Integer Leadership Consulting

Below are a few thoughts on building a sound rationale for Self-Leadership. While we might “vote for” Self-Leadership, few have thought about what a sound argument for Self-Leadership might look like. I offer a few thoughts below in brief:

The Principles and Practices of Self-Leadership

Part A: A Definition of Self-Leadership

The ongoing discipline of cultivating inner personal meaning, constructing an engaging personal vision and assessing personal impact through assimilation of solicited feedback

Cultivating an Inner Personal Meaning
Constructing an Engaging Personal Vision
Assessing Personal Impact through assimilation of solicited feedback

Self-Leadership is nothing less than an ongoing personal discipline that has direct and profound professional consequences

Spend some thoughful and reflective time exploring the Self-Leadership Reflection Questions below:

Based on the definition above, in what way have you purposefully and intentionally invested in self-leadership?

Who are the people who inspire you to craft a life of self-leadership? Why?

I was in no way surprised.

Once again, we have an example of an organizational/political leader, gifted, talented, articulate, and prominent, who makes a choice that brings “this stage” of his storied career to an abrupt and brutal end. Clearly, his wife and his three teenage daughters will pay an incalculable price for his flawed choice. They, along with him, will pay a price that, at this early point in the downfall, is unfathomable. Most likely, Spitzer will feel the pain, shame, and guilt of his choice every moment of every day for the rest of his life. As the massive loss and suffering invades his deepest sense of self…as he comes back to reality…he will often and always rue the day that he decided to compromise his promises to his wife, his daughters and to the public he served.

Yet we should not be surprised or in any way amazed that Spitzer would place himself in such a precarious position with so much to lose. This is the issue and temptation with every leader: separating, truncating or compartmentalizing a self-constructed or self-fabricated reality from the true reality. Leaders make this mistake repeatedly regardless of their power, position, and success. And we, the observing public, act in amazement every time it unfolds before our eyes. From my perspective, this deleterious fall and commensurate carnage from Spitzer’s failure acts as a bizarre side show of sorts which the public “enjoys” observing. There exists in either our culture or our own individual hubris a dysfunctional and voyeuristic mentality that takes pleasure in watching others destroy themselves especially when those others are public figures who stand for principles, standards, ethics, and values…like Spitzer. I digress. What I personally observe is the rapidity of his demise, the lightening quick rejection and ostracizing of this human being. I see an incredible but predictable display of human failure coupled with the predictable destructive antagonism of those around Spitzer who, “of course,” would never engage in such base, self-serving behavior.

A Leadership Failure Post Mortem…

For a moment, separate the ethics of Spitzer’s actions long enough to notice this. What created the schism within his internal world which allowed him to proceed with the assumption that he could act inappropriately and then successfully camouflage his actions? This extremely brilliant man, possessing more education and experience than most, constructed an internal view of the world that was externally highly inaccurate. How does this happen? My sense is that, for leaders in particular, another reality can or must be created that, though false and potentially destructive, allows the man or woman to “live into their flawed constructions of reality” but which nonetheless meets a deep need perhaps even unknown or unrecognized by the leader. Again, not surprising.

In my next blog I will address the work that Spitzer will most likely face regarding the task of reuniting his deeply held schemas or perceptions with reality…what actually “is.” At some point in the not-too-distant future, his suffering and pain MAY be sufficient to confront and begin to dismantle these schemas, these false internal constructions of reality. What he does not know or understand is that this failure will be his “greatest gift”….it may be the one and only conduit that finally takes or more accurately forces him to the deep places which will reveal how he got to this point. It may show him the incredible chasm that exists between his internal construction of reality and the external realities of his life. What he has left “if and when” he comes to this place is unknown, and that is really not the issue here. What is the issue is this opportunity Spitzer has to reunite his deepest perceptions with external givens. Herein lays the real work and pain. This work will cost him most everything he is and has if he chooses this course of action. Then again, he may do nothing and resist the opportunity. He may blame his actions on an unfulfilling marriage, work pressures or the stress caused by unrealistic public expectations. Again, this should not be surprising.

Rhetoric, style, skill and charisma (from the Greek meaning “gift”) for leaders will only go so far and that, ultimately, is not very far at all. Problem is, most fail to understand this unpopular and therefore mostly inarticulate truth about organizational leadership. The more I see, the more I read, the more I am convinced that one’s teleological reflections (“what” greater end, good or greater purpose will be served by my leadership?) and existentialist ponderings (“why” must or why am I compelled to lead?) must be shaped intrinsically rather than defined by and driven by external forces and pressures.

Take for example the writings or Robert Greenleaf (Servant Leadership) and Parker Palmer (Let your Life Speak), both Quakers, who address clearly and forthrightly the “place” where authentic leadership is born: in the depths of one’s being and in the foundations of one’s understanding of ultimate purpose and service to others. If the questions of purpose and intention are not answered early on….if this inner clarity is missing in the life of the leader, the chances are strong that other extrinsic priorities will define the inner world of the leader. Furthermore, to be blunt about it, when what lies at the heart of the leader’s intent and purpose is to serve only oneself, a trail of broken and bloodied bodies and scared organizations can often result. Why play the dangerous game of believing otherwise? It is my contention that when leaders allow their professional technique, prowess or knowledge-base to define the “sacred” inner world of purpose and intention, the leader at some point becomes compromised and others suffer in their wake. Furthermore, like throwing pearls before swine, the world of leadership technique and knowledge have absolutly no business meddling in the the hearts of its leaders. Yet, when leaders “allow” this meddling to take place because they have failed to do the hard work themselves, they and not the organizations they lead, are culpable.

What does this mean? Simply put…the hardest work of the leader is NOT to be found in the execution of the leadership craft but rather in laying the foundation of purpose and intention. I believe this is what Greenleaf and Palmer address: leadership that changes people and processes is leadership rooted and grounded in serving a much greater and deeper “good” namely communicating value, affirmation, integrity and excellence to those who are led. The only leaders capable of this type of “speak” are the leaders who have plumbed their own depths and taken full responsibility for securing and protecting this hallowed inner space where purpose and intent are crystal clear. Let us not make the tragic mistake of believing that the hard work involved in getting these priorities defined compromises the execution of the “harder” and more complex skills involved in sound organizational leadership.