Tag: leadership

The Wisdom of Leadership and the Courage to Be Vulnerable

We live in a culture of performance: business, sports, and education all expect leaders to be strong, certain, strategic, and always in control. Yet the paradox of high performance is this: striving to be invulnerable can make us fragile.

Neuroscience and sports psychology (for example, acceptance and commitment therapy) show that anxiety, perfectionism, and fear of mistakes shrink cognitive flexibility and creativity. The more we obsess over results, the more our attention collapses into the future. This focus makes us less present with what is happening now. As mental performance coach Graham Betchart puts it: “Stress is the absence of presence.”

This is not a new idea. Long before modern psychology, philosopher Simone Weil described attention as the most radical form of presence. She argued that attention is not controlling the world, but consenting to it. True attention, she wrote, requires self-emptying: standing unprotected in front of reality, without illusion or defense. Vulnerability is the precondition for wisdom.

Read the rest in Psychology Today.

FIFA and the Refusal of Moral Progress

It has become obvious that something is rotten in the internal governing body of football (soccer), the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). Qatar is the evidence.

If FIFA wishes to achieve new goals or pursue a vision for a better future, then it needs a leader. Or different leaders. Leadership is often described as “doing the right thing.” Knowing what is the right thing to do and how to defend this position, for example, by arguing why it is right, makes a leader ethical.

It might be too late for FIFA due to the growing number of scandals. However, if it manages to regain some sort of confidence from its stakeholders—fans, sponsors, players, and the public—it needs ethical and responsible leadership.

For more than ten years, the nomination of Qatar as host of the World Cup has been infected by a growing list of ethical problems. To mention just the two most prominent ones: the numerous deaths of migrant workers, who built the stadiums, and the denial of basic human rights for LGBT people and women.

During the past two years, public protest has escalated as many journalists have created exemplary investigative and critical journalism about FIFA and Qatar.

Still, FIFA has refused to take responsibility. This became obvious when the current president of FIFA, Gianni Infantino, gave his opening speech the day before the tournament started. Infantino showed that FIFA does not want to change because it does not care about people’s lives and human rights.

In his opening speech, Infantino presented a mixture of moral subjectivism and cultural relativism. He exhibited moral subjectivism when he reduced ethics to his opinions and emotions, claiming that he “feels like” a migrant worker, a gay person, an Arab, etc. He showed cultural relativism when he claimed that Europeans should not criticize other countries due to their history. Instead, he suggested that Europeans must respect Qatari culture, and since Qatar sees homosexuality as deviant and women as inferior, Europeans must simply accept this. Therefore, Infantino and FIFA believe that human beings cannot and should not achieve moral progress. The fact that homosexuality is accepted and legal and that gender equality is being strived for in Europe (and elsewhere) should not be seen as better than the situation in Qatar, according to Infantino.

If FIFA had studied ethics—perhaps read Carol Galligan´s work on care ethics, which encourages us to view what happens around us from a place of empathy, or Aristotle´s virtue ethics, according to which you perform certain actions because they are good—would things have been different with the 2022 World Cup? I believe so. This is why leadership and ethical studies are strongly needed in the world of sport—because there is only one world.

Unfortunately, FIFA’s charade has not ended. The Belgium team has been told to remove the word “love” from the collar of their t-shirts, and several teams have been told that their captains cannot wear the “One Love” armband. If they do, they will receive a yellow card.

FIFA is taking politics and sports to a new level. Sadly, it is the lowest one ever.

First published in The Sport Digest

Finn Janning, PhD, is a philosopher who teaches in Sport Ethics, Sport Psychology and Sport Coaching.

Learn to philosophize

Today, we live in a society organized mainly by capitalism. Not only is making money an objective that guides many people’s lives, but so are prestige, status, and social identity. Even when corporations claim that “people come first,” they refer to their employees’ skills and experiences as “human capital” or “cultural capital.”

Everything we do is a currency that can be counted. This problem can be seen through two concepts: power and freedom.

Today, the power that controls us (i.e. status, prestige, identity) appears invisible unless we pay very careful attention. But—and this is the problem—we rarely pay attention because that which works as an invisible or imperceptible power is also what seduces us not to pay attention.

The consequence is that we are not free. Freedom can be seen as both a problem and a possibility. It is becoming, emphasizing that we become by combining courage to stand against dominating ideals and norms with the imagination that things could be different. Thus, freedom is more than my individual liberty to do whatever I feel like doing because that neglects how everything is interconnected. Freedom is social; it’s about succeeding in creating a sustainable future—together.

Most philosophers – and this is probably no surprise – suggest that thinking is the best remedy against today’s maladies. But in order to think philosophically (i.e. reflect, contemplate, analyze) we must be capable of loving, that is, relating to others and the world with care.

Socrates is the example. He philosophized for free. And he showed that philosophy is social. Perhaps for that reason is it difficult to philosophize today when we have become too narcissistic. “The narcissistic-depressive subject only hears its own echo… Social media like Twitter and Facebook aggravate this development, they are narcissistic media,” wrote Korean philosopher Byung-Chul Han In The Swarm.

The question, therefore, is: how do we learn to pay attention?

Philosophy and mindfulness in the schools

The answer is to bring philosophy and mindfulness to schools at all levels, although my errand here is at business schools. Business is, of course, part of the current problem as well as it can become a crucial part of the solution.

Mindfulness is easy to implement as a non-religious meditation practice which helps cultivate and strengthen our capacity to pay attention. With this in mind, future leaders can with greater success make sustainable and responsible decisions that are not grounded in their own egos, or the ego of the board members. The point is to cultivate an awareness that will gradually make it desirable to make decisions on behalf of others – if for no other reason, then because we are all connected.

The combination of philosophy and mindfulness, I believe, is one the strongest assets against today’s rigid achievement society that makes many of us suffer in a way that very few people realize that they themselves are the perpetrators of their own misery. It’s also a strong tool against the current idea that transparency per se is good, although it undermines the most elementary of human relations: trust.

Still, before future leaders can act in a sustainable way, they must be aware of what is actually going on. And it is here that business schools can be part of creating a better future for all, because instead of speaking about attention and concentration, we can develop it. And once future leaders are aware, they will also question some of the models used in business.

The blogpost was originally post at Esencialblog at Toulouse Business School – Barcelona.

Philosophical Counseling

Some years ago, I was teaching a course in Philosophical Counseling. To my surprise, all that the students wanted to know was “What is the right thing to do?” Having that knowledge, they assumed, would make life easier. “Perhaps,” I said, “but not better or more interesting.”

Their request is part of the obsessive achievement eagerness of today’s society to perform well according to fixed ideals. It creates dullness when it comes to mental exercises. The unfortunate norm is the faster the better. I told them that philosophy is about developing problems, not delivering solutions. It’s a slow practice. It’s for life. My answer made them fidget with impatience. To philosophize, I emphasized, is to dwell on the fundamental questions, and these questions are developed in problems, just as the problems are enveloped in fundamental questions.

Yet, my students insisted: “So, what is the right question?”

I told them that this particular question was related to the problem embedded in the question. For example, how do you draw a clear distinction between right and wrong?

The ones who weren’t paying attention looked up from their screens.

In sports, where the rules are given, I said, it is rather obvious to tell whether a player is “doing it wrong.” Similarly, in business, where profit seems to guide every decision, knowing what is right and wrong may be easier. Life, however, is neither a game nor a business, although there is a tendency to classify people into winners and loser as if life were that simple. Such labeling is part of today’s achievement society. Everyone’s performance is measured according to an ideal–and ideal that is often related to the staus, prestige, power, and, of course, money that is associated with being a winner.

They went silent, so I went on. Of course, there are things in life that are rather obvious. For instance, no one needs philosophy to tell you that it is wrong to kill, discriminate against, or repress other people. Instead, philosophy begins when we start to questioning the obvious. Could I live another life? What is also possible? How may I also live?

A part of philosophy is to accept that some problems remain without solution; some questions can’t be answered once and for all.

Such a question is Which life is worth living?

Of course, one of my students then asked me: “Which life is worth living?”

This is how A Philosophy of Mindfulness – A Journey with Deleuze begins.

31DYvhXpQ0L._SX311_BO1,204,203,200_

The risks of flexibility

“… we live in a world where we constantly have to perform or achieve something –often in a smiley and positive way– and still we presume ourselves to be free, although in reality we voluntarily exploit ourselves until we collapse.”

I recently did an interview with the Spanish paper Expansion about flexibility, stress, positivity, and leadership.

The entire interview can be read here.

 

A Philosophy of Mindfulness

 A Philosophy of Mindfulness is out!

Cover

In this book, I argue that we need a “new” philosophy because we—many of us, at least—are blind. We see rather little of that which surrounds us.

By mixing mindfulness with the affirmative philosophy of Gilles Deleuze, I unfold a philosophy of mindfulness. A philosophy that makes us less blind but also ethically responsible in relation to what we experience. Hereby, I move mindfulness from the sphere of psychology into philosophy, or from being primarily an inward-turned practice to an out-turned one.

A Philosophy of Mindfulness puts emphasis on experience, experiment, and actualization or affirmation. Each experience matters; life is the experience of making contact or being connected with what is in the midst of becoming—that is, life—and then passing it on to the next generations.

Mindful leadership for beginners

We all know the simple moral principle that the buyers of stolen goods are as guilty as the thief. I recall this principle from childhood. The point is that the thief wouldn’t steal if no one was buying—at least a thief wouldn’t steal because of greed or arrogance, but perhaps only to meet his or her basic needs, e.g., food.

This moral principle touches upon a basic microeconomic model: supply and demand.

Continue reading here.

Character as moral fiction

There is a growing interest in virtue ethics. For example, studies with Positive Psychology and Leadership often use the term virtuousness to refer to a kind of high performance or excellence. Mark Alfano’s book; Character as Moral Fiction places itself within this ongoing debate that has roots going back to Aristotle’s.

In short Alfano’s thesis is as follows: if you tell a person that he or she is honest or respectful, the person will be motivated to act in accordance herewith. His idea is strongly related to the self-fulfilling prophecies that we associate with the placebo effect, where the belief involved in placebos is that “they are true because they are announced, not announced because they are true.” 

 Alfano’s argument is, therefore, not utilitarian, i.e. because it produces good consequences; nor deontological, i.e. because it is based on an absolute rule of moral behavior. Instead Alfano injects moral philosophy with the idea that fictional inventions can improve us morally. What Alfano does is that he quite ingeniously takes a well-known phenomenon that words can create belief or even obedience to certain virtues, e.g. something similar is seen in personal selection, appreciative inquiry, and recognition management. The point is that a description (or postulate, even) can affect us.

To begin with Alfano distinguishes between normative theory (e.g. what is good and virtuous), moral psychology (e.g. describing and explaining human conduct), and moral technology that “attempts to bridge the gap between moral psychology and normative theory by proposing ways in which we … can become more as we should be.” Thus, Alfano doesn’t interfere with the moral categories or the definitions of moral virtuous. Instead he presents us with a moralizing pep-talk that shows that we can do more of what is already defined as being virtuous. It’s an optimistic book.

A large part of the book reads like a dense literature study that also aims at defending his thesis — especially against the challenge of the situation.  Alfano’s contribution to this debate is that he tries to change the relative strength between the agent, the social environment, and the environment as such. Instead of letting a specific situation or context affect us, it is better to create individual expectations that would affect the outcome. Hereby he also adds to the triad within social psychology. Philip Zimbardo, for example, refers to the individual, the situation and the system. To put is simple: Zimbardo tries to avoid vicious behavior by creating a virtuous situation, whereas Alfano tries to overcome a potential bad situation by stimulating the individual towards doing good by saying that he or she already is good — it is here fiction can play a role since the positive characteristic of the person may only be an invention.  

Alfano defines a “factious virtue” as a creative making or calibration. For example, a person “may not be virtuous in fact“; however, a “tactically deployed fictions result in factitious virtue.” The idea is very attractive. Yet, I still think that Alfano is too limited in his use of fiction and the potential to create new experiences, perhaps even provide us with new concepts by which to live. 

Let us imagine a young academic. Just like anyone else, he or she is subjected to the slogans of positive thinking that dictates more efficiency and personal growth, just because he or she can. Based on Alfano’s thesis the young academic will live up to this positive description of his or her factitious virtuous, yet these virtuous might also be the ones that will lead the same person straight to depression, anxiety, and stress. Our young academic might not be doing what he or she really can, because he or she is being persuaded or motivated into playing the role of being good according to the ideals defined by someone else, i.e. efficient according to what objectives; growth according to what ideals? 

The problem with the thesis, therefore, is not whether being honest and generous are attractive characteristics, but how one might live out these virtues even if they contrast with the ideals of the majority, i.e. with the norms of our present performance society. This debate is absent in Alfano’s work.

Thus, the core challenge for Alfano is, as I see it, whether we actually know what is good beforehand or not. Alfano assumes that we do know beforehand. However, What if the context is not given? What if lying actually is the only way for a person to remain generous? His use of fiction is restricted by what is already defined as being good, right and virtuous. Yet, the most serious moral and ethical challenges today are so due to their uncertainties.

 Regardless of my interventions, this book is what both moral psychology and normative theory needs: a fresh and courageous approach. It is especially enriching for students of moral psychology, because the author generously refers to so many studies, but it could also serve the vast theory within management and organizational studies that tries to convert people. 

Alfano’s “factious virtue” proposes how we might become more as we should be. He wants to guide us, but as with any guide, one should be courteous in respect of the objectives.

First published in Metapsychology, 2014.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑