As graduation season approaches there is a unique movement afoot. It involves MBA’s committed to leading in the interests of the greater good and living out the principles articulated in an oath. Among the principles included in the MBA Oath are:
I will manage my enterprise with loyalty and care and will not advance my personal interests at the expense of my enterprise or society.
I will protect the human rights and dignity of all people affected by my enterprise, and I will oppose discrimination and exploitation.
I will protect the right of future generations to advance their standard of living and enjoy a healthy planet.
Started by a group of Harvard Business School students, the MBA oath has already been signed by several thousand current and soon-to-be MBAs from throughout the world.
My buddy Elizabeth Doty, author of The Compromise Trap recently blogged about how the MBA Oath helps to address ten common misconceptions about compromise at work. She writes:
The MBA Oath is of immense value as a touchstone that keeps us connected with our highest and best selves. Having that clarity and courage benefits us, because it keeps us in touch with the source of creativity, vitality and self-respect that allows us to create value and reap its rewards. It is better for our businesses because it shifts the focus off clever shortcuts onto the long-term drivers of innovation and value. And it serves our society, because it activates a much broader leadership perspective in the institutions that have so much power to shape the rules of the game.
If you feel this is an effort worth your support, here are two ways to contribute:
1. Consider forwarding a link to people in your network. I’m encouraging all of my classmates and friends from the UCLA Anderson School to sign on!
2. If you are an MBA, consider signing the oath.
Hoping to help heal bipartisan rancor, the Faith and Politics Institute invited Frank Rogers, Andrew Dreitcer, and Mark Yaconelli, co-directors of the Center for Engaged Compassion at Claremont Theological Institute to speak to congressional leaders, staff members, and others about a more constructive approach to working with the natural anger, rage, despair, and resentment that emerge in American politics. Here’s what they wrote of their trip to Capitol Hill.
Although “love your enemy” is a primary teaching within spiritual traditions, we receive little instruction on how to work with the negative emotions that our adversaries arouse in us. When fear, anger, and other reactive emotions are triggered, we often respond in one of three ways: we lash out, repress our feelings, or judge ourselves for having such feelings in the first place. In the political arena we demonize one another, returning insult for insult, while the issue at hand is lost. Consider, for instance, the name-calling and fear-mongering that overshadowed the core concerns within the health care debate.
The democratic process is vulnerable to emotional conflict by its insistence that all persons and perspectives be heard. Inevitably, people with differing passions and commitments can feel threatened and enraged by one another. Indulging in these feelings poisons us physically and spiritually, damages relationships, and destroys productive dialogue.
According to the presenters spiritual traditions offer three invitations for working with difficult emotions:
1) They offer means of defusing the grip such emotions can have on us. Contemplative practices, such as mindfulness, nurture an awareness of such emotions within us. Spiritual Traditions give us practices for de-blending, stepping outside of our emotions so we can have an emotion, instead of an emotion having us.
2) Spiritual traditions suggest that extreme emotions are rooted in authentic human yearnings, wounds, and undeveloped potentials. This is counterintuitive. Conventional wisdom says that reactive emotions should be controlled or eliminated. Rather than managing or repressing our emotional reactions, contemplative practices nurture a compassionate connection with their hidden roots.
3) The invitation of spiritual traditions is to cultivate an interior centeredness. Meister Eckhart once wrote, “God is at home. We are the ones who go off wandering.” Politics can drive us far from home, until we feel estranged from the passions and values that inspired us to enter the political process in the first place. Spiritual traditions offer a way back. When we come home to our souls, we are free to claim our personal power while remaining open to the genuine needs of others.
All spiritual traditions acknowledge that this takes practice. On Capitol Hill Rogers, Dreicter and Yaconelli led an exercise they developed called the Compassion Practice. This practice cultivates a deeper awareness of our emotional experience while fostering greater compassion in our interactions with ourselves and others.
What might it mean for us to turn to spiritual traditions and contemplative practices to help ground our political discourse? It could mean more listening and less shouting, more creative problem solving and less defensiveness; it could allow a greater realization of the work that is at the heart of all human life: serving the common good.
When iPad users plugged in last Saturday and began to surf Apple’s new iBookstore one of the books on their virtual shelf was Standing in the Fire. I’m told that it looks great on the iBooks e-reader: smooth page turning and crisp screen delivery with adjustable font, brightness indication, built-in dictionary, bookmarking, and hyperlinks from the table of contents.
One day in the not too distant future I’ll be talking with the children in my life about having written one of the first books to become an Apple iBook and they’ll ask, “Was there ever any other kind of book?” And in that moment I will feel very old.
It’s my birthday today (please, no gifts… really…). Since I was a young boy I’ve been aware that on the very day I celebrated my 7th year in this world, Martin Luther King left us at the hands of a racist assassin. One of my favorite quotes from this great champion of justice is:
“The ultimate measure of a person is not where they stand in moments of comfort and convenience, but where they stand in times of challenge and controversy.”
Perhaps it’s not a coincidence that I work in a profession in which hardly a week goes by that I don’t find myself standing at the intersection of challenge and controversy — or what I call the fire. We all have our own versions of fire. We experience the confusion of an ethical dilemma, pressure to defer to authority, and the intensity of conflict. The complexity, high-stakes, and emotion make it easy to lose our footing and our voices.
In these moments the ultimate measure of each of us is indeed how we stand and what we choose to stand for. Our clarity and commitment to a guiding intention serves as a sort of personal gyroscope that provides balance and direction when we most need it. How do we gain clarity about our guiding intention? Before I go into a meeting as a leader or facilitator I take time to reflect on these questions:
- What am I here to contribute in the world?
- What are the enduring principles that must guide my choices and actions?
- Who and/or what am I here to serve?
- What is and is not my role?
The answers to these questions don’t come easy. In fact, it’s an ongoing inquiry. Each encounter with challenge and controversy deepens our questions, informs our answers and improves our capacity to stand with courage and clarity when we most need to.
So much for the cultural protocol of keeping conversations superficial and light. It turns out that people who spend less time engaged in small talk and more time in deep discussions are happier!
In a study published in the Journal of Psychology Science researchers from the University of Arizona state that substantive conversation is strongly correlated with happiness for two reasons: 1) Because human beings are driven to find and create meaning in their lives, and 2) because we are social animals who want and need to connect with other people.
So tomorrow when you wake up try doing two things:
1) Decide that you will do your best to avoid colluding in the superficial banter that seems to have become part and parcel of daily interaction. Don’t ask “how’s it going” unless you care.
2) Ask yourself: Who will I be speaking with today and what are the conversations with these people that matter most?
Try this practice for the next ten days and see if the happiness research bears out in your life. To read more about this study check out the New York Time article.
Just a quick post to share master graphic recorder Kriss Wittmann’s visual depiction of the ideas in Standing in the Fire. With an uncanny ability to listen deeply and translate what she hears into compelling, interconnected images, Kriss is known to her friends as the “human highlighter.” This graphic map was created last year during a workshop I presented at the International Association of Facilitators. I’ll be presenting again at their 2010 conference in Chicago.
A sincere intention, great idea or an eloquently worded vision are rarely enough to bring an individual’s or organization’s dreams to fruition. When the going gets tough, we need more than aspiration to provide us with the stamina and courage required to overcome obstacles.
In her recent Harvard Business Review blog, Rosabeth Moss Kanter illustrates the importance of aligning one’s passions with one’s aspirations. In other words, making sure that what we say we want is truly aligned with what’s important in our lives. She offers the following questions aimed at helping you determine whether your passion matches your aspirations.
1. Do I feel strongly about the need for this?
2. Does the idea fit my long-held beliefs, values, and convictions?
3. Have I dreamed about something like this for a long time?
4. Do I think that this is vital for the future of people I care about?
5. Do I get excited when I think about it, and convey excitement when I talk about it?
6. Am I convinced that this can be accomplished?
7. Am I willing to put my credibility on the line to promise action on it?
9. Can I make this the major focus of my activities?
10. Am I willing to devote personal time, above and beyond organizational time, to see that this happens?
11. Do I feel strongly enough to ignore negativity and fight for this?
12. Am I committed to seeing this through, over the long haul?
Integrate these questions into your next personal or team goal-setting process and see where the conversation leads.
Purpose matters. Like a personal gyroscope, clarity about and commitment to a guiding intention in the heat of challenging interactions gives us a way to keep the ground underneath our feet even as others are being swept away in the heat of the moment.
I’m reading Getting to Peace by William Ury who writes in his introduction:
Never before in human evolution have people faced the challenge of living in a single community with billions of other human beings. Anthropologists have identified more than fifteen thousand distinct ethnic groups on the planet. Far from bringing a lessening of conflict, the ingathering means, in the short run at least, a heightening of hostilities as people are forced to confront their differences, as jealousies and resentments over inequities flair up, and as identities are threatened by different customs and beliefs. Coming together can produce more heat than light, more conflict than understanding,..
One can either read this with a sense of fear or hopelessness, believing that our human nature dooms us to continued cycles of war and suffering. But for me it reads like a call to purpose — to explore new ways of thinking and seeing that open up new paths for collaboration.
Every time we take our seats at the table — in every interaction casual or formal — we can be the ones who transform heat into light. We can learn to draw on the creative qualities of group fire in service of peace.
It doesn’t necessarily take a dramatic moment or intense conflict to throw a leader off his or her game. There are hundreds of “personal demons” that can derail us in the midst of conflict. Here are five of my personal “favorites” — the demons I find myself encountering on a regular basis:
1. Certainty — We make being right or having the best ideas more important than arriving at the best resolution. When this demon takes over we become argumentative and closed to what others have to say. Required mind-shift is from an ardent “I have answers” to a sincere “I have questions.”
2. Inflexibility — When we are caught off guard by unanticipated information or dynamics we try to control people, outcomes, and process rather than work within the new reality that has emerged. When this demon is present we can become anxious, resentful or blind to new possibilities. Required mind-shift is from “Surprises are disruptive and unwelcome” to “Surprises are gifts to work with creatively.”
3. Ego — We identify too strongly with some idealized image of ourself, deciding that preserving this image is more important than learning something new. The presence of the ego demon is often expressed through defensiveness and shame. Required mind-shift is from “I should be…” to “I am still becoming…”
4. Prediction — We become preoccupied with what might happen in the future rather than attending to the current dynamics of the conflict. The worry demon often causes us to unnecessarily act on our negative predictions as if they have already occurred. Required mind-shift is from “What bad thing might happen next?” to “I can only influence what is happening right now.”
5. Reciprocity — We justify less-than respectful, less-than compassionate behavior in ourselves when those around us are acting with little respect or compassion. When this demon shows up there is a high likelihood that the conflict will escalate. Required mind-shift is from “I will act as I am acted upon” to “I will act based on my purpose and values.”
Do you have some demons in common with me or some of your own you want to talk about? What’s your top five? Chime in below.
Sitting in a local Boulder coffee house I recently overheard two friends talking about singing as an act of conspiracy. They were referring to the Latin root con-spirare which literally means to breathe together.
At its best conversation feels as natural, fluid, and energizing as conspiracy — breathing together. Breathing out we advocate for our ideas, hopes, and concerns. Breathing in we listen to others’ points of view and possibilities.
Like breathing, authentic give-and-take conversation is something we knew how to do as children. But there is something in our socialization process — the modern-day addictions to certainty, speed, competitiveness, and results — that undermines our ability to come together in ways that foster innovation, connection, and healing.
How do we re-learn to breathe together when we are in conversation? What are the few conditions required to help us remember what is already instinctive for us as humans? I would offer two. The first is shared intention — clarity about why we come together and who we want to be with one another. The second is deep listening — the discipline of paying attending without judgment to the heart, rhythm, and of tone of what is being said, including the silence between the talk.
Learning to breathe together again isn’t just a metaphor. As governmental bodies, civil society networks, and communities gather to tackle some of the most challenging issues of our times, it is an imperative that we somehow reclaim what was lost as we moved toward adulthood — our ability to sit with others who are different from us and discover the music. That’s the kind of conspiracy I’d like to be part of!
