Personal Balance Sheet

Personal Balance Sheet

            This course has taught me to know myself.  This was not an easy task.  It required that I self-reflected and considered my ‘ideal self’ and ‘real self’ (Boyatzis R. E., 2006).  It required that I was honest with myself so that I can truly know my ‘gaps’.  If I wanted positive change, I had to look in the mirror and see who I really am.  Thus, I conducted a sincere self-assessment (a personal balance sheet) that allowed me to recognize both my strengths and weaknesses. 

            My distinctive strengths are the things that help me find success and strengths that others see in me.  First, I’ll share a favorite quote of mine by Admiral James Stockdale, an American hero and Medal of Honor recipient (I believe this quote sums up my strengths).  He said, “The test of character is not 'hanging in' there when you expect light at the end of the tunnel, but performance of duty and persistence of example when you know no light is coming” (U.S. Department of the Army, 2002).  My strengths are grit, determination, perseverance, and resilience.  I believe these strengths have enabled me to change and grow mentally and physically.  As I have said before in my class discussion, anything in life worth having requires sacrifice (‘cause if it was easy, then everyone would have it!).  It is one thing to hope and dream and yet another to take action (and keep going).  I believe the aforementioned strengths help me do that.

            My potential strengths are things I could do better or more often if I focused.  For instance, I need to focus on being more proactive.  I often feel as if I have to have my “back against the wall” to perform at my best.  It’s as if I have to prove to myself (and maybe to others) that I am a fighter, that I have the grit, determination, and perseverance to overcome.  (The irony in this is that I willfully put myself into the situation).  It’s possible that this may be an unintentional consequence of my need to find motivation. Another potential strength that I need to put more effort into is being compassionate.  I am compassionate but my compassion may fall by the wayside when I encounter my own struggles and difficulties.   

            I believe that I have certain enduring dispositions that support me to be successful.  First, I am guided by values and principles.  My values and principles collectively is the “Northern Star” that guides my life.  These values and principles dictate how I behave and act.  For instance, I am bound to the values of loyalty, duty, respect, honor, integrity, personal-courage, and discipline to name a few.  Second, I have a mastery orientation, that is, I want to learn and improve so that I can be the best (to my ability) in what I do (Donald, 2012).  In contrast, those who have a performance orientation benchmark their growth and/or performance relative to others (Donald, 2012).  I believe that I am on my own journey – the road I travel may be rough at times and my destination will not be as glamorous as others is – but it is the journey that I have chosen.

            As with yin and yang, there is a duality in my self – as I have strengths, I will also have weaknesses.  My weaknesses are those things that I don’t do well and I want to do better.  Although I mentioned that compassion was a potential strength, I also believe that a weakness of mine is that I am not compassionate enough.  I may find it difficult to put others first when I am also suffering.  I hold onto a misguided narrative that ‘If I can find the strength to overcome, then so can you’.  However, I realize that the strengths I possess may not apply to another person and he or she does need help.  Another thing that I desire to improve is my intellectual courage.  To have intellectual courage means two things.  First, I must be able to address and reflect on ideas, beliefs, or viewpoints that are different from my own (Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2015).  This will help with my mindfulness, that is, awareness of my environment and others (Boyatzis & McKee, 2005).  Second, I must not “passively and uncritically ‘accept’ what (I) have ‘learned’" (Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2015, p. para. 2)

            A weakness of mine that I want to eliminate is self-doubt.  For a long time, I have struggled with the thought “Am I good enough?”  I understand that to overcome self-doubt that I have to renew my relationship with self.  I must remember my strengths and know that I am worthy.  I cannot let another’s opinion of me skew how I see myself. 

            I understand that my ‘personal balance sheet’ will always have assets and liabilities.  As much as I would like to rid myself of all my weaknesses, I know that it is not possible.  After all, we are imperfect beings.  Yet, I believe the key to my success – to live a noble and worthy life – is ultimately having my good outweigh the bad.

 

References

Boyatzis, R. E. (2006). An overview of intentional change from a complexity perspective. Journal of Management Development, 607-623.

Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2005). Resonant leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Donald, B. (2012, May 10). Retrieved from Stanford News: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/may/shape-achievement-goals-051012.html

Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2015). Retrieved from www.criticalthinking.org: http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/valuable-intellectual-traits/528

U.S. Department of the Army. (2002). FM 7-22.7, The Army Noncommisioned Officer Guide. Washington D.C.: Department of the Army.

Appreciating Your “Real Self”

Appreciating Your “Real Self”

            I have learned to appreciate myself.  For many years of my life, I tried to be so many things for all the wrong reasons.  I did not know what I truly wanted (or needed) to be.  I often misunderstood my worth.  Rather than value my strengths, I dwelled on my weaknesses.  I felt that I always had to improve, not from a continuous improvement perspective, but because I felt that was not good enough.  This was my “double-edged sword” – my feelings of needing to improve provided me the purpose and motivation to challenge myself and work harder, yet, it also led to my dissonance and the sacrifice syndrome (Boyatzis & McKee, 2005).  As a result, my relationships with God and my family and friends suffered.  Moreover, my relationship with self suffered.  I did not know myself well; I did not have mindfulness.  Without mindfulness, I could not recognize and accept my feelings, thoughts, and physical pain.

            I began appreciating myself when I recognized that failure was not final.  I used to believe that failure validated that I was not good enough.  This feeling began in my teenage years, a time when I had many insecurities.  It was further perpetuated during an Army career with the “zero-defect” mentality.  One will not find a “zero-defect” policy or regulation but it is an informal institution within the Army culture.  Within the Army culture, and especially in the leadership ranks, the general sentiment was that a career’s worth of ‘Atta boys’ can be washed away by a mistake.  (Consider the cases of Generals David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal).   However, that has changed for me.  Major transitions in my ‘lifeline’ occurred when my children were born and when I retired from the Army.  I wanted to take risks to become better for my family and for self.  For instance, at the age of thirty-nine, I decided to pursue a college degree.  My mindset came to view failure (or challenges) as an opportunity to learn.  In other respects, failure showed that I was trying.  The two words I want to highlight in the previous sentences are opportunity and trying.  The two aforementioned words were significant as I developed my ‘personal vision’ and to pursue my dreams and aspirations.  Taking risks to make change in my life makes me feel happy and engaged. 

            My social identity and roles have changed significantly over the past few years.  I have changed from Army First Sergeant and part-time husband/father to full-time husband/father and MBA candidate.  I now enjoy in practicing martial arts and substitute teaching/school volunteering (whereas in the Army, I only focused on work).  Being a graduate student and “Jiu-Jitsu fighter” enables me to challenge myself mentally and physically.  Substitute teaching allows me to be a teacher and leader in my community without having the formal role.  My current social circle currently consists of people with whom I share the same faith, desires, values, etc.  They have become the support system for my personal change.  I recognize that my social identity and roles have changed as my priorities have changed.  Dovidio, Gartner, Pearson, & Riek, (2005) wrote that one’s social identity can “vary as a function of social context and social and personal values” (p. 232).  My present priorities and that which I value are faith, family and friends, and self.  A professional career/work is still important to me; however, it no longer dictates who I am.

            I recall an adage that I have heard before – “If you always do the right thing, you will never have regrets”.  I can appreciate my “real self” because I am guided by values and principles.  Moreover, I am now guided by a personal vision to become (hopefully) my ideal self.  I can appreciate my “real self” because I am aware of my weaknesses (also referred to as “gaps) and acknowledge and accept them (McKee, Boyatzis, & Johnston, 2008).  On the other hand, I can appreciate my “real self” because I also value my strengths.  One of my greatest strengths is that I will not quit.  I have grit and determination.  I am a person whom friends see as honest, forthright, and loyal.  I am a person that (I hope) my wife and kids see as a loving and caring husband and father.  Lastly, I see myself as a person who has challenges ahead but is purpose-driven and whose beliefs and values are the markers that will keep me on the right road. 

References

Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2005). Resonant leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Dovidio, J., Gartner, S., Pearson, A., & Riek, B. (2005). Social identities and social context: Social attitudes and personal well-being. Advances in Group Porcessess, 231-260.

McKee, A., Boyatzis, R., & Johnston, F. (2008). Becoming a resonant leader. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

ICT at the Team Level

            Intentional group development is described as “…the complex and discontinuous nature of change in groups” (Akrivou, Boyatzis, & McLeod, 2006).  Groups are complex systems where the individual team members are interdependent of one another.  Both the Olympic US Women’s Soccer team and US Dream Team basketball men’s team were comprised of professional athletes.  What was unique about these teams (and similar teams to follow) is that every one of the team’s members was highly skilled and had high will.  Thus, it may be argued that these athletes were reaching the pinnacle of their ideal selves; they were the best of the best.  Yet, putting a team together of “ideal selves” does not automatically mean an ideal team emerges.  Akrivou, et al. (2006) wrote that an ideal group/team is derived from a) “emergent awareness of a shared hope”, b) “collective imagery regarding the ideal purpose and functioning of the group”, and c) “realization and articulation of a core identity of the group” (p. 697).  This group development is merely drawn from the intentional change theory (ICT) for the individual.  Thus, having knowledge of what makes an ideal team, I can identify two main issues that may have helped or hindered the development of the team.  Both issues relate to identifying one’s ideal self versus real self. 

            Akrivou, et al. (2006) discussed the psychodynamic perspective of group development, a paradigm that suggested a “natural evolution” of the group to move toward an understood goal.  In the case of the two aforementioned teams, the implicit goal was to unify as a team rather than a collection of superstar athletes who were playing together.  However, an issue that can arise from this type of circumstance is the issue of independence versus interdependence.  For instance, most if not all of the athletes on the US women’s Soccer team and US men’s basketball team were star players and/or leaders on their own professional teams.  These star players were the usually the first option as the “go-to” guy or gal.  As the “go-to” guy or gal, this meant that the said person was central to much of his or her team’s plays.  However, in the case of “dream teams”, a pecking order arises (formally or informally) where even a “go-to” guy or gal is now just a role-player.  It had to be this way – consider the adage “Too many chiefs and not enough Indians”.  Yet, for a professional star athlete, it may have been difficult to become interdependent on others when one is used to being independent, that is, calling their own shots (both figuratively and literally).  Although it may seem like this minor dysfunction could easily be resolved, Gibbard, Hartman, & Mann (1974) asserted that the “dynamic issue of equilibrium can never be attained” regarding the team.  In other words, the team members may act interdependent and yet not truly believe in being interdependent.  The issue may be control, in which there is a “leadership struggle with competition among all individual members of the group” (Akrivou, Boyatzis, & McLeod, 2006, p. 692).

            Another possible problem with the 2000 Dream Team could have been its inaccurate observation of real self.  The American men’s basketball teams did not lose a single game in international competition dating back to 1992 (when the original Dream Team was assembled).  Thus, the 2000 team may have believed that they were too good to lose.  The team’s observation of its real self may have been that it was infallible.  This thought in itself in dangerous because its leads one to believe that there is little or no improvements to be made.  Visualizing one’s ideal self requires one to candidly look at his or her weaknesses.  Thus, believing that they were unbeatable, and that the games were a simple formality enroute to the gold medal, the 2000 men’s basketball team may have played uninspired, apathetic, and with no transcendent purpose.  This behavior would perpetuate with the 2004 team.  Mike Krzyzewski, coach of the 2008 team, remarked about the 2004 team:

I, too, had watched as the United States had lost its competitive edge in international basketball.  This is not to place blame on those involved with the 2004 Olympic basketball team, a team that was comprised of some of the most talented players and some of the most knowledgeable coaches in the game.  In my perspective, the system failed them.  The team was sent into competition ill-prepared.  It was not a lack of talent or basketball know-how; it was simply a lack of proper time and competition. (p. 23)

Krzyzewski & Spatola (2009) further added, “This system was no longer conducive to winning” (p. 23) referring to a basketball program that lacked the vision.  A team not focused on results is one of the ‘Five Dysfunctions of a Team’ (Lencioni, 2002).  This dysfunction leads to stagnation, lack of competiveness, and loss of achievement-orientation by team members (Lencioni, 2002).

            However, I would be remiss if I did not state the US men’s basketball teams in 2000/2004 were good teams.  I believe there are two reasons why people perceived the 2000/2004 teams as less than good.  First, the 1992 Dream Team set the standard for all subsequent U.S. men’s basketball team – the team, consisting of legends such as Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, and Larry Bird, easily won their games by a significant margin.  The international teams could not compete with the same level of talent.  Thus, people expected the U.S. to dominate international basketball play.  However, by 2000 (and later), many other countries had developed talented and skilled teams thus closing the gap and making the games more competitive.  In comparison, the roles are almost exactly reversed for the Olympic US Women’s Soccer team.  America has not been considered a “powerhouse” in international soccer competition – other countries have had better teams.  Yet, the US Women’s Soccer program developed the talent and skills to over the past several decades to compete and win while other countries were apathetic to their women’s teams (Morris, 2015).  The Olympic US Women’s Soccer team had a vision to win and created the teams to do it.

References

Akrivou, K., Boyatzis, R. E., & McLeod, P. L. (2006). The evolving group: towards a prescriptive theory of intentional group development. Journal of Management Development, 689-706.

Gibbard, G., Hartman, J., & Mann, R. (1974). Analysis of Groups; Contributions to Theory Research and Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Krzyzewski, M., & Spatola, J. (2009). The gold standard: Building a world-class team. New York, NY: Hachette Book Group.

Lencioni, P. (2002). Retrieved from governmentresource.com: https://www.governmentresource.com/The_Five_Dysfunctions_of_a_Team.pdf

Morris, B. (2015, June 30). FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved from http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/why-is-the-u-s-so-good-at-womens-soccer/