand of ourselves and our leaders that they do.

            To say that these are difficult times is a gross understatement, but there may not be words adequate to describe the challenges that face us, individually or collectively, as citizens or a nation.  What we can do, however, is take a step back, take a deep breath, and remind ourselves that solitude is powerful, transcendent courage is essential, and that each of us must find our why and honor our moral purpose.  If we do, we will regain our capacity to lead from the soul.

---

[1] Simon Sinek, Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action (New York: Portfolio, 2009).

[2] The text and video of King’s speech is available at http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm.

Leading from the Soul (Part 3 of 4)

Part III: Transcendent Courage
   
The next element of leading from the soul is transcendent courage.  Courage is the spine of character; it is the synaptic command and control system for all other virtues.  We are all familiar with courageous acts; the firefighter who rescues the child from the burning building, the soldier who throws himself in the path of danger to save his comrades, or the passengers who uttered “Let’s roll” and gave their own lives to protect other innocent Americans the terrorists intended to kill at their target in Washington DC on 9/11.  There is no question these acts are heroic and worthy of significant praise, even reverence.  Are they born from courage?  Panic?  Desperation?  Are they reflexive or triggered from a deeply-wired sense of personal responsibility?  Is courage inherited or learned?  Are courageous people attractive, intelligent, wealthy, or prophetic?  Do they attend church every Sunday?  Do courageous people necessarily perform heroic acts or is courage a state of being that may never be overtly expressed?

The etymology of courage, found in The Oxford English Dictionary shows that the word has been used to describe the “quality of mind,” heart, spirit, disposition and nature of a person which “… shows itself in facing danger without fear or shrinking…” (emphasis added).  This history of usage indicates a much broader notion of courage which is revealed by perilous circumstances of life; circumstances that by their very nature are not within the control of the courageous.  9/11 pilot Mohammed Atta, who committed a horrific act when he flew American Airlines flight 11 into the north tower of the World Trade Center, is heralded as courageous in many parts of the world.  Dutiful?  Absolutely.  Brave? Perhaps.  Fearless?  I doubt it.  Courageous?  I don’t think so.  But what if Mohammed Atta had flown his plane safely to an airport and freed the passengers?  What if others who are ordered to act in a manner they know is wrong face their circumstances by acting contrary to those orders?  They are still taking action.  There are still perilous circumstances they do not control.  And, they are doing so, consistent with what I will call their truth: which is the first dimension of transcendent courage as a state of being.

 The truth in transcendent courage is based in the simple reality that we know what the right thing is to do; the difficulty comes in listening to and honoring our sense of truth (allowing its transcendence) against the pressures of competing influences.  These influences take many forms and have many origins.  They may be internally generated, like greed; or, emanate from the pressure of peers, family members, superiors, or clergy.  Consequences imposed by these influencers, positive or negative, act to tether or suppress our truth.  A person possessing transcendent courage however, has immediate and undeterred access to their truth.  They do what they believe is right without regard to competing influences.  They are the most innocently (or unapologetically) honest among us.  They live in their truth all day, every day.

  The second dimension of transcendent courage is the capacity to subordinate consequence to the importance of action; consequences are inconsequential.  Fears are faced down.  The prospect of immeasurable burden is accepted with grace and dignity. Physical pain, ridicule, even death are accepted as the inevitable partners of a courageous life; one which, above all, honors its truth.  Many arrive here through their faith in God.  Others believe that actions taken consistent with their truth will mitigate the severity of consequence, in time.  I will suggest there is simply no other honorable way to express freedom.  If we hesitate to do what we know is right in the face of consequence, we are forever shackled by our own chains.  We abdicate our freedom. 

The third dimension of transcendent courage is selflessness.  Selflessness enables us to honor our truth and readily accept consequences.  Many people define their lives by their service to others.  They measure their self-worth by the extent to which they make others smarter, healthier, happier, and safer.  Teachers, doctors, clergy, police, firefighters, paramedics, military, and community volunteers come readily to mind.  By their very nature or life choice, people who spend their time serving others have a significantly greater propensity to possess transcendent courage.  Service to others teaches us the intrinsic value of selflessness.  It isolates the influence of adoration and remuneration from consideration.  It gives us the opportunity to embrace our humanity and feel connected to community while enhancing our self esteem.  Selflessness produces that warm feeling many call peace.  Selflessness is the liberation of the soul from the oppression of our desires.  Think of those who have served you well in your life…who have enriched your life.  Are they profoundly successful, high profile, and wealthy, flamboyant people?  Maybe.  I’ll bet they are quite the contrary; quiet, unassuming, self-assured, and humble.

The fourth dimension of transcendent courage is self-acceptance.  Are you comfortable in your own skin?  Do you like you?  Have you resolved with yourself who you are?  People who have access to transcendent courage accept who they are and live lives bounded by dignity and imbued with grace. They are at peace with themselves, in the present.  Only when self-acceptance has occurred can our consciousness turn to the needs of others; only then are we open to leadership through service … only then is transcendent courage a natural state of being.

The fifth dimension of transcendent courage is the transmission of strength.  I’d like to tell you about Sara.  I met Sara at Children’s Medical Center in Dallas at the Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders where she was being treated for an aggressive form of leukemia. I was a volunteer there for several years helping out with everything from restocking the shelves of videos in the infusion room to comforting patients who were having spinal taps to access bone marrow. I also spent a fair amount of time supporting the parents of patients; trying to help them make sense of the cruel hand they had been dealt.

 Sara was five when she started her treatment and like most five year old girls Sara liked everything as long as it was pink, purple or somehow related to Barbie. Sara had pale, crystal-blue eyes and strawberry-blonde hair, always gathered with a satin, clip-on bow. She loved to have her nails painted and preferred patent leather shoes. Soft and shiny was her style which meant that both silk and fleece could be mixed in the same outfit without offending her aesthetic sensibilities. Sometimes she looked like a kid who had dressed herself while standing in her closet, blindfolded. Everyone who spent just five minutes with Sara loved her, including me. Sara is the most courageous person I have ever known. 

During Sara’s three years of horror battling leukemia I never saw her cry out, whine or complain.  I will never forget the last few days before Sara’s death. Sara was the first one to accept what was coming. She helped everyone else through the painful anticipation of losing her. She smiled every moment she was awake. She never expressed concern for herself. She only wanted to make sure her mother, father, and little brother would be okay.  Sara’s legacy is the strength she transmitted to those around her.  Her courageous behavior made anyone who was in contact with her a better and stronger person. This is the fifth and final dimension of transcendent courage. Those who act courageously enhance the lives and behaviors of everyone around them. This is the true evidence of transcendent courage.

Leading from the Soul (Part 2 of 4)

Part II: The Power of Solitude

Leading from the soul can only occur if we practice solitude.  As former Yale professor of literature, William Deresiewicz warned us, today we seem to be intoxicated by “celebrity and connectivity,” where the “great contemporary terror is anonymity.”^[1]  However, we know that the act of being alone — of practicing solitude — has produced great work.  In literature solitude gave us Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and Jane Austen; and more contemporary talents like Maya Angelou and David Foster Wallace.  In music it gave us a range of brilliance from Mozart, to Coltrane, to Hendrix.  In science solitude found in laboratories and garages gave us street lights, vaccines, and microprocessors.  Some of the greatest thinkers of all time, like Isaac Newton, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and Freidrich Nitzsche never married and lived alone most of their lives.  In leadership, solitude gave us the aforementioned Lincoln, Gandhi, and King.

            As Deresiewicz further argues, solitude is “ the arena of self-discovery, a voyage of the interior realms.”^[2]  Solitude is the path to our soul, where our soul is not some deific gift, but rather the core of our being that draws on both the conscious and subconscious.  Solitude allows us to think deeply in search of threads of thought and method that allow us to make sense of the world before us.  It allows our imagination room to roam.  As wonderful as technology is, it can rob us of solitude.  There is no time for deep reading or deep thinking; no time to argue with ourselves, to hone our capacity for critical thought such that we can know what we know and share it with others in a clear and concise manner.  The digitation of everything has made us mental skaters on thin ice, always trying to move to the next link, or app, or text, or email, before the ice gives way. According to John Freeman in his book The Tyranny of E-Mail, by the time it takes you to read this sentence three hundred million emails have been sent and received.^[3]  We are just one ringtone or chime or chirp away from the next distraction.  In this sense we are romantics, always wondering if there is a better place to be than in the present, with ourselves.  In the process our ability to concentrate and think critically, so necessary to the creation of original ideas, is severely compromised. 

            Now you may say, but what about collaboration?  Or, Facebook caused the recent revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt!  And, the Internet is a fantastic tool!  I love the Internet too, but the Internet does not produce original thought and does not solve complex problems.  People do.  The revolution in Tunisia was not caused by Facebook, the precipitating event was the self-immolation of Mohammed Bouazizi, a despondent fruit-and-vegetable peddler whose death moved a nation of oppressed Tunisians to finally raise both their voices and their hands in unity.^[4]  The uprising in Cairo, while facilitated by Facebook and Twitter, was based in similar defiance of years of oppression.  Facebook carried the story and allowed people to organize, not unlike the pamphlets distributed by Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine that helped foment the American Revolution.  As for collaboration, yes, it can also be very effective, as long as it starts with every participant bringing something to the discussion that is original and adds value.  Too often collaboration is simply a forum for the status quo to receive validation; for old ideas to be given a new wrapper; and for the re-homogenization of that which has already failed.  In too many cases, it becomes a place for people to seek the celebrity that Deresiewicz warned us about; to allow those, who are so disposed, to be a pain in the ass.  So far, the promise of innovation from collaboration by way of the Internet has largely proven to be an empty hope.  The Holy Grail of social networking — yet undiscovered — is how to transform it from its wide and shallow profile to a web of deep integrative exchange.  

            As British historian Edward Gibbon wrote, “Conversation enriches the understanding, but solitude is the school of genius; and the uniformity of work denotes the hand of a single artist.”^[5]  I am not saying that every work must be done by one pair of hands as Gibbons seems to suggest, but I am claiming that each hand must bring its own work.  I also agree with columnist David Brooks who suggested to remain competitive, “America will have to be the crossroads nation where global talent congregates and collaborates.”  But, he also argued, “people are most creative when they collaborate face to face.”^[6]  To collaborate effectively, each of us must spend time in solitude.  We must take time for sustained reading of great works, to conduct primary research, and to allow for long periods of reflection, such that our soul has a chance to speak — creating original thoughts that produce new solutions.

---

^[1] William Deresiewicz, “The End of Solitude,” The Chronicle of Education, January 30, 2009.

^[2] Ibid.

^[3] John Freeman, The Tyranny of E-Mail (New York: Scribner, 2009).

^[4] See Roger Cohen, “Facebook and Arab Dignity,” The New York Times, January 24, 2011, www.nytimes.com.

^[5] Edward Gibbon in Anthony Storr, Solitude: A Return to the Self (New York: Balantine Books, 1988), p. ix.

^[6] David Brooks, “The Talent Magnet,” The New York Times, January 24, 2011, www.nytimes.com.