Apr 15 2008

Part II: The Three Components of Self-Leadership: A Philosophy of (or an apologetic for) Self-Leadership, The Practices of Self-Leadership, The Disciplines of Self-Leadership

Part II: Exploring A Philosophy of Self-Leadership

Self-Leadership is neither a “utilitarian tool” to promote one’s advancement through the organization nor is it a “soft” practice that is an “optional” approach to personal and professional development

Rather…..

Self-Leadership is an Essential Personal Discipline that sets the stage for continuous personal change and organizational impact

Why Must Leaders Lead Themselves?

The Stewardship of Your Personal Life

The spiritual foundation of my purpose, destiny and timing.
Endowed with gifts, talents and abilities.
Cultivating the raw material of my life to maximize impact.
Protecting that which is fragile in order to safeguard the delivery of that which I possess.

Your Obligation to the Organization

Seeing vocation as a “calling” (from the Latin, vocare, voice).
I am under contract to bring my best to the organization.
Yet the contract is insufficient by itself to compel me to bring excellence. Delivering excellence is about clarity of purpose.

Your Critical Contribution to the World

“Be the change you wish to see in the world”…Gandhi
Your impact is unique, necessary and unrepeatable.
You will impact others, communities, organizations and the global network in ways that others will not.
The absence of your contribution will weaken any system in which you would otherwise be involved.

Those who are Benefited by leaders who practice Self-Leadership

Oneself
Family
Colleagues
Organizations
Customers/Clients
Local, national and international Communities
The contribution toward the global good

Reflection

How would focusing on each of these areas change the way you think about, approach, execute your work and your leadership Influence?

No responses yet

Mar 31 2008

The Three Components of Self-Leadership: A Philosophy of (or an apologetic for) Self-Leadership, The Practices of Self-Leadership, The Disciplines of Self-Leadership

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?

What are the issues/challenges that prevent or keep you from engaging in the practices of self-leadership?

In what ways have others been positively impacted by your self-leadership? How have they been negatively impacted by your lack of self-leadership?

In what ways have your professional performance and impact within your organization been helped or hindered by the presence or lack of self-leadership?

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

No responses yet

Mar 13 2008

Eliot Spitzer and Leadership Failure: A Post-Mortem

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.

Comments Off

Mar 05 2008

Self-Leadership: The “Place” where Authentic Leadership is Defined

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.

Comments Off

Feb 13 2008

Thinking about Self-Leadership: A brief reflection

The awareness and discipline of leading oneself is critical to the exercise of leadership in any organizational context. Yet it is precisely an area that leaders often relegate to the realm of the unimportant and inconsequential because it appears to have little bearing on actual leadership behaviors and practices. Furthermore, because the idea or concept of self-leadership often seems vague, unclear or “soft,” it is easily dispatched to the back-burner of the leader’s personal and professional priorities in favor of more pressing and “hard” issues. Unfortunately, leader’s who disregard the practice and discipline of self-leadership can eventually pay a steep price on the personal and professional level. When leaders become detached from their inner moorings and abandon the work of maintaining inner congruence due to the “tyranny of the urgent,” their integrity, moral compass and external performance is in danger of eventual collapse. This slow-burn or incremental deterioration resulting from the ongoing (and often unconscious) neglect of one’s sense of self, sense of rootedness and personal vision is more often than not realized only after there has been damage to self, others as well as to one’s professional standing and trajectory. The cumulative effect of ignoring the work of self-leadership is not unlike the metaphor of the “Frog in the Kettle.”

I define self-leadership as the ongoing discipline of cultivating inner personal meaning, constructing an engaging personal vision and assessing personal impact.

These three areas of self-leadership: personal meaning, personal vision, and personal impact, form an important nexus that is crucial to professional success. Furthermore, it is my belief that leaders who exercise the discipline of self-leadership as I define it here are the types of leaders that create deep, broad and sustainable change within a variety of organizational contexts. It should be noted, however, that this external impact is not easily wrought. It is the result of cultivating, constructing and assessing…strong words I have deliberately selected to communicate the hard work required for those who would seek to live into a life of self-leadership.

A colloquium on understanding self-leadership would explore the above dimensions in greater depth. The conversation would draw from the experiences of individual leaders and would coincide with organizational resources and spiritual traditions which others have found helpful as they have assumed full responsibility for their own personal and professional development.

As you begin to think about the matter of self-leadership and its urgency in your life, I would ask you to engage in some thoughtful and honest reflection by pondering the following questions.

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

2. What are the issues/challenges that prevent or keep you from engaging in the practices of self-leadership?

3. In what ways have others been positively impacted by your self-leadership? How have they been negatively impacted by your lack of self-leadership?

4. In what ways have your professional performance and impact within your organization been helped or hindered by the presence or lack of self-leadership?

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

Comments Off

Jan 31 2008

The Fundamentals of Resilience as it relates to Leaders moving through Seasons of Professional Crises: What Really Changes when Leader’s “Experience” Resilience?

I find myself asking why organizational leaders tend to replicate the same or similar failures as other leaders who have preceded them? In other words what are the reasoning and/or rationale that explain the ongoing duplication of failures committed by those who are responsible to lead and/or manage organizations? To put it plainly, what keeps leaders from learning from their failures?

Resilience, we say, is the difference. As the argument goes, some leaders are more resilient than others…some are able to overcome personal and professional barriers. But, upon closer examination of the experience of resilience, we discover that there is much more to this issue of “overcoming” barriers. Someone can be resilient while at the same time they fundamentally resist changing the fundamental-structural issues that led-up to the need to exercise resilience. Thus, while they “recover” from a professional setback through resiliency (they scratch and claw their way back into the organization or to some position of organizational leadership), they remain unchanged at a deeper cognitive level which is the very seedbed which gave rise to the failure in the first place.

In my next blog, I will speak to the issue of cognitive or “schema” change as a key marker or signpost of resilience in leaders.

Comments Off

Jan 15 2008

Learning From, Not Fixating on, the Misgivings of the Past

In early January, the NTY (1-1-08) published a piece written by Benedict Cary entitled, The New Year’s Cocktail: Regret With a Dash of Bitters. The article interested me because it speaks of the value of evaluating past failures, blunders, mistakes, painful-seasons, and gleaning from those experiences insight and wisdom for the present and future journey of living.

This stands in stark contrast to the school of thought that encourages individuals to completely disconnect themselves from past failures and move on. The fear, indeed a valid fear, that we can easily become obsessed with and emotionally/mentally fixated on lost opportunities, past opprobriums and other experiences of personal or professional regret is one that every human being confronts. Few dare to descend into that place of threatening self-examination. As Cary rightly observes, “Ghosts roam down there, after all, and they are the worst kind—alternate visions of oneself.” A similar “warning” is issued by Parker Palmer in his book, Let Your Life Speak. These warnings and cautions about descending into past experiences are not sounded in order to prevent us from making that journey but rather to prepare us for the courage necessary to, in fact, commit to those inward-downward journeys in order to evaluate and learn from past experiences. To be sure, we must be cautious of becoming preoccupied with our past false starts and stops, yet, as Cary highlights, there is great value in reflecting so as to understand and learn from what one failed to do or did but regretted.

For those professional optimists, positivists and purveyors of the indomitable and uninterruptable pathway ahead, this pausing to examine and learn from failures and regrets is anathema indeed. They see no place for looking over one’s shoulders. But perhaps this is precisely the problem I would posit. We are so fixated on forward movement that we reject any reason to drill down to the psychological and emotional substrata of those irritating…often haunting and loitering memories…that are seeking to get our attention by hanging around the margins of our memory. They must be allowed to speak their truth to us so that we can move forward with a firm resoluteness. Our role is to listen not to avoid or fixate. To keep that which must be learned and integrated…that which would make us better, deeper and wiser and to altogether reject the voices of guilt and shame.

Astute and wise leaders of others must create habits of serious self reflection on what has passed…..especially the ghosts of our past misgivings…not for the purpose of self flagellation but for the purpose of altering our thinking and our acting in a way that would make us more effective in our influence and our execution of the responsibilities of leadership.

Cheers….Jeffrey

Comments Off

Dec 31 2007

Leadership, Benazir Bhutto and the Triumph of Electoral Credibility

Regardless of what you may think of the accomplishments and legacy of Benazir Bhutto, her death is a tremendous tragedy in ways too numerous to count. Though I have been deeply moved and saddened by her death for many reasons, there is one monumental insight that has emerged for me (this is no new epiphany but rather a powerful reminder of the fundamental nature of legitimate or legitimized leadership).

Bhutto, for all her failings and questions surrounding her political dynasty, had, as the New York Times put it, “electoral credibility.” She was twice elected by the people which is far more than President Pervez Musharraf can claim. His dictatorial grip on power is nothing more than a reflection of his own understanding that he could in no way garner enough electoral credibility to remain in power. The unscrupulous seizing of power and the maintaining of that power through military control and intimidation is how illegitimate leaders maintain their grip on power.

My point is this: while organizational leadership is not predicated upon electoral credibility and while those under the direction of organizational leaders “must” follow because they are paid to do so, should these leaders nonetheless work diligently to build a ground swell of “electoral credibility” throughout the entire organization as opposed to maintaining power though dictatorial and authoritarian leverage? Clearly the answer is a resounding “yes.” Yet, the reality in many organizations and within the mental framework of many leader’s mindsets is that credibility, that is, becoming a “legitimate” leader in the eyes of those who follow, is a non issue. As a result, followers suffer, organizational morale suffers, performance despondency and performance anomie takes root and hold.

I see this as an ongoing vexing dilemma for leadership today and it is rare to see the leader who understands this issue. It is incredibly irresponsible for leaders (and unhealthy ultimately for their organizations) to pay no attention to winning the hearts and minds of those they lead. While they are paid to lead and followers are paid to follow, this should never remove the burden and responsibility for senior leaders to forge meaningful and supportive relationships with those throughout the organization. Though they are not “commanded” to do so they feel “compelled” to lead in this manner. People clearly know when they are being lead by an indifferent tyrant versus a benevolent champion.

Bhutto had won the hearts of the middle- and poor-classes from the beginning of her political involvement up until the day she was killed. She understood that democracy must include all voices especially those who are often summarily dismissed and ignored.

While organizations are not often characterized as democratic enterprises, leaders would do very well to treat them as such. In so doing, deep and broad support is built over time and only adds to the willingness of followers to “lay down their lives” for the leader.

Comments Off

Dec 27 2007

Some Orders That the Boss Should Heed (New York Times: 12-27-07)

Lisa Belkin writes a thoughtful reflection on the key role that CEO’s should play when it comes to “modeling” the importance of valuing life away from the workplace in addition to valuing the importance of work itself. She pinpoints the ongoing dilemma of many a CEO when it comes to walking the talk of taking care of oneself away from work and encouraging others to do the same. To this end, Belkin cites the thoughts of a few others that are worthy of mentioning in my blog today.

Regarding flex schedules, Cathleen Benko makes the point that they can act as a process of “de facto marginalization…making the workers seem like exceptions to the norm, and providing no way for them to dial their schedule backup.”

Regarding how employers treat Gen-X and Gen-Y men, Joan Williams makes the point that these fathers are determined to play a larger role in their children’s lives than their fathers did in theirs. Employers who recognize this will create Gen-X and Gen-Y loyalists who will stay around much longer.

Finally regarding integrating Generation Y into the workplace, Penelope Trunk observes that people should be managed “based on their contribution, not their rank. At some point, the 40 years of experience someone has does not count. At some point, it’s new ideas that count.”

The bottom line in Belkin’s article is to authentically and genuinely create real-time space and recognition for people who take their personal lives as seriously as they do their careers. More than any other figure, it is the CEO who can validate and “bless” this balance.

What CEOs must understand is that they would do well to once again familiarize themselves with McGregor’s concept of Theory X and Theory Y. Those who work in our organizations are not inherently lazy and not to be trusted (though this will always be true of a minuscule few). Rather when people are treated with the deep respect and recognition that they deeply covet (the very thing that feeds esteem and worth), they will continually outperform any and all organizational performance standards….something that Belkin makes clear…yet again.

Comments Off

Nov 28 2007

Leadership, Failure and Resilience

Published by Administrator under All ILC Categories

It is a fact that talented and gifted leaders make errors in judgment. If the mistakes are of sufficient magnitude, they frequently cause leaders to forfeit their visible and powerful positions. Whether the decision led to an ethical/moral compromise or an operational/business error that resulted in millions of dollars of lost revenue, getting fired or being forced to “retire” is a devastating, debilitating and catastrophic loss. Regardless of how the individuals to blame and their organizations seek to “dress-up” the parting, the reality is that this type of failure, for the man or woman leaving in disgrace and shame, is an onerous burden and very, very costly, not only to the wallet but especially to one’s emotional stability, family structure and relational network. To further compound this situation, because we live in an overly reactive and punitive social and business culture, these talented and capable leaders are quickly labeled organizational pariahs and corporate untouchables. Feeling humbled and humiliated, with few guides or mentors to stand with them, they may come close to the brink of despair. In some cases, absolute banishment from the organizational world fits the failure. However, in many others, brilliant men and woman, who are no different than anyone else in their occasional exhibition of flawed humanity…and who continue to have deep leadership skills to offer, are mercilessly cast aside as if they suddenly had become useless pieces of human debris.

Some scratch-and-claw their way back, driven by the need to vindicate themselves. Some rise from the ashes of disgrace but never quite make it back to their former levels of professional stature. Some never make it back at all (see Fighting back: How great leaders rebound after career disasters, Harvard Business School Press). The wounds of failure run deep and are extremely difficult to recover from. What makes the difference? What allows some leaders to navigate their way through the pain, suffering and humiliation while others remain paralyzed? The difference is what I call deep resilience.

When I query my undergraduate students as to the meaning of the word resilience, the definition I hear most often is having the capacity to “bounce back.” The image is that of a thrown rubber ball that quickly descends, encounters resistance, and just as quickly begins an upward assent back to its original point of departure. When we describe people as resilient, we often mean they have some innate capacity to rebound quickly and smartly from adversity - to rapidly return to their previous level of functioning, taking whatever caused the original disruption in perfect stride. The problem with this culturally-conditioned understanding of resilience is that it is inaccurate, shallow, unreasonable and the perfect set-up for even more failure, frustration and emotional damage down the road.

Recovering from a significant leadership failure is, in the final analysis, a matter of summoning resilience that lies deep within the human heart and soul. It has little to do with “bouncing back quickly.” Deep resilience creates transformation (a new intellectual understanding and emotional realignment) within the person, which then opens the door for a slow and steady recovery ahead. This is a painstaking, deliberate journey that invites the leader to enter into a period of interminable struggle and darkness. When leaders see resilience as merely the ability to “suck it up” and get on with the business of fighting one’s way back into the organizational ring, they’ve missed the point entirely, not to mention an opportune transformational moment.

Resilience, in the face of catastrophic professional failure and loss (as opposed to tolerating the minor indignities of everyday life), is an invitation to change one’s interior infrastructure…that which needs to be changed deep within oneself if a slow and steady assent is to take place. It is an opportunity to go “into and through” the meaning of our failure and what that failure can teach us about ourselves and the ways we have misconstrued our view of reality, power, self-worth and personal contribution. This is a difficult and painful gauntlet to traverse, which is why many a compromised leader often fights tooth-and-nail to preserve whatever personal dignity and pride are left even though the reason behind the failure is patently obvious to all.

On the other hand, for those leaders who choose to embark upon the journey of resilience, who choose congruence over incongruence, integrity and courage over false bravado and inauthenticity, the pathway is well-delineated, though definitely daunting. When leaders fail…when talented, experienced and educated leaders fall flat on their face…the choice is clear cut: stay immersed in and overcome by shame, bitterness, guilt and anger or acknowledge the devastation and begin the slow process of moving ahead. Deep resilience is about the latter decision.

For those who determine that confronting the hidden undercurrents of their failure is the right decision, five sequential steps can serve as a guide.

Accepting responsibility for our failure: Perhaps the hardest step is the first. In the core of our being we know there is no one to blame for the failure except ourselves. Regardless of the circumstances that led up to the debacle, we made the decision, we cut the corners, we played the game of smoke and mirrors, we tried to gain financially, we tried to amass power and we were discovered. Be it a good friend or a prominent business leader who has stumbled, it is incredibly inspiring to witness someone who accepts full responsibility…finally…for his actions. It may take time to get to this place, but when we do, it is a key marker that deep resilience is emerging.

Understanding the factors that led us to this place of failure: Deep resilience requires an understanding of how we created or constructed a view of reality that laid the ground work for our self-deception and compromise. As we look back with the intent of unmasking our perceptions, we can often detect where those “two degrees of separation” began to appear in our lives. Something, at some point, got sideways and never quite righted itself. Over time we accommodate ourselves to the growing incongruence of our personal and professional lives. When this misalignment becomes unconsciously accepted as the norm, increasingly misaligned behaviors follow. Knowing why we did what we did allows us to move ahead without any pretense or continuing self-deception.

Translating the failure into a source of learning and potential transformation: Recent research has shown that one of the markers of resilience is the ability to recast the story of tragedy and loss into a story of personal power and positive momentum (Tebes et al., 2004). Using the loss as a catalyst for heightened learning and insight about oneself and how to live rightly is critical to recovery and renewal. We can either let our experience continually beat us down, or we can use the pain and suffering to galvanize personal re-formation.

Rebuilding a career with new information: The further we travel on the journey of deep resilience…the more that is revealed about ourselves, the more we realize we can never return to the former status quo. In fact, going back seems not only untenable, but emphatically unappealing. No amount of money, power or prestige is worth a return to our “house of cards.” Movement, including rebuilding our careers and often our lives, is about traveling forward into the unknown and leaving the past behind. New knowledge, new freedom, as well as the all too real scars we’ve incurred, demand professional change, particularly in the form of a more balanced and congruent life.

Contributing to institutions and people from a place of new insight and knowledge: When formerly scorned and vilified leaders (who remain just as talented, articulate and gifted as ever) have immersed themselves deeply into inner resilience and slowly emerge, they often find themselves in a new context of organizational leadership. The personal insights gained and the transformation which has unfolded can demand a radically new organizational structure. These leaders, tempered and galvanized not into hardness and toughness but into humility and self-awareness, are compelled to lead and influence…to speak into the lives of others…from a different vantage point. They see with new eyes, feel deeply and are often “qualified” to address the perils of the professional-corporate world.

These are the leaders who re-emerge from massive professional loss not by continuing to “play the game of deception,” not by manipulating stories of religious conversion or childhood abuse to play the crowd and media, but by confronting their flaws, and then engaging in the often brutal work of inner transformation. Because failed leaders who commit to the experience of deep resilience discover they are capable of so much more than what they had previously delivered, the journey of change through darkness, brokenness, and often loneliness is worth it. These leaders see their failure as the door to a second chance to “do it right.”

The allure of professional success is powerful, seductive and often dangerous. There are legions of casualties that prove the point. Few are wise enough to pause and count the cost or consider the dangers of pursuing a meteoric rise. Perhaps we would all do well to consider Henry Thoreau’s wise words, “Let us remember not to strive upwards too long but sometimes drop plumb down the other way, and wallow in the meanness: From the deepest pit we may see the stars, if not the sun.”

Comments Off

« Prev - Next »