Read an Excerpt
The Ten Golden Rules Of Leadership
Classical Wisdom for Modern Leaders
By M. A. Soupios, Panos Mourdoukoutas AMACOM
Copyright © 2015 M. A. Soupios and Panos Mourdoukoutas
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-8144-3468-0
CHAPTER 1
RULE 1
"Know thyself." —Thales
Without question, knowledge is an indispensable feature of leadership. Among other things, it is an essential component in addressing the many problems with which leaders are routinely confronted. Accordingly, political leaders claim to have knowledge of how to lead a nation, educational leaders claim to have knowledge that can prepare students for the postgraduate world, and business leaders claim to have the knowledge and know-how to develop products and services that can improve and enrich people's lives (rewarding corporate stakeholders in the process). But, it should be noted that there are two types of knowledge: the factual information that can be acquired by formal education and real-world practices, and knowledge of one's own "inner" world. It is this second category that uniquely establishes the standard of real leadership.
In the sixth century BC Thales, one of the Seven Sages of ancient Greece, reportedly offered the famous instruction "know thyself." This idea of self-inquiry as a mandatory feature of a well-lived life rapidly attained proverbial status among the Greeks. In fact, it was even deemed worthy of inscription on the wall of Apollo's temple at Delphi. Sayings based on great wisdom, such as this one, all have one thing in common, regardless of the time and place in which they occur: they are encouragements to engage in conduct that is demanding and out of the ordinary but nevertheless offers prospects of great reward. Thales' teaching is a classic illustration of this point.
Coming to "know thyself" in a modern sense of the phrase is an immensely difficult task, for several reasons: First, the modern world offers an endless assortment of trivial endeavors that encourage a superficial, nonanalytical existence. Even for those inclined to seek deeper meaning and understanding, the volume of distraction is such that very few are able to engage in anything approximating a meaningful program of self-interrogation.
Second, there are the psychological obstructions we all tend to erect in an attempt to shade our eyes from the glare of troublesome truths. This hindrance to self-understanding is far more formidable than society's many diversionary temptations. Here we are speaking of a powerful tendency to obscure, distort, and fictionalize on behalf of a fabricated reality. Failure to remove these obstacles renders taking stock of oneself impossible. Moreover, those who fail in this regard will never command the intuitions and insights requisite for real leadership. It is essential, therefore, that the would-be leader commit to an agenda of spirited self-indictment, because the most lethal distortions come not from the lips of our opponents or competitors. They tend to flow, instead, from our own hearts.
Third, humans are by nature hedonists—pleasure seekers who instinctively desire ease and comfort over challenge and pain. Here we need to say a few words regarding the issue of truth. The Bible tells us that the truth can set us free. This may indeed be the case in some sense, but it is also the case that truth is not an easy thing to obtain, particularly when it comes to understanding who and what we really are, what we are doing, and why we are doing it. This category of truth, in particular, requires struggle, discipline, and courage. Why? Because here, truth typically involves a good deal of distress and disillusionment. "Knowing thyself" means bringing a fresh transparency to our hidden motives and identities. It involves a process of self-revelation whereby one ruthlessly exposes the frauds and deceits that give us comfort. This is the truth-seeking that sets us free but, as devoted hedonists, we understand it is a path laden with misgiving and it is, therefore, a path rarely traveled.
Fourth, there is the increasingly important obstacle of mass media imagery. With very few exceptions, we are all continually bombarded with portraits of "successful" types who allegedly merit emulation. The ubiquity of these images in television broadcasts, movies, and the Internet has made them an inescapable fact of modern living. The difficulty lies in the fact that these dubious paradigms tend to glamorize lives that are as superficial and inane as they are unreflective. Too readily, we forget that these gilded images are less about truth than they are about selling tickets and boosting Nielsen ratings. As a result, they promote a disreality that suggests there is no particular urgency in considering the larger questions of life, that the struggle to "know thyself" is by and large trivial and unimportant. Instead, we are encouraged to mindlessly embrace popular culture's notion of the good life without any consideration of the meaning and merit of such an existence. Under these circumstances, those who seek higher truth and meaning are assigned the status of eccentric outsider. How does one come to follow the dictum to "know thyself" in a society that powerfully endorses a life lived on automatic pilot—that is, a life lived with little or no commitment to self-examination?
Let's be clear about what all this implies for leadership. First, what has just been described explains, in great measure, why there are so few men and women genuinely deserving of the title "leader." The vast majority of people are simply unwilling to explore the dark regions of their inner being. Rather than drop the mask, they keep these areas tightly shuttered in an effort to contain forbidden truths. In so doing, these individuals create a kind of counterfeit reality for themselves, which can place any organization at great risk.
Specifically, this false reality can manifest itself in a variety of distorted policies and approaches. On the one hand, it can produce arrogant and reckless strategies that mirror the executive's ill-reasoned sense of invincibility, like a string of acquisitions to satisfy the ego of the executive suite rather than to advance the cause of the organization. In other words, the program cannot possibly fail because "I" conceived and developed the program! A confident leader can be a valuable asset for an organization. However, when self-assurance crosses the line and become rash presumption, the executive turns from an asset to a liability.
Another form of sham reality attributable to leaders who resist self-examination is the idea of "entitled" success. "I was a successful hedge fund manager on Wall Street; I can turn this retailer around" or "I was successful in refurbishing an electronics gadget retailer; I can do the same for a department store chain." Here again, there is a powerfully distortive understanding of who the executive is and what he or she can reasonably expect in terms of outcomes. Apparently, there are some administrators who entirely discount the possibility of failure simply because they believe they are entitled to succeed. This logic can have a devastating effect upon the organization to the extent that hubris tends to foster complacency, which in turn radically heightens the prospect of failure. In fact, corporate history is littered with stories of great corporations that declined and eventually disappeared because arrogant leaders took success for granted, including Eastman Kodak, Lehman Brothers, Enron, and Global Crossing.
Real leaders understand that success is never something that can be claimed as a birthright. It requires continuous effort as well as a certain humility that acknowledges the possibility of defeat. These insights are understood best by those who have candidly cast a critical light in their own direction. Simply put, leaders who fail to understand their own deficiencies and limitations become performers in mock dramas in which the actors no longer understand that they are acting. The organization then is made to pay the price.
Knowing oneself means the end of role-playing. It involves casting a harsh and unforgiving light upon a variety of self-exonerating falsehoods. Needless to say, attaining an unvarnished view of oneself is an intimidating process. It takes a good deal of nerve to unmask those reassuring lies we so enjoy telling ourselves. But, then again, it also takes a good deal of nerve to be a real leader.
In conclusion, self-comprehension is a fundamental precondition of an effectively lived life. In addition, we believe this principle has particular relevance for any man or woman intent on assuming the reins of leadership. As for those who shrink from the task of confronting their own weaknesses and shortcomings, it is highly unlikely they will attain anything approximating the extraordinary status suggested here by the term "leader." How can those who remain blind to themselves lead others?
CHAPTER 2
RULE 2
"Office shows the person." —PITTACUS
Of all the many problems facing today's business world none is more critical than the quality of the work environment. In the absence of an affable work setting, employee loyalties quickly dissolve. According to U.S. Department of Labor statistics, employees typically remain in their position for only about two years. Surveys designed to explain this remarkable mobility suggest that the number one reason for employee exit is a disagreeable workplace. The implications of this rapid turnover are clear: The organization forfeits the time, energy, and resources it invested in recruitment and suffers the effects of having employees who lack meaningful commitment to the organization. How can organizations motivate staff members who are constantly seeking vocational alternatives?
Negative work settings do not occur spontaneously. Almost without exception, this potentially lethal failure can be traced to managerial deficiency and more often than not, to the abusive misapplication of power on the part of the manager. Nothing will more rapidly disenchant and alienate workers than a manager who delights in resorting to the stick as opposed to the carrot.
One of Thales' colleagues on the list of Seven Sages was the ruler of Mytilene, a man named Pittacus (circa 600 BC). After governing his city for a decade, Pittacus voluntarily relinquished his power and retired. The ancient author Diogenes Laertius recorded a number of famous sayings traditionally attributed to Pittacus, the most famous being "office shows the man." Above all else, this maxim addresses the critical issue of power and its effects. Implicitly it contains two premises. First, that the investment of power—in other words, granting a leader meaningful authority—is the trigger that will rapidly reveal that person's inner qualities. Second, that power not only has a potential to disclose who a person really is; it also has the capacity to corrupt. We need to examine both of these ideas.
Anyone who has been involved in hiring a new employee understands that the resume, the reference letters, the interviews, and so on provide at best only an opaque view of a candidate's actual identity. Throughout the various phases of the hiring process, the real person is easily concealed by a series of highly stylized rituals and procedures. In terms of getting at the core personality, the procedure remains as superficial as it is cosmetic, with the result that one never really knows the person behind the mask until the employee is "up and running."
These points are particularly noteworthy in the case of senior personnel, the people who are assigned important leadership roles in an organization. For these individuals, the investment of power has an all-important diagnostic potential. Power will invariably reflect what no resume ever does, namely the psychological and spiritual disposition of the person. And here, of course, we are brought back to the points made in the discussion of Rule 1. What is soon to be revealed in the newly hired "leader" is whether or not a process of honest self-discovery has taken place. If the battle to dispel self-induced fraud has been successfully waged, if indeed the individual has heeded Thales' "know thyself," that achievement will be mirrored by the manner in which power is utilized.
Those who enjoy a philosophically informed understanding of life will use their authority in an enlightened fashion to advance the organization's legitimate purposes. In such hands power becomes an instrument of integrity and conscience capable of yielding immeasurable benefit to the workplace. But what of those who have failed to look inward along the lines described here? What of those who do not know themselves but who nevertheless enjoy the prerogatives of power? What will office reveal about these men and women?
These are the circumstances that compel a consideration of power's corruptive tendencies and the many destructive effects such corruption routinely bring. Lord Acton, a nineteenth-century British historian, is famous for having noted that "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Pittacus, and the ancient Greeks in general, fully understood the logic of Acton's observation. They recognized that the prospect of exercising power, and particularly the ability to apply power in an ego-driven manner, holds an irresistible charm for many people.
Making sense of how all this works is impossible without considering the mental state of those inclined to abuse authority. In the majority of cases, the misuse of power is undoubtedly a direct result of psychological deficiency. Under these circumstances power becomes a kind of compensatory asset. It is employed as a defense mechanism to offset feelings of inadequacy and vulnerability. In other words, the abusive application of power is the only way some leaders can attain a sense of security and confidence in life. They have a need to control and dominate everything and everyone around them. Under these circumstances organizational purposes take a backseat to the psychological needs of the manager. If a situation such as this goes unremedied, it can reduce the work environment to little more than a dysfunctional psychodrama in which unit morale and worker productivity are severely compromised.
Needless to say, work settings that are healthy and productive are not the result of spontaneous good fortune. Establishing and maintaining such an environment requires a complex range of assets and activities that have little to do with chance. But of all the many ingredients required for success, the most important by far is quality leadership. In good times, the leader maximizes institutional momentum and formulates plans to sustain growth and market advantage, sharing the rewards of success with all members of the organization. In bad times, the leader has the courage and insight to develop new strategies while simultaneously maintaining high levels of worker morale and commitment by spreading the cost of painful adjustments among all organization stakeholders, beginning with headquarters.
In short, the role of a good leader is critical under all conditions, and it is for this reason too that failures of leadership will virtually ruin the organization. And of all the many potential shortcomings an assumed leader might bring to an organization, none is more lethal than arbitrary applications of power. Supervisors who constantly micromanage, who second-guess every subordinate decision, who gleefully await any and all opportunities to criticize and bully, are a toxic presence in any environment. Their abuses will predictably waste corporate resources, destroy worker motivation, compromise institutional loyalties, and create debilitating resentments more rapidly than any other managerial failing—prompting the most talented employees to jump ship.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from The Ten Golden Rules Of Leadership by M. A. Soupios, Panos Mourdoukoutas. Copyright © 2015 M. A. Soupios and Panos Mourdoukoutas. Excerpted by permission of AMACOM.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
