Self-Development School

In contrast to the great man/woman interpretation of leadership, which assumes a single, focal point of drive, energy, and inspiration, the self-development school portrays a world of dialogue, in which debate between the leaders and the “common person” is the mechanism that identifies the way forward, and involvement in discussion is the lever to gaining the commitment of others to follow. This more societally based interpretation of leadership provides a broader platform on which to analyze leaders—from the singular great individual to an interaction among so-called equals (or almost equals)!

The ancient Greeks, founders of the wisdom movement in leadership, were deeply influenced by the Socratic question of “what ought one do?” The Socratic paradox demands an account from individuals as to why they choose one goal over another. In so doing, Socrates required each person to articulate what they consider to be good, or at least justify their course of action. The steering through obstacles and the need for justification of actions led to the concept of wisdom, itself an inspiration of finding and shaping pathways through hindrances. By addressing the question of what to do, Socrates combined intellect with humility and rationality with emotive reaction, for the search for ways through life's challenges could not meaningfully proceed without self-examination. As such, Socratic philosophy ruled out the genetic interpretation of born to lead, as no one remained “within a box” unless bounded by their own perspectives.

In a similar vein, Plato's quest for the enlightened leader, who can overcome the convolutions of human conduct through the possession of an intellectual vision, provided the basis for diligent authority. Plato's desire for a defense against those who would rule the state according to whim and fancy was driven by a deep suspicion of arbitrary and capricious leadership. To stand above unproductive emotions and drives, Plato emphasized the leader's development as one of breaking out of perpetual straightjackets, which if unabated would limit and damage the state. Plato's aim was for each leader to nurture his own “one truth.”

In contrast to the Socratic and Platonic virtues and values interpretation of leadership, Niccoló Machiavelli focused on the more practical aspects of how leaders ought to behave. Machiavelli asserted that if political anarchy is to be avoided, concerns of rights and morality come second to the struggle and establishment of power. According to the circumstances, the leader should be prepared to employ whatever means are needed to defend and promote the welfare of the state. Similar to Plato, but for different reasons, Machiavelli intertwines the needs of the state with the desires of the individual, but by taking a position at the lower end of the values continuum. In circumstances where different interests prevail, the one who succeeds and dominates the rest of the pack becomes leader, thus establishing the concept of “superior power.” The difference between Socrates and Machiavelli is between values on the one hand and pure pragmatism on the other. The similarity, however, is that both imply that for the individual to progress, reading the context in order to identify pathways through challenges is fundamental.

For the ordinary individual, the contextualist interpretation of finding ways through has found great favor in the consumer- and stress-driven 1990s and beyond in the form of spirituality. Self-development, leadership, and spirituality, as a triumvirate of concepts, have deep roots, stemming back to Taoism and Buddhism.

Taoist concepts were introduced into the Western world by Heraclitus of Ephesus, the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher who influenced the work of Hegel, and who in turn guided Karl Marx, the popularly attributed proponent of the dialectic view of reality. Dialectics, however, is not the prerogative of Marx, but is an all-pervading Taoist religious and philosophical concept. Taoism is a description of nature (tao means way), which in turn is shaped by the interplay between yin and yang. Yin and yang, which originally denoted the dark and sunny sides of the hill, emphasize how the tao (the way forward) is shaped by the flow of complex and opposite forces. To progress, contrasts have to be reconciled, such as sociality with individuality, order with spontaneity, unity with diversity.

Despite the impractical nature of the philosophy of enlightenment, the expunging of unhelpful and deeply rooted attitudes (Buddhism), journeying, and wholeness, the Socratic and Eastern spiritualist teachings have had a profound impact on the management trainers, management consultants, and organization development and broader client-driven specialists of the final years of the 20th century. Peter M. Senge highlights the need for metanoia, meaning a transcendence of mind, whereby a shift of perspective is required if organizations are to be turned into the higher order entity of a learning organization. In a similar view, Stephen Covey advocates philosophical principles as the basis for leadership. Covey outlines how the individual's character is the basis of personal effectiveness, thus leadership denotes taking charge of character development. Covey's seven habits are an attempt to explain how highly effective people become so, through such principles as integrity, humility, and fidelity. The seventh habit, sharpening the saw, includes spiritual renewal, which Covey extends to mean the continual clarification of values and commitment to others as the individual progresses through life.