There seems to be a general fad that will probably turn into a leadership trend. We see more and more injection of Eastern Spirituality and Tradition injected through the gurus who are making money and collecting souls in the west.
This morning I woke up early and my thoughts drifted to my experience recently in India at an Ashram. It was a beautiful place with very kind, upbeat and sensible people. Yet, to me, there is something dramatically missing in the Eastern philosophies that the West has in abundance. For now, I’ll call it the "unenlightened" view.
In the east, there are a number of beliefs which are quite different than the west; everything from beliefs around causality to destiny, karma, inner work and spirituality. All of these are very interesting for leadership studies and bring us a more whole-made view of life, work and business. Yet, something is missing in the Eastern View and while I can’t put my finger on it, perhaps I can speak from the Western point of view that is centered on getting things done. We don’t always do the right things, but in large part, we act decisively with an attitude of getting things done.
Some people criticize this “unenlightened” position, but I think there is more to it. The interesting thing about the East may be that leadership has sub-optimized the system of efficiently getting things done like in the West. I won’t argue right and wrong here, as there are issues to consider on all sides. However, I do want to make a case for "unenlightenment".
I’ll call "unenlightenment" working with what you know, instead of seeking what you don’t know. You can go to www.google.com and put define:enlightenment into the search bar and you’ll see what I mean. Apparently enlightenment has nothing to do with getting things done in a Western sense.
The illusion that I think many people operate under is basically blank slate…"anybody can be anything they want to be."
Perhaps this is why enlightenment is such a hot topic. It does present an unfolding path - spiritually speaking - and in a lot of cases could be helpful in reducing suffering. Although where there is a claim of greatest enlightenment or realization, I see the greatest suffering, go figure. I think I heard someone say that Buddha said, "Whatever you can’t confirm through experience is not the truth." If that’s the case, then enlightenment may not be what it’s cut out to be for most people. I will grant that for some people, enlightenment may be the ticket.
My contention is in this world of suffering, suffering is a wholesome (?) part of the journey. Effective leaders can provide examples, even when unenlightened, of how to help people get things done in the midst of suffering rather than resign to a place where people are managed. I will also concede that getting things done may not be the right question. However, I would see the elimination of suffering to be camps along a continuum of enlightenment and unenlightenment. I’ll hypothesize that unenlightenment, when executed according to a holistic design, can eliminate as much human suffering as enlightenment—hence my case for unenlightenment.
While this piece is getting longer than is really practical to deliver in the microcast formula, bear with me for a few more lines.
Instead of pushing people up the ladder to enlightenment, which seems to me to be the most preferred path among the enlighteners, why not lead people to satisfy their intrinsically wired “vasanas” or desires (call it inductive biases)?
Enlightenment teaches the elimination of desire and therefore of suffering. I suspect the unenlightened way would teach the satisfaction of desire, and I contend the elimination of suffering, if a whole-making approach (which seems to be the property of the more enlightened) were employed. In both cases, the epitome of each is self-knowledge, as I see the paths.
The unenlightened leader, at least the effective ones, would be efficient and effective in their pursuit of creating systems and environments where desires are satisfied, therefore creating sustainable systems.
Join me next week for: Unenlightened Leadership Competencies.
I'm with you on this, Mike, but I have a different take on enlightenment. Gettin' it done is the mission of leadership. To me, an "enlightened" leader is one who understands that doin' it right, in accordance with a solid base of ethical behavior, honesty, integrity, and a firm focus on the good of the organization and its people, is the inherent responsibility of being a leader. That's "Our" enlightenment.
The mystical "enlightment" concept has a lot of variations and has been floating around for years. Remember the Beverly Hills based marharisi whatever, whom the Beatles made popular? He en-light-ened a lot of peoples' wallets to buy his mansions, Rolls Royces, and private jet. But I don't know what those who were en-light-ened got in return. I see the same type of fleecing going on in some so-called management or Leadership "how-to" books, seminars, courses.
I guess working for myself has taken me a bit out of the mainstream, because I wasn't aware that this mystical management enlightenment horse hockey is in the mainstream of the leadership arena.
Ben Stein wrote a wonderful book about the basics of personal responsibility that form the foundation of leadership. The book is called "Bunkhouse Logic". It's a simple read, but has a lot of really good points in it. It's sort of a cowboy story version of Dr. William Glasser's Reality Therapy principals.
Both books stress the fact that life is about personal responsibility, taking care of who/what your put in charge of, finding and getting what you need when possible, and "gettin' it done" as best you can with what you have when necessary. Want another good read on leadership? Get the book "The Burma Road" by Donovan Webster, and see what ol' Vinegar Joe Stilwell accomplished under the most incredibly difficult and resource limited circumstances imagineable.
There are positives to the enlightenment concept. But sittin' and thinkin' don't cut it when the herd is thirsty and the water hole is dry.
Posted by: Ed Runci | April 06, 2005 at 03:48 PM
I'm with you on this, Mike, but I have a different take on enlightenment. Gettin' it done is the mission of leadership. To me, an "enlightened" leader is one who understands that doin' it right, in accordance with a solid base of ethical behavior, honesty, integrity, and a firm focus on the good of the organization and its people, is the inherent responsibility of being a leader. That's "Our" enlightenment.
The mystical "enlightment" concept has a lot of variations and has been floating around for years. Remember the Beverly Hills based marharisi whatever, whom the Beatles made popular? He en-light-ened a lot of peoples' wallets to buy his mansions, Rolls Royces, and private jet. But I don't know what those who were en-light-ened got in return. I see the same type of fleecing going on in some so-called management or Leadership "how-to" books, seminars, courses.
I guess working for myself has taken me a bit out of the mainstream, because I wasn't aware that this mystical management enlightenment horse hockey is in the mainstream of the leadership arena.
Ben Stein wrote a wonderful book about the basics of personal responsibility that form the foundation of leadership. The book is called "Bunkhouse Logic". It's a simple read, but has a lot of really good points in it. It's sort of a cowboy story version of Dr. William Glasser's Reality Therapy principals.
Both books stress the fact that life is about personal responsibility, taking care of who/what your put in charge of, finding and getting what you need when possible, and "gettin' it done" as best you can with what you have when necessary. Want another good read on real leadership? Check our "Building the Burma Road", and see what ol' Vinegar Joe Stilwell accomplished under the most incredibly difficult and resource limited circumstances.
There are positives to the enlightenment concept. But sittin' and thinkin' don't cut it when the herd is thirsty and the water hole is dry.
Posted by: Ed Runci | April 06, 2005 at 03:42 PM