Whether presenting online, classroom or hybrid courses, I find that Discussion questions are invaluable in assessing students’ ability to articulate and expand on the issues rather than just regurgitate from the text. Early in the quarter, I clearly state that I do not require students to post a specific number of contributions to the Discussion board—this is a graduate course, for goodness sake! Instead, to entice engagement, I rely on the questions being relevant to their lives, my ability to probe for deeper thinking, and the enthusiasm of fellow students conveyed in their responses. And it works. Through their reactions, ideas, and sharing of personal experiences, this exceptionally bright group of students do a great job of expanding each others' understanding of the basic theories and models of leadership as we move through the course from theory to practice.
That is, with one notable exception, which I’ll explain.
Recently, while searching for a book hidden somewhere on my unkempt bookshelves that I thought would inform a discussion on “Skills versus Process-based Approach to Leadership,” I stumbled upon Integrity by Dr. Henry Cloud. With a second cup of coffee in hand, I settled into my comfy reading chair and began exploring its pages. Before long (page 9, actually) I came across this passage:
Who a person is will ultimately determine if their brains,
talents, competencies, energy, effort, deal-making abilities, and
opportunities will succeed
It is one's makeup as a person, in ways much more than ethics alone, that takes people to success or enables them to sustain it if they ever achieve it. While character includes our usual understanding of ethics and integrity it is much more than that. Another way of putting it is that ethical functioning is a part of character, but not all of it. And it certainly is not all of what affects whether someone is successful or becomes a good leader.
In my own experience in over twenty years of working with CEOs, boards, managers, management teams, VPs, partners, supervisors, investors, and those who have a stake in their performance, I have seen many honest, ethical people of "integrity" who were not making it in some way. While they all were people of good "character," the reality is that their "personhood" was still preventing their talents and brains from accomplishing all that was in their potential. Some aspects to who they were as people that they had never seen as important to develop were keeping them from reaching the heights that all of the other investments they had made should have afforded them. While they met the criteria for having "integrity," they also left behind a trail of falling short in some key areas of performance that left them as well as their stakeholders and the people who depend on them wanting more. They were unable to successfully:
. Gain the complete trust of the people they were leading and capture their full hearts and following.
. See all of the realities that were right in front of them. They had blind spots regarding themselves, others, or even the markets, customers, projects, opportunities, or other external realities that kept them from reaching their goals.
. Work in a way that actually produced the outcomes that they should have produced given their abilities and resources.
. Deal with problem people, negative situations, obstacles, failures, setbacks, and losses.
. Create growth in their organization, their people, themselves, their profits, or their industry.
. Transcend their own interests and give themselves to larger purposes, thus becoming part of a larger mission.
These kinds of issues have little to do with IQ, talent, brains, education, training or most of the other important components of success. Instead, they have to do with the other aspects of character functioning that we pay way too little attention to in training people to be leaders and to be successful. The most important tool ultimately is the person and his or her makeup, and yet it seems to get the least amount of attention and work. Mostly, we focus on professional skills and knowledge instead.
Eager to share this provocative excerpt with my students and read their reactions, I posted it to the Discussion Board and added the following questions:
How, in your opinion, does Dr. Henry Cloud's thinking concur with your own? Does the excerpt expand our current discussion? If yes, how? If not, why not?
Much to my disappointment, no one responded. This no-one-came experience left me asking myself the following questions:
. Do my Discussion questions encourage students to consider the role “personhood” plays in leadership?
. Do the concepts of emotional intelligence, social intelligence, cultural intelligence, etc., truly speak to the development of “personhood”?
. Considering that leadership is an elusive term, complicated by the sheer number of leadership-related publications and the possible over-exposure of the subject, can students make meaning of the concept in their individual lives?
For me, the big takeaway was to ask myself, “Am I asking the right questions?” As an instructor, this is the question that will continue to challenge me.
Reference:
Cloud, H. (2006). Integrity: The courage to meet the demands of reality. New York, NY: Harper. ISBN: 978-0-06-084969-6
Note: To comment, click "Name/URL" on the dropdown menu. Enter name or blog ID in the name field, and leave the URL field blank.
Posted on LinkedIn 10/14/15
