Ahimsa in America

To live a life without suffering, the Buddhists preach that we must follow the 8-fold path. This requires the right outlook on knowing and avoiding suffering, the right resolves to renounce the world and do no harm, the right speech without slander and lies, the right acts abstaining from murder or thievery, the right livelihood to support this way, the right endeavors, the right mindfulness in realizing what the body is and what it requires of us, and the right rapture of concentration to find aloofness that removes us from our bodies and its desires.

This path is centered on the principle of “Ahimsa;” the principle of nonviolence toward all living things. But when one looks back at this plan, it is clear that a successful leader may struggle to stick to it. But this does not mean the ideal should be abandoned completely. An American leader can, and should, embrace this ideal and strive to implement it in all aspects of his life. But he must also be aware of the fact that he may not always achieve perfect Ahimsa.

A leader is someone who can take charge when charge needs to be taken; someone who can make the hard decisions when they have to be made; someone who can take the burdens of an action so others don’t have to. We discussed in a previous class the idea that one cannot live a life entirely of service and still be successful. When one acts and functions for other people, always making decisions in others’ best interests, we are walked over, ignored, and forgotten. A leader who is acting for other people is not grounded in what is necessary for the group, task, or situation at hand. But to lead in this sense goes against many steps in the 8-fold path. A leader is taking on suffering, rather than abandoning it. A leader is making decisions that could be against the desires of a portion a group, thus causing them harm – but these are the decisions necessary to advance the organization or group.

Most divergent from the Buddhist ideals and Ahimsa, leadership in the American sense is fulfilling a desire of the body rather than a desire of the soul. The aim of American leadership is not to eliminate suffering but to find success. To Americans, economic, financial, and leadership successes are thought to eliminate suffering. However, in Buddhist teachings, these successes are what we must eliminate to reach enlightenment for these are the things that bring us suffering. Buddhist leaders are to help followers eliminate the aspects, thus the principle of Ahimsa.

Rather than attempt to change the practices of American society and align them with the Buddhist teachings in order to achieve proper Ahimsa, American leaders can attempt to adapt the Buddhist ideals of Ahimsa and meld them to American practices. They can work to eliminate most suffering – they can embrace the Buddhist ideals and work with Buddhist intentions while working towards American achievement and success. Thus, the damages and suffering cause by the American way of life can be minimized.

The truth is that someone, or something, will always get hurt if we play by the rules (or lack of rules) in American society. It’s a similar case to the fight for political correctness – it’s nigh impossible. When take out all religious connotations of the Holidays, the Holidays themselves lose their meaning. The non-religious may be satisfied, but the religious feel suppressed. Either way there is harm. It may not be physical harm like a broken limb but, rather, a psychological harm like a broken soul. But we can seek to reduce this damage by recognizing that our way of life causes suffering and seeking to reduce it – even if we can’t remove it completely while still leading successfully.

Wisdom from the Leaders of Dow Corning

I learned so much from the Dow leaders with whom we spoke that I had a hard time pulling out an ultimate “take home” idea.

Something Tim Dyste said really stuck out to me – he highlighted the importance of finding your joy, which, to him, meant finding what you love to do and what you do best. It seemed to echo the ideas of Aristotle that I held so highly after our initial class discussion.

Aristotle, in addition to his prescription of a balance life, preached the importance of Eudaimonia, which is happiness earned from doing well that which you enjoy doing. “Human Flourishing” has been a commonly accepted translation of the word.

It makes sense, though. How can one flourish if he is constantly going to a job that he does not enjoy? How can one flourish if he is beaten down by the system day in and day out? If the system—the job; the leadership—does not encourage him to grow, thrive, and influence change…how can he do the same for his organization and his followers?

As we learned in the leadership theory portion of the Roberts Fellows Seminar, leadership is dynamic. It often requires a leader to analyze many different followers and many different situations in order to best handle the task in front of you. It deals with people, decisions, environments, the past, and the future. Although it may not be a high and lofty, unattainable ideal, it is in the very least a challenge.

The leaders of Dow reflected this idea. They discussed situations in which managing conflict amongst employees was a major challenge. Sometimes the hardship was recognizing the problem; sometimes the hardship was living with the problem long enough to truly understand it. They discussed situations in which communication was challenging. There is a language barrier when working in international situations as well as a cultural barrier. Sometimes the words simply didn’t exist or were unknown. Sometimes the Dow leaders didn’t know when they needed to be explicit or implicit. Sometimes employees were simply afraid to participate or communicate, or disagree because it was disrespectful in their traditional cultures. Most importantly, the Dow leaders discussed the challenge of continuous curiosity and awareness. They worked in new cultures and wanted to learn about what these cultures had to offer and why they functioned the way they did. They needed to continuously ask questions and talk to employees and learn in order to succeed.

How can a leader expect to take charge of these challenges develop and execute solutions with success, and remain open to the culture and the humanity of the organization if they are not in love with and excited about their job? Without passion and joy for what one is doing the actions would become lifeless and mechanical, possibly controlling and menacing. The human aspect to the job would be lost as it would become a necessity rather than a choice. The Eudaimonia of which Aristotle wrote is essential to dynamic, successful leadership.

Further, I believe achieving this Eudaimonia is half the battle—but also a challenged that was highlighted for us by the leaders of Dow.

It was mentioned by each of the panelist that we cannot set in stone the path that we plan to take. None of the leaders with whom we spoke were working in the field in which they got their degree. They had all made a plan and worked their way through that plan and willingly ended up in a completely different destination – and each of them was happy.

The strongest example was Bridget Sparrow. She spoke jokingly of her first plan: she never, ever wanted to work in the United Kingdom. Of course, she did end up living and working there. When she got there, she re-worked her plan: She didn’t want to stay for longer than a year and would never, ever marry and English man. Of course, she stayed for 23 years and married an English man. She continued to say that Shanghai was also not on her plan, but, of course, she worked there and loved and wouldn’t have changed a thing.

It is important to have a plan as it gives us motivation to keep working. It gives us a guideline of how to prepare and what we should be doing. But in the end, we may not have had the best idea of which plan we should actually follow. If we force ourselves in to a box and create tunnel vision for where we want to go, we will be unhappy with the result as we did not search inside ourselves and really find that one thing that makes us the most happy. When we allow our lives to be shaped by our plans and our paths, we allow ourselves to grow, change, and be just as dynamic as the leadership we hope to someday achieve.

When we really live our lives, we find our own Eudaimonia and we can then become true leaders.

A Place for Ruthlessness in Leadership (Or Not)

As we discussed Shih Huang Ti (a leader who ended the warring states and unified China through ruthlessness to the point of cruelty) and Han Feizi (a Chinese philosopher who prescribed this method), the question arose as to whether it is appropriate to be stern or cruel in order to gain power as a leader.

I have a very hard time accepting the idea that it is okay for leaders to be openly cruel to their followers. Though not a pacifist, I am a firm believer in communication before conflict, collaboration, and philanthropy. As a Humanist, I believe that we develop ethical values from human need and human interest; that fulfillment in life is achieved through service and humane ideals; and that we find meaning in relationships and thus working to benefit society (and these relationships) brings us happiness. Although I am not flawless in my actions, I am passionate about people and try my hardest to act in order to protect them from or help them through harm rather that put them through it.

This is not to say that we should be calm, collected, kind people, free of anger and harshness at all times (let’s remember my support of Aristotle in his prescription for balance in every human character). It is to say that I believe we can be too harsh or not harsh enough depending on what best serves humanity.

Unfortunately, this can be a fine line to draw as the definition of what “best serves humanity” may not be universal. For me, best serving humanity requires a leader to aim to develop followers, not aim for material power. This adds a form of depth to his leadership process. The goal should not be power, but empowerment.

A professor in the management department used an example from his work experience to demonstrate the importance of policy and follow through. In order to provide the best service for the customer, his policy was that if an employee ever neglected a customer, he would be fired. The situation in which a customer was dissatisfied resulted in an analysis of the employee’s interaction with the customer; when it was determined that the employee neglected the customer, her was fired. This proved that the manager was serious. After the first customer-neglecting employee was fired, it didn’t happen again.

I believe that this is an acceptable action for a leader. I do not think it was excessive or cruel, but simply necessary for the company to function as it should. Analysis of the situation with the employee and the customer showed care for the employee, the customer, and the company. The process was not done to instill fear but, rather, to set a standard and a work ethic. The manager’s policy created an environment that was controlled but empowering.

In the case of Shih Huang Ti, cruelty was enforced to show power and to show who was in charge. It was meant to subdue followers rather than rein them in so that the leader could help them succeed better. Rather than develop future leaders or empower people—rather than help humanity—the cruel leadership of Shih Huang Ti built power for the current leader so that China could be powerful, no matter the human cost. Shih Huang Ti’s own son wasn’t even empowered as a leader and was overthrown. The success of the power was purely on the surface; a material success. It is this abuse of power that is not justified in leadership.