Polarities
or paradoxes require us to manage both sides of the opposing pole in a phenomenon, but
not as compromise, nor as compensation for the non-preferred pole. Like
between managing rewards of individuals and the team as a whole in organizations;
or between routine and change. The term balance in such cases, can lead to a conception
of an ideal, that in essence may not be ideal. That is to say, that what is in
concept need not be the content of the phenomenon of balance. While some people are naturally
learning, and evolving across both poles in a paradox, others resist tendencies
to accept their opposing poles. Such resistance varies by degree and extent across
people, and across situations. Mastery over both poles neutralises the role of
situations to some extent. Mastery is
assumed as balancing by those who perceive it only intellectually. Once one achieves mastery over both poles,
balance follows as a natural poise, than an effort to be pursued or a trick
waiting as charismatic magic beneath the treachery of flipper tendencies. It is mastery that requires effort, on
either pole.
The more you resist, the more it persists. The more you accept, the more
you transform.
– Fritz Perls
Notes on the
Interpersonal Self
The
initiation of the interpersonal self can be said to be culminated in the realm
of opinions. The interpersonal self contains impressions and expressions both,
and as such traverses the scope of one’s personal identity; as also the
maintenance of the self in highly subjective worlds. The more you seek others’
views, the more you are obliged to opine. Similarly, the more you are asked for
your views, the more the other person is obliged to be open to your expression.
This is a reciprocity that is at the
heart of influence in human interactions.
The more you
opine with certainty, the more you have embodied your truth from the impressions
you have of your world. The more you open yourself to others’ views, the more
you are willing to be influenced to the truths they express from their worlds. Frankness
need not be certainty either. It’s about getting matters off one’s chest without
reserving interpersonal distance from the other being communicated to. Diplomacy
arises from your acknowledgement of space the other person has in his/her relationship
with you. Stepping in (frankness) and stepping out
(tact/diplomacy) of interaction presence are marks of versatility in mutual
interpersonal spaces.
Confidence in
having your needs and wants met without aggressive demand mark expressions of assertiveness.
Its converse is that submissive undertones mark pessimistic demeanour or lack
of confidence in asking for what one wants.
At times, lurking beneath one’s improvement tendencies, is an unspoken
belief of not being enough, as in an unhealthy self-esteem. At other times, the
signals one leaks in disproportionate space given to others, also encourages
others to take one for granted, and enjoy freedoms in excess of it’s usefulness
in situations. That’s when one’s influence slacks, and respect for one’s vision
weakens in interpersonal realms.
Inner poise
notwithstanding, assertiveness is void without an expression that others can
witness in their experience. Assertiveness
itself is anchored in subjective truths. It’s premised in the belief that one
has about the social world being capable of serving one’s inner needs.
Authenticity
A common understanding
to authenticity is about truth being evident through a living expressing entity.
There are some very related attributes that may clarify adjacencies and
essentials of the term. There are at least two polar opposites that when seen
in combination, gives us different conceptions of the authenticity experience.
The spread below would finely texture the authenticity experience at the very
least.
1.
Intensity – Intensity is the discharge of
passion, that gets conveyed, as if one’s life depended on the force of
communication. If not laced with light-hearted freedom from the passion, one
runs the risk of being viewed as a deadpan inflexible person, like a bull on charge
with it’s horn.
2.
Levity – Levity is the surrender of the self
in humour, sometimes even at one’s own expense, in order to perk up the mood in
a situation. While levity marks an ease with one’s own self, one runs the risk
of being considered trivial, if humour and cheer is unconscionable in
particular contexts; where solemnity may be the expected norm. That’s when one can feel like a flower budding
still-born.
Dignity lies at the intersection between intensity and levity. It is a
reputational lever of an engaged leader.
3.
Positivity – The attitude of being positive about
the future, regardless of situations, can end up in unbridled passion for one’s
cause. While this may bear similarity with optimism, positivity is also about
encouraging healthy emotionality in the other. It is more a citizen of the
interpersonal space, than optimism is. Unbridled passion meets its limitations due to
poor sense of reality.
4.
Curiosity – Curiosity too
is an attitude, that is made
manifest in enquiring behaviours. This attitude signals a desire to learn and
be apprised in the moment, regardless of past learning. While an enquirer’s naivete
can be the cost of one’s reputation in a learned group, being curious for
curiosity sake is an anxious paranoia.
Authenticity is the phenomenon of persisting with curiosity with a
positive outlook, yet; being flexible enough to be light-hearted in mistakes,
and solemn enough when bearing upon tragedy in human situations.
5.
Vulnerability – The advent of
vulnerability is a reckoning with one’s irrational fears. In interpersonal
space, fears of upsetting others or being upset oneself; fears of engendering
necessary conflict or being involved in a conflict oneself; are central to
one’s vulnerability. In some cultures it is about dealing with the aspect of
shame; whereas in others it is about dealing with guilt.
6.
Courage – As is
now the more popular notion, the root word ‘coeur’ in French is the basis
of courage. The heart is the seat of embrace with the unknown. Courage flowing
from the human heart may at times appear like a leap of faith from known
constraints. Personal transformation rarely occurs without such courage. It is after
all the willingness to let oneself go of the past in a zone of unknown.
Fidelity to Emotions
As above,
the doorway to leadership presence is through emotional breakthroughs. One may
very well ask, is not authenticity a mark of leadership? Like when a leader is
vulnerable enough to cry in public? It may however be argued that,
leaders are more valued for their emotional connect with their people, than
with the rolling of tears in public view per se. In some cultural contexts,
gender based expectations of sadness are very sharply categorized. Consider however,
that a leader’s anchorage is in consistency as in one’s stated
constancy of purpose
- than with
overt emotional extremism. Respect for
the leader goes up, when measured and calibrated response from the leader
engages follower’s hearts, without habitually having to choke on a handkerchief
or a paper-tissue. The lack of suffering with one’s followers is also easily
discerned by others, and therefore to nullify emotional expression would be a blindness
of the mind. In a manner of speaking
emotions that do not hurt you should at the very least guide your intelligence
in interactions. Emotions that hurt in the moment, take a while to accept,
understand and appreciate, before one attempts one’s related transformations.
These include overtly positive self-appraisals, that are later discovered as painfully
owned delusions of one’s self-image.
Emotionality of leaders is a
privileged
conversation, in
that one does not expect the office boy, the janitor or a helpdesk supervisor
to be derailed on the job for being emotionally incongruent. They are not as
often assessed for their emotional fluency as leaders are. The privilege is
mocked on by those whose thresholds for transformation are not aroused in the
interpersonal realm. For those initiated
in this emotionally intelligent space, the privilege has almost acquired the
status of reciprocal responsibility. The leadership process is neither for
the faint-hearted; nor for the emotionally blind. It is a decision in giving of
the self to a Purpose larger than oneself.
No comments:
Post a Comment