Theories of Ethics

            Morals and ethics have always been a part of my life.  However, that is not to say that I have always behaved morally and/or ethically.  I was raised (as I assume most are) to choose “right” over “wrong” or good over bad.  Most of the time, I followed the moral and/or ethical “rules” because that is what I believed we ought to do.  As a youngster and through adolescence, I behaved in a way that I thought others expected of me.  Occasionally I erred, but not because I had malice in my heart.  I broke the rules because I was immature, ignorant, and/or perceived that the benefits outweighed the costs.

            I did not question why the rules were the way they were.  I did not critically think why something was right or wrong, it just was.  I understood that if I did “wrong” or “bad”, then I would face the consequences accordingly.  Morality, as I saw it, was a list of “do nots” i.e. do not lie, do not cheat, etc.  In addition, I viewed consequences as something directed only at me.  For example, if I would steal, I accepted that consequences were the punishment I would receive if I were caught.  I did not consider other consequences such as the effects on those whom I stole from. 

            Today, I am a much different person.  I generally live by this maxim, ‘If I always do things right, then I will have no regrets’.  My moral and ethical foundation is strong – I am cognizant and understand (usually) what is right or wrong – and I choose to behave and act in a way that is right.  In contrast, when I was much younger, I behaved and acted in a way for the reasons above (to please others and/or avoid punishment).  Yet, despite my strong moral compass, I still often find myself at ethical “crossroads” where I am not so sure which path is the (truly) right one. 

            Therefore, I recognize the value of the ethics teachings I have received during my college education.  The teachings have given me ethical awareness and understanding, both of which I need when at a “crossroads”.  When I read The Practice of Ethics by LaFollette, I notice two recurring themes – consequences and principles.  These two simple notions are further expounded into separate theories, consequentialism and deontology (LaFollette, 2007). 

            LaFollete wrote that the theory of consequentialism is one where a person is “morally obligated to act in ways that produces the best consequences” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 23).  Haines (n.d.) elaborated further writing that, “…the morally right action is the one with the best overall consequences”.  In other words, with consequentialism, the aim is not to make the most moral and/or ethical decision but to make the decision that brings provides happiness for the most people.  Unfortunately, I believe that most people do not see consequences as such.  They (like I used to) only see the immediate and direct consequences as it pertains to them.  Yet, as much as I would want to believe that I think things through, it is not possible to recognize all of the consequences.  Thus, there is one problem with consequentialism – it is based on the assumption that I (or others) make all our decisions by thinking about overall consequences. 

            So what if I am unsure that my ethical decision will lead to the best outcome?  If it does not, then I will be morally wrong.  What if I am more concerned about my morality than the “ends justifying the means”?  Then I ought to consider deontology as the framework for my ethical decision-making.  Deontology is the theory where one’s behavior and/or actions are the benchmark in ethical decision-making, and not the consequences.  LaFollete (2007) wrote that “the consequences of our actions are either morally irrelevant, or at most only a small portion of the moral story” (p. 53).

            Deontology is only concerned with a decision that conforms to a moral norm – the consequences be what they may.  If I make ethical decisions from a deontological perspective, then I assuredly will always be righteous.  Yet, as appealing as that may sound, always choosing “right” is not practical in the real world.  For example, Mastin (2008) wrote about Immanuel Kant’s notorious argument that lying is always wrong “…even if a murderer is asking for the location of a potential victim” (para. 3).  In reality, we do have to deal and live with the consequences of our decisions. 

            I believe that my own ethical decision-making is a balance between the two theories.  Both have their merits and drawbacks.  That said, I believe that consequentialism is the more reasonable choice in the real world.  I can adjust my moral bearing (but not completely deviate from my values) to bring the most happiness.  Deontology, on the other hand, is an absolute in a world where problems are not absolute.

References

Haines, W. (n.d.). Retrieved from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://www.iep.utm.edu/conseque/

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Masten, L. (2008). Retrieved from Philosophy Basics: http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_deontology.html

The Train Dilemma

The Train Dilemma

            In ‘The Train Dilemma’, I was faced with several scenarios in which I had to make an ethical decision.  In each of the scenarios, regardless of my decision, the outcome was always bad – in any decision, the outcome was that someone, or a group of people, would die.  It is most convenient for me to make decisions based on instinct and/or emotion.  However, I understand that that kind of decision-making does not lend the best method for solving a problem – it is asserted that ethics is not what I personally feel is right or wrong (Bonde & Firenze, 2013).  I must have a logical way to make ethical decisions.  Thus, I consider the framework and guiding principles below. 

            Christensen & Boneck (2010) discuss one such framework for ethical decision-making in their case study of right-versus-right ethical dilemmas.  I believe ‘The Train Dilemma’ scenarios are right-versus-right ethical dilemmas because I am trying to save a life or lives (albeit at the cost of another’s/other lives).  However, the scenarios can also be viewed as between two “bads”.  The aforementioned framework consists of four general questions to ask.  They are:

1.      “Which course of action will do the most good and the least harm” (p. 54)?  This is the ‘Utilitarian Approach (Bonde & Firenze, 2013).

2.      “Which alternative best serves others' rights, including shareholders' rights” (p. 54)?  This is the ‘Rights Approach’ (Bonde & Firenze, 2013).

3.      “What plan can I live with, which is consistent with basic values and commitments” (p. 54)?  This is the ‘Virtue Approach’ (Bonde & Firenze, 2013). 

4.      “Which course of action is feasible in the world as it is” (p. 54)?

            Each of the above questions are considered separate and alternative actions but may be used in combination.  I must consider the approaches and then decide which alternative(s) best fits the situation.  In addition, LaFollete (2007) wrote that in deliberating the ethics of a decision it we must consider the criterion of consequences and principles.  Consequences refers to the outcome of one’s decision and principles refers to “stick to our moral guns” (LaFollette, 2007, p. 20). 

            My decisions in the following scenarios will be based on the facts that I know, applying ethical decision-making guidelines, and following my heart (after all, it would be naïve to believe that I can completely ignore my emotions/feelings).  

            In the first scenario, I must decide between saving one life or five lives.  My decision is straightforward; save the five lives (using the Utilitarian Approach).  In the second scenario, I must decide between pushing (or not) an old man into the oncoming train, and thus saving five lives.  My decision is to not push the old man and considering the ‘Fairness or Justice Approach’ (Velasquez, et al., 2015).  In this scenario, I believe that the old man has the right to live as much as the five young children; the difference is that the children’s lives were already in danger by whatever events that led to that point, whereas the old man’s life is not.  (This decision assumes that I am not responsible for causing the five children to be on the tracks.)  This is not a decision between saving saving lives where both are in simultaneous danger but forcing one to give his or her life for another.  I say that I would be more inclined to sacrifice my own life in this scenario (and in all three scenarios for that matter).  However, do I believe that I have the courage to do so?    

            In the third and final scenario, I must choose to save either my own child’s life or the lives of five other children.  This is the most difficult decision to make.  Logically, I ought to choose to save the lives of the five children.  This decision is the action that will do the most good in saving five lives over one.  Moreover, it foregoes the bereavement of five separate families versus one family (my own).  However, I said it is the most difficult ethical decision because it concerns my own self-interests (and feelings).  In considering the consequences of my decision, I will take the ‘Egoistic Approach’ (Bonde & Firenze, 2013).  In the egoistic approach, I am (selfishly) making the decision to produce the greatest amount of good for me.  This the scenario in which I will be unable to ignore my emotions/feelings. 

References

Bonde, S., & Firenze, P. (2013, May). Retrieved from www.brown.edu: https://www.brown.edu/academics/science-and-technology-studies/framework-making-ethical-decisions

Christensen, D., & Boneck, R. (2010). Four questions for analyzing the right-versus-right dilemmas of managers. Journal of Business Case Studies, 53-58.

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Velasquez, M., Moberg, D., Meyer, M. J., Shank, T., McLean, M. R., DeCosse, D., . . . Hanson, K. O. (2015, August 1). Retrieved from www.scu.edu: https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/a-framework-for-ethical-decision-making/

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/

Tipping Points of Emotional Intelligence

Tipping Points of Emotional Intelligence

            Boyatzis (2006) wrote that a good (effective) leader distinguishes him or herself from their contemporaries through his or her enhanced competencies.  In the context of this topic, competencies are described as those behavioral abilities or attributes needed to be successful in a job (University of Nottingham, 2016).  Whether one is a leader or a follower, competencies are considered “necessary” to successful performance (Boyatzis, 2006).  Riggio (2010) asserted that the most successful leaders possess these top ten leadership competencies – the competencies are social intelligence, interpersonal skills, emotional intelligence, prudence, courage, conflict management, decision-making, political skills, influence skills, and area expertise/competence.  I want to highlight that Boyatzis (2006) wrote that, “Some of the competencies related to effectiveness reflect cognitive intelligence, but many of them are behavioral manifestations of emotional intelligence” (p. 124).  If one notices, many of the aforementioned competencies (top ten) are related to one’s behavior, that is, his or her expression of personal emotion e.g. courage or perceiving others emotions e.g. interpersonal skills.  Thus, while success may be attributed to one having a high intelligence e.g. IQ, it seems that the truly successful are those who are in tune with their and others emotions.   

            Therefore, as a leader I ask myself, “How many of these competencies do I have?”  My response is that I believe I have demonstrated every one of the aforementioned competencies.  Yet, as I reflect, I consider the following question, “How well have I demonstrated my competencies?”  It is one thing to have done something, and yet another to have done something well (or even have mastery).  However, how do I quantitatively measure my “levels” of competency?  Boyatzis (2006) wrote that a ‘tipping point analysis’ helps examine “how much of the competency is sufficient for outstanding performance” (p. 214).  In his research, Boyatzis used mathematical models to determine a correlation between those deemed “superior” (in terms of performance) and the frequency in which they demonstrated a particular competency (as observed by others).  The ‘tipping point’ was the frequency in which those competencies were displayed – on a scale of 1-3: 3= consistently and frequently; 2= occasionally; 1= rarely or never (Boyatzis, 2006, p. 128).  For instance, the tipping point for the competency ‘empathy’ was 2.78 – the correlation was that a “superior” performer demonstrated empathy ‘consistently and frequently’.  Other competencies that correlated with superior performance included planning, achievement orientation, adaptability, conscientiousness, values learning, coaching, and systems thinking (Boyatzis, 2006, p. 130).

            Yet, the ‘tipping point’ is more than simply demonstrating a competency more frequently; it is demonstrating the competency (or competencies) at the right moment.  For instance, when I have demonstrated empathy for others, did I do it when they needed it the most?  Did I demonstrate compassion (turning my empathy into action)?  The tipping point may also be that moment when a competency is realized.  A tipping point in which I realized a competency occurred early in my Army career – the competency I speak of is ‘values learning’.  I have written before in my reflection blogs and general assignments that as a teen, I was rudderless and without direction.  I was not in control of my emotions and actions.  Yet, all of that somehow (and inexplicably) changed when I joined the Army.  The competency of values learning was invoked by leaders; those who would coach and mentor me.  It would be hard for me to attribute this to any one person, therefore, I will recall those I who believe were influential in this development e.g. Mitch McCall, Jaime Aburto, and Ricky Yates to name a few.  The values that I learned (and live to this day) are loyalty, duty, respect, selfless-service, honor, integrity, and personal courage.  It is no coincidence that these values are the Army’s core values and carry the apt acronym LDRSHIP.  The leaders I mentioned demonstrated these values and encouraged me to do the same.  They inspired me though their personal example.  They taught me what to do.  Ricky constantly told me, “If you always do the right thing, you will never have regrets”. 

            I believe that my other competencies would not have developed if I had lacked core values.  For instance, my learned values laid the foundation for which I could build by social and emotional intelligence.  Having core values and living by those values is self-management.  Self-management enabled me to engage my emotions in a way that was positive.

References

Boyatzis, R. (2006). Retrieved from Psicothema: http://www.psicothema.com/pdf/3287.pdf

Riggio, R. (2014, April 27). Retrieved from Psychology Today: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201404/the-top-10-leadership-competencies

University of Nottingham. (2016, July 11). Retrieved from www.nottingham.ac.uk: https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/hr/guidesandsupport/performanceatwork/pdpr/pdpr-behavioural-competency-guide/what-are-competencies.aspx

Working with EI: Getting Results!

           I have always been driven by emotion; however, I have not always had emotional intelligence (EI).  Goleman asserted that self-awareness is knowing what we are feeling and why we are feeling it (Goleman, 2012).  He further adds that self-awareness leads to good decision-making and having a moral compass.  So then, when I was younger (around ages 16 – 18), I completely lacked self-awareness.  I often had the emotions of being angry, hurt, selfish, and insecure.  This stemmed from my upbringing and environment.  I grew up in a low-income household in a tough city (El Paso, TX).  I ran the streets with gang members – I connected with those who were like me, those who didn’t have much and wanted more but didn’t know how to get it.  As a result, I had a “me against the world” mentality.  I felt as if everything were conspiring to keep me an outcast in life.  I had little self-control and acted impulsively, and I often made bad decisions.  Fortunately, I decided to join the Army.  My new job took me away from the things that had negatively influenced me and gave me purpose.  Moreover, my life had structure and I had a path to follow.  My self-awareness had changed.  My emotions changed to energetic, hopeful, and optimistic.  Yet, there was still a bit of anger – anger at those who would continue to doubt and/or marginalize me – but I used the emotion to motivate me to achieve.  To this day, I am still driven by emotion but I recognize which ones are constructive and which are destructive.

            Yet, self-awareness was not enough because I was still (as some people called me) a “hot-head”.  Although I knew which emotions were destructive, I acted on them out of impulse.  Therefore, I needed the EI for self-management.  Self-management is described as “managing one’s internal states, impulses, and resources” (Boyatzis, 2009).  As time passed, I began to mature and became a young leader.  I started to understand the need for self-management and particularly the need for emotional self-control.  Early in my career, I had learned hard lessons about losing control, or to put it another way, giving in to my vices.  As my self-control improved, I derived other benefits – I adjusted to change easier, was achievement oriented, and had an overall positive outlook.  Being positive gave me strength; I wasn’t fearful of obstacles or failure.  Goleman (2012) said that self-management is being able to “handle your distressing emotions in effective ways so they don’t cripple you”.  A favorite quote of mine is from Admiral (retired) James Stockdale who once said, “The test of character is not ‘hanging in there’ when you expect a light at the end of the tunnel, but performance of duty and persistence of example when you know that no light is coming” (Department of the Army, 1985, p. 19).   I was becoming that leader whom I aspired to be, one who would lead by example.

            To become a good leader, I also needed social awareness and social skills.  Social awareness, described as a competency of social intelligence, refers to a relationship with others and awareness of their feelings, needs, and concerns (Boyatzis, 2009).  A significant emotion that I had to develop as a young leader was empathy.  Although I understood others struggles, I seldom empathized.  I had pulled myself up from my own “bootstraps”, so why couldn’t they?  I felt that it was enough when I gave them an example that good things happen when you have purpose and grit.  However, I realized that as leader, I had the responsibility for my followers’ well-being, both in their personal lives and in work.  Moreover, I recognized that I had only become who I was because I was fortunate to have leaders that cared for me.  My leaders had coached and mentored me, inspired me, and influenced my emotions and actions.  They made me better.  Thus, I want to do the same for others.

References

Boyatzis, R. (2009). Competencies as a behavioral approach to emotional intelligence. Journal of Managment Development, 749-770. doi:10.1108/02621710910987647

Department of the Army. (1985). Leadership statement and quotes. Washington, DC: Department of the Army. Retrieved from buildingamidshipman.wordpress.com: https://buildingamidshipman.wordpress.com/

Goleman, D. (2012, April 23). Retrieved from www.youtube.com: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7m9eNoB3NU