Thoughts on Drive

I’ve been thinking a lot about drive and dedication; passion and the desire for perfection; success and sacrifice. These are all things that I qualities that I think leaders need to embrace. However, I also think that they can also hinder a leader if not balanced by perspective. It is the line between the two – the one weight that keeps the scale from tipping – that I have a hard time defining.

I’ve been questioning this more and more as I continue to work in the theatre department to an excessive extent. I am driven to take on every possible opportunity because I want the experience. I want to learn the elements of theatre so that I can make myself more saleable and successful. But sometimes I am too driven and I take on too much. I take on so much that I can’t possibly put enough time in to each task to make it the best it can be, so my drive for success, in a way, cancels itself out.

But also, the intensity of my commitments and my resulting schedule is my choice. I chose to take on the opportunities; therefore it is my responsibility to do well no matter what it takes. I will come in early and stay late and I won’t ever let my team down. I make sacrifices so that my team can succeed and the projects get finished. It’s not always fun, and the end product isn’t always perfect, but it’s enough. In the end, I’m not sure whether my actions are good or bad. Although I am not necessarily completing my best work, I am learning and growing with each responsibility that I take on.

However, I also believe I take the idea of drive for leaders to an extreme. You don’t have to do everything to be driven; you don’t have to do nothing to be lazy. I started recognizing this as we struggled to reschedule class after so many people tried to skip the Friday heading in to spring break.

My first irritation with the situation was that it was necessary at all. We were all informed very clearly at the beginning of the year that Roberts Fellows is to be our top priority. We all know that we have class on Fridays. And yet…people scheduled over top of class and simply thought they would be excused. Some situations I understood – for other educational programs like Clinicals or Student Teaching Seminars that are mandatory and can’t be made up, exceptions have to be made. But in other cases, I think skipping class was an inconsiderate choice on the part of the other students. But that wasn’t what really irked me.

After realizing that we were never going to find a time that we could all meet, a suggestion was made that we should consider sacrificing something in order to make time. All well and good. But the only students agreeing to make sacrifices were the same students who had actually planned to be in class on today. The dedicated students inconvenienced by the cancellation that was out of their control were being further inconvenienced as the original students seemed to be refusing to budge. Talk about a lack of drive or sense of responsibility towards the group.

What frustrated me was that the Roberts Fellows was to be the group for which I didn’t have to sacrifice in order to pick up slack; the group of similarly driven and dedicated students that would put in equal effort in order to achieve to a level that met the expectations of the University—and this was not seeming to be the case.

But I suppose, when you think about it, we are all so involved on campus and in the workforce that we may not be able to make sacrifices. There are some things that simply require your attention and you have no choice. So perhaps the other students were experiencing a situation similar to my work in the theatre – a situation in which they commit and commit and commit to the point where something needs to be sacrificed, and yet, you can’t sacrifice anything without inconveniencing your teams.

So where is the line? I’m still uncertain.

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.

On Aristotle and the Character of Leaders

We have been asked (on a few separate occasions) to analyze the role ethics plays in leadership, what kind of character we expect from our leaders, what our own values are, and even the importance of being ethical as opposed to simply appearing so. As we continue to discuss these ideas in class, I keep returning to the idea of balance. This week, my thoughts were echoed by the words of Aristotle, and, as I prepared for the weeks ahead, Gautama Siddhartha Buddha.

As Ciulla points out in her introduction to Chapter Two, although leaders are human and “subject to the same flaws and weaknesses as everyone else,” we often expect them to be more ethical and have higher standards. She continues, explaining how we often view leaders of the past as meeting these perceptions while leaders of today continuously fail us; and we wonder why that is. As we see more of these flaws and our leaders continue to fail us, it seems more and more that leaders do not necessarily need to just traits and ethical character that we desire. How can we continue to expect ethical leadership?

Again, I tell you, the answer is balance.

Aristotle outlines the requirements for a virtuous life using this idea. We must not be fearful or rash, but brave; we must not indulge in pleasure or expect pain, but find temperance; we must not be wasteful or greedy, but generous; we must not be passive or irascible, but mild; we must not be boastful or self-deprecating, but truthful; we must not be ingratiating or flattering, but friendly; we must not be ashamed or disgraceful, but virtuous; we must not be spiteful or envious, but indignant; and the list goes on. It even continues levels of character pertaining to intelligence and wisdom. Each character describes an excess of a trait, a deficiency of a trait, and then desired mean. Each person falls somewhere on the scale between the three, but the ideal person is balanced entirely on the means.

Returning to Ciulla’s introduction, the author addresses the point that today there is much more exposure – in the past, we saw only the actions that leaders made public and really had no way of publicizing their flaws. Today, it often only takes the click of a button. She states that leaders of the past and leaders of today were similarly ethical, but that today we see the flaws that, in the past, were hidden.

I think she is on to something.

I think in addition to seeing more we are also expecting more. As we see more and more flaws, we perceive more and more undesirable traits and therefore wish for more and more desirable ones. The misdeeds of current leaders feed our craving for leaders without any flaws. In this fashion, we have tipped the balance that Aristotle instructs us to find. We have, in a sense, blown our idea of leadership out of proportion.

Further, this tipped balance has burned like a wildfire, worsening as we move in to the future without righting the scales. As our expectations of leaders rise, those who wish to lead must try harder to meet our expectations. They try to emulate perfect virtue – they must not lie, cheat, steal, abuse power, exercise anger, or be upset. They must be passionate, honest, reasonable, caring, and collaborative. They must be interested in people and never interested in themselves. They must have no flaws. However, this character that aspiring leaders strive for is out of balance, according to Aristotle. It requires too much of people and, frankly, they are wearing out.

How long can you continue to never give in to your desires, instead sacrificing to your followers in order to be the perfect person? The answer: not very long. This is when we begin to find flaws. Leaders reach breaking point as they succeed as leaders and they give in to a craving or exercise an indulgence. They let loose.

But to maintain the respect of followers and continue to succeed, leaders continue to attempt to appear ethical; they indulge in secret. But, due to the higher levels of exposure, we catch them. We accuse them of unethical behavior and mark them as failed leaders, continuing to wish for the leaders of the past.

The system is out of balance and will remain out of balance until we are aware of the situation and take the time to set it back on track. This, however, will take a lot of time, analysis, and effort as we are all guilty.

In conclusion, I do not think it is important for leaders to fulfill society’s definition ethical behavior all the time – they do not have to be saintly people completely clean of flaws. Instead, they must be rational, honest, and reasonable about themselves, their lives, their goals, and the organization they are leading. They must understand the balance between ethics, risk, and reality. If leaders (and followers) are able to find this balance, it will not be a matter of appearing versus actually acting ethically – we will accept that as humans we are flawed but are still capable of making balanced decisions and ethical actions for the good of the organization.

Self Interest and the Moral Code

On my way to the parking lot after class, I held a door for another student. It seems like a simple act but, after our intense discussion on self interest and morality, it served as a continuation to my internal debate.

Thrasymachus, Socrates, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Rand...each excerpt we read for class had an element of self-interest and morality, whether it was through a character (as Plato presented) or through the theorists themselves. This created a fairly heated debate as we attempted to muddle through the ideas of morality in terms of leadership and our daily lives. At the end of it, I felt that I could not effectively communicate my ideas. I’m not sure if it is because I am on the fence about my own beliefs—that I am easily swayed and confused by a modern form of Socrates’ dialectic—or if it is because I simply do not hold a popular opinion. And if my opinion is not popularly recognized, does that mean it is immoral according to American society? I’m not sure I’m ready to accept either of these conclusions.

Thus, I will try again to flesh out what I believe about ethics, humanity, and the moral code.

I am not denying that humans could be entirely self interested in their actions and judgments. A common theme presented itself in the readings: that one should have the ability to bring happiness and benefit to one’s life; a theme that could be easily interpreted as self interest. They differ, however, in their descriptions of the benefits and how they are achieved, sparking the negative connotation of self-interest.

For Hobbes, men are purely out for their own gain; there is no security as the weaker will band together to overthrow the stronger. For Hobbes, Justice is getting even with those around you as a result of jealousy. Because of this dark view of human self-interest, Hobbes argues that men are immoral and need laws to keep them civil.

In The Republic, Plato presents a discussion between Thrasymachus and Socrates about Justice. Thrasymachus, the Sophist, voices the idea that Justice provides advantage to injust people while ultimately hindering the person who is actually acting justly. Unlike Hobbes, he does not say that men do not have the ability to be just, but that it is less desirable for them. Thrasymachus’ argument is, of course, that there is no self-interested benefit in acting justly; rather, it is in the unjust act that there is a self-interested benefit; therefore injustice is the virtue.

While Socrates ultimately refutes the idea that injustice is a virtue, he does not refute the idea that Justice provides an advantage for others. For Socrates, this service to others is what makes Justice a virtue over injustice. He uses an example of a band of thieves: if they were entirely unjust, they would be at each other’s throats. But instead, they must be partially just as they are able to work together and help each other achieve a common goal. They are benefitted by each other, whether or not their ultimate goal is in fact a moral one (that is another argument in itself). Socrates continues, arguing that the virtue of Justice provides health to the soul – a greater advantage than wealth and power.

In short, although a just being may not be as monetarily successful as the lying, cheating, unjust person in power, he will still lead a better, happier, more fulfilled life because his soul is healthy through the virtue of Justice.

Now, isn’t this Ayn Rand’s argument as well? She states that we “must choose actions and values by the standard of that which is proper to man—for the purpose of preserving, fulfilling and enjoying the irreplaceable value which is your life.”

Rand, however, was using this goal of ultimate happiness in a different context. She argues that self interest is best – an argument that would seem to go right along with Thrasymachus’ original statement. However, Rand argues that “man is a standard for morality, but your own life is its purpose.” In society, we lay out certain moral codes that are generally accepted. We use them to determine standards for right and wrong based on public and private harm, public offense, and public and private benefit (as J.S. Mill outlined). Rand takes this idea of what is socially acceptable and challenges us to think about what we are doing and why we are doing it. You should not have to do something, or refrain from doing something, if you feel it is not helping you to fulfill and enjoy your life, whether or not it is considered “moral.” Although Rand takes an extreme to her argument in favor of self interest, I think we can apply a portion of her reasoning to create a balanced view of morality.

Some may say Rand’s argument is selfish – that we will collapse in to a state of war, unable to work together as we are always fighting for ourselves. Plato would argue that unless we could work for each other, we would never find Justice—what if one tried to justify killing a man because it contributed to the fulfillment of his life?

But even a serial killer cannot say he has thought about his personal choices and decided they were in his best interests. A serial killer begins killing slowly – it would seem that he takes pleasure from his actions. It would seem that he is doing exactly as Ayn Rand suggested. But as he continues killing, he begins to kill faster, going through what is called a spiral. He is going insane, until he can eventually no longer function. Now, I don’t know about you, but to me, this doesn’t sound like a fulfilled life – by neither Rand’s nor Plato’s standards. When one thinks about his actions and decisions as Rand suggests, he would realize that killing is not just, nor does it lead to fulfillment and happiness. He would become a rational, moral human being, able to discover the health of the soul that Plato held so highly.

Of the four, Plato, speaking through the character of Socrates, holds the most straightforwardly positive view of self interest. Though he, too, experienced the hardships of life his view is the least tainted by the corruption of humanity.

In class, before we discussed the above theorists, we discussed the transitions of the Chinese dynasties. Most interestingly, we discussed how the dynasties would begin strong and favorable to the people only to deteriorate in to corruption by the end. Machiavelli presents a similar idea. He directs leaders to be moral when possible, but also warns that leaders will inevitably need to become immoral lest they be overtaken by human immorality. Though I do not agree with Machiavelli’s motivations (to remain in power over people as a means to fulfill one’s own life), I am intrigued by his observation.

If I had let that door swing closed on that student after class; if I had sold my partnership for 4%; if I abandoned kindness and deserted true connections, I would be ahead and alone. I could trust no one, I could rely on no one – and so I would have rely on myself and protect myself against the enemies I may have made on my rise to the top. I’d become bitter and cold. I’d follow the trend of negative self interest. But when I think rationally about what I want to do for people, what I can do for people, and what I need to do for myself, I create harmony. I create a balance between service and success and I am fulfilled.

I don’t think that we are an entirely self-interested species. I think that we often have self-interested tendencies and that we often let ourselves go, but ultimately, we are motivated by something a little more complicated than that. Perhaps, if Plato’s dialectic between Socrates and Thrasymachus were to have continued, they would have discovered the true definition of justice to be balance.

Thoughts on Moral Development

Consider this:

You’ve been working in a theatre as a technical director. You’ve been building four sets a season for the last ten year. Most of these sets are constructed from combinations of wood and cardboard that you purchase from a bulk distributor – the same bulk distributor for the past ten years. However, as you prepare for the new season, you learn that there is a new lumber store in the area willing to offer you a 4% discount for supplies for the whole season. You don’t hesitate – the theatre has been struggling and this would be an excellent way to cut back on the scene shop budget. You accept.

It seems like the obvious choice, right?

In most Asian societies they wouldn’t agree. We discussed in class the different relationships that exist in Asian culture. A business relationship, as you would have developed with your cardboard and wood supplier, is considered equal to that of a friend. You trust who you work with and you only work with people you trust. You uphold the relationships that you’ve built above all other business transactions. In most Asian societies, your deal with the new lumber store made it known that a person could be bought for 4%. You would throw away 10 years of good business and good relationship for 4%.

I couldn’t get the comparison out of my head. Are American’s just cold?

After reviewing Kohlberg’s six stages of moral development, I found an answer.

According to Kohlberg, the sixth stage of moral development is the internalization of “universal principles of justice, of the reciprocity, and equality of the human rights, and of respect for the dignity of human beings as individual persons.” According to Kohlberg, one who has reached the sixth stage of moral development “would not [for example] vote for a law that aids some people but hurts others.”

Perhaps it is not that Americans are cold, but that we, as a society, have not reached this sixth stage of moral development. We are still learning to respect our fellow man as a human being. After all, we are a country that is a mere 235 years old compared to the impressive 7000-year history of Asian civilization.

Returning to Kohlberg, an earlier stage or moral development caught my attention. In this stage, “right action consists of what instrumentally satisfies one's own needs and occasionally the needs of others. Human relations are viewed in terms such as those of the market place. Elements of fairness, reciprocity, and equal sharing are present, but they are always interpreted in a physical, pragmatic way. Reciprocity is a matter of ‘you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours’, not loyalty, gratitude, or justice.” This description of human relationships seems to hit the nail on the head, if you ask me. It is accepted in American society to work for oneself; to work with a notion of self-interest. We are always looking for the best deal, the easiest route, or what is the best for ME. We seem to have no thought or care of what another may be feeling or experiencing, or how our actions may affect them. We would sell each other out for a mere 4% if it meant we could get ahead.

What may be surprising – maybe even a let-down to ever-patriotic Americans – is that this stage is only the second stage; the first level of moral development. We have four stages of development to experience before American society could even begin to be considered “moral” in the eyes of Kohlberg. And yet we have this ever-present desire to be a superpower; to be the leading country of the world; to be the best. We think we can go in to other countries and fix them – give their citizens better lives.

Perhaps we really can help – who am I to say that we are nothing? But when I look around America and see families falling apart, people starving on the streets, groups of people persecuted in the name of “right and wrong,” I can’t ignore how far we still have to go.

In Asian culture, it is expected that the younger respect, obey, and learn from the elder. Maybe it is time we, as a nation in our wild youth, sat down learned from a nation for wiser through its years.