 Inner
Clarity in Leadership (Part One)
by Swami Kriyananda (J. Donald Walters)
from Cities of Light: A Plan for this
Age, Copyright Hansa Trust
(see also Part Two)
A business is much more likely to succeed
when those who hold positions of leadership see their role
in terms, not of glory, but of responsibility; when they understand
that the important thing is what they give to the job, not
what they receive back from it.
Let us see what this sort of leadership
entails.
Most people’s image of leadership
has been molded by stories of executives whose consuming desire
was to “get ahead,” or of square-jawed generals
in the smoke of battle, gazing far-seeingly into the distance.
With such images in mind, it is natural that the promise of
supportive leadership should compare somewhat less than favorably
with the proverbial “impossible dream.” Supportive
leadership, however, turns out on close inspection to be nothing,
really, but the expression of an expanded view of reality.
A leader’s concern should be with
getting things done, not with what people might think of him
in the process. He should, however, weigh their opinions of
him impartially as part of his commitment to truth, and change
himself, or his directions, if he sees that his critics are
right.
The feelings of others, moreover, must be
seen as part of the reality with which he has to deal, so
that even if he knows they are mistaken, he must sometimes
give preference to their right to err over what might be the
still greater error of imposing his will on them.
Inner clarity in leadership means working
with people as they are, not as the leader might like them
to be. It requires great patience to work with people. Sometimes
it may even be obvious to everyone that a certain person needs
to change himself in some respect. Yet, if he is not ready
to receive the correction, what is the point of raising the
issue? A leader must develop the habit of speaking to useful
purpose.
People’s readiness to be corrected
needs always to be considered. Indeed, this is not only a
question of the leader’s need for patience, but of his
sheer need to be practical. For good advice offered at the
wrong moment may, by the rejecting energy that it engenders
in the recipient, and by its remembered wave of resistance,
make it all the more difficult for the recipient to accept
the same advice in the future, when perhaps the moment is
right.
One difficulty for anyone in a position
of responsibility is that the final decision is always his.
Others may theorize with wild abandon, pleading their cause
with desperate sincerity. They can afford to do so. Theirs
isn’t the burden of final commitment to a definite line
of action.
It is like money: If a project doesn’t
entail spending your money, you may enthusiastically urge
the commitment of millions to it. Should you realize, however,
that the work will have to be financed entirely out of your
own pocket, how many dollars will you commit? Hundreds? Or,
possibly, none at all? You may discover, at any rate, a fresh
need to study all the details and make sure the project is
both practical and really desirable.
A leader, in other words, must be one who
can accept the burden not only of criticism (he is bound to
attract some of that anyway), but of meriting the criticism.
He must be able to admit it when he has erred, and have the
inner strength not to crumble under the weight of his self-recognition.
Thus, he must not only be dedicated to truth, but have a sufficiently
broad base of self-acceptance for the gusts of controversy
not to shatter his equilibrium.
One weakness of human nature is people’s
tendency, during deliberations, to see talk as a substitute
for action. Clarity in leadership means also, then, realizing
that it is action that generates creative energy, much more
so than talk.
It may sometimes be better to follow a less-than-ideal
course of action than to let deliberations bog down in endless
debate. For there comes a point in every deliberation when
further discussion can only drain a project of energy. When
this point is reached, even an imperfect decision may sometimes
prove better in the long run than continued indecision. At
least it keeps open the channels of creativity.
Clarity in leadership means, finally, understanding
that the quality of product depends on the kind of energy
that went into producing it. If you want harmonious results
from any project undertaken by a group, you must proceed throughout
with harmony. If once the harmony is lost, it may be better
to abandon the project altogether.
I remember an occasion, years ago, when
Ananda was in the process of purchasing a store for one of
its businesses. The location was desirable. The store itself
was desirable. As the conclusion of negotiations was being
approached, however, the store owner became unreasonably angry
over some trifle. Perhaps this was simply his way of bargaining.
At any rate, Ananda immediately stopped all further negotiations.
The general feeling among the members involved was that if
the deal couldn’t be conducted in harmony, it was better
not to conclude it at all.
In fact, the less attractive-seeming alternative
which this cancellation of negotiations forced upon the community
proved in the end to be a much better deal, overall.
(continued in Part
Two) |
