HOW CHARACTER DEVELOPS: WHAT WE BELIEVE

Proverbs chapter 23






Today we are walking in: How Character Develops: What We Believe








Today we look to the word-LEADER- H5057 nagiyd-- leader, ruler, captain, prince; excellent thing, (chief) governor, leader, noble, prince, (chief) ruler.







The Torah Testifies.............................

*****












The prophets proclaim...............







Isaiah 55:4 - Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader H5057 and commander to the people.


















The writings bear witness.............







2Chronicles 32:21 - And the LORD sent an angel, which cut off all the mighty men of valour, and the leaders H5057 and captains in the camp of the king of Assyria. So he returned with shame of face to his own land. And when he was come into the house of his god, they that came forth of his own bowels slew him there with the sword






Chapter 3
How Character Develops: What We Believe


“We lead out of our beliefs.” —Dr. Myles Munroe


As I observed the 2012 presidential campaign in America, I noted that the candidates declared, “You have a choice of which America you want.” They kept using the word choice. Other presidential campaigns have used similar language. The candidates were presenting two different ideas, or philosophies, to the voters. To put it very simply, the choice they were offering was between “big government” and “big business.” The personal beliefs of the candidates became the public policy they pursued as leaders.


The same principle is true for all leaders. We lead out of our beliefs.


The Progression of Character Development


All people follow generally the same course as they develop character, whether that character ultimately ends up positive or negative. The process occurs like this:


Our beliefs lead to our convictions.


Our convictions produce our values (which are tied to our attitudes and perceptions).


Our values form our morals, or principles.


Our morals/principles lead to corresponding personal conduct. Especially in the case of positive character, morals and principles also prompt us to exercise personal discipline for the purpose of remaining aligned with our convictions.


Our conduct/disciplined actions manifest as our ethics.


Our ethics result in our character.


Our character determines our lifestyle.


In teaching 2, we examined the process by which a person becomes a leader, including the development of convictions based on his purpose. In this chapter, we will look more closely at the manner in which we form our beliefs and convictions. And, for the next three chapters, we will explore traditional perceptions of leaders and leadership, as well as how we can direct the development of our character so that we may become—and remain— ethical leaders.


Philosophy, or Beliefs


Our philosophy, or belief system, has been formulated throughout our lives by our responses to various influences on us. Those influences include our families, our friends, our heritage/background, our physical and social environments, our education, our religious affiliation, our knowledge, the media we have been exposed to, our associates, our coworkers, and so forth. Our beliefs come from the ideas we have been exposed to or have developed from our observations and analyses, and which—and this is most important— we have received as truth.


Some of the ideas we accept may be false or incomplete. But if we believe they are true, they still become incorporated into our personal philosophy, helping to construct the foundation on which we build our lives. That is why, if a person wants to change his belief system, he has to change his ideas about himself and/or his ideas about the world.


We develop character, therefore, as a result of our personal philosophy, including what we believe about the meaning of life, the nature of the world, and how we should relate to other people.


If a person wants to change his belief system, he has to change his ideas about himself and/or his ideas about the world.


What Ideas Have We Accepted?


I am convinced that one of our greatest weaknesses as leaders today is that our philosophical training about who we are as human beings—including our inherent purpose as leaders—has been severely deficient. Our environment and other influences have produced defects in our thinking due to some of the flawed philosophies that have been perpetuated by our culture, which we have accepted. If we want to become leaders of character who make a positive difference in the world, we need to take a serious look at what ideas we have received, how those ideas have shaped our philosophy of life, and what beliefs and attitudes we may need to change.


For example, if a leader has accepted the concept “It’s everyone for himself in this world,” he will always put himself before other people, with the result that he may neglect, mistreat, or even abuse his followers. True leaders always place the highest value on the dignity of all humankind. Personally, I believe that if you don’t respect other people, you should not be in leadership. The world already has too many problems to take on another leader who disregards the intrinsic value of human beings.


A leader’s personal beliefs about himself and the nature of the world will inevitably be revealed in his public policy. By “public policy,” I do not refer only to governmental programs and laws. I use the term in a broad sense, to indicate the policies, directives, instructions, and guidance of leaders toward those who follow them. A leader’s public policy reflects how he views, interacts with, and affects the lives of other people as he carries out his leadership.


“As a Person Thinks in His Heart, so Is He”


Let us look at another proverb from the perceptive King Solomon: “As [a person] thinks in his heart, so is he.”1 Many people misquote this saying by leaving out the word “heart.” But Solomon did not say, “As a person thinks, so is he.” To me, the word “heart” is the most important word in this statement. It denotes the center of our reasoning. I believe the “heart” is equivalent to what psychologists today call the “subconscious mind.” So, we could paraphrase Solomon’s saying in this way: “As a person thinks in his subconscious mind, so is he.”


As the term indicates, our subconscious mind exists behind our conscious mental functions. It is where everything that we believe is “stored,” much like information is stored on a computer hard drive. When you are using a particular program on your computer, you don’t see all the programs and files that exist on your hard drive. You see only what you are working with at the moment, whether it is a word processing system, a spreadsheet, or a game— or several programs at the same time. The rest of the programs and files exist, and some may even be active, but you’re not consciously aware of them. Yet if you intentionally open a new file or maximize a screen to view a program you are running (for instance, to check the status of an ongoing system update), you bring that other portion of the hard drive to the attention of your conscious mind, where you can consider it.


In a similar way, we can bring the thoughts that are in our “heart,” or subconscious mind, to the surface of our conscious mind for reflection and assessment so that we can begin to evaluate what we really believe—and why.


Most people live according to the ideas that reside in their subconscious mind. That’s why it’s so important for us to understand not just what another person is saying but what is stored in his belief system. For example, you may have had the experience of thinking that a person had all the makings of a good leader—until he was promoted! Then the negative qualities started to manifest. Abraham Lincoln said, “If you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” I would augment that apt comment by saying that if you want to know the true character of a person, give him one or all of the following: (1) power, (2) position, or (3) money. The way in which an individual uses any of these resources will reveal what exists at the core of his inner life.


We can sum up what we have discussed so far in this way: Our beliefs govern who we are, as well as the path along which we are traveling in life. It’s not what we say, but what we genuinely believe, that directs our lives and our leadership.


Ask yourself, “What foundational beliefs direct my life?”


Convictions


Our established belief system gives rise to our convictions. This point is similar to what we discussed in the last chapter in relation to discovering one’s purpose—that when a leader fully believes in his inherent purpose and gifting, it leads to conviction. We can’t “receive” character from something outside of us. The groundwork of character is established when we personally hold to an idea so completely that, for us, it becomes a deep principle worth sacrificing for.


Character is measured by the depth of what we claim to believe. Again, you can learn all the skills, methods, and styles of leadership, but they won’t mean much if you have no real convictions that guide your life—or if you sell out your convictions. If your belief system is weak, you will find yourself to be inconsistent in your standards and vacillating in your ethics. You may choose the honorable course one day, but the next day engage in ethically questionable behavior.


Ask yourself, “What strong convictions do I hold?”
Character is measured by the depth of what we claim to believe.


Traditional Leadership Concepts: Legacies of Philosophy


Based on the process we have been looking at, we can understand how, through shared beliefs, certain concepts of leadership have taken hold in our nations and permeated the world’s cultures. The generally accepted images of leaders and leadership that many people have today are derived from particular philosophical ideas. We have absorbed these ideas as naturally as we have absorbed other ways of thinking and living from our culture, such as the manner in which we celebrate holidays and the colloquialisms we use. Yet most of us haven’t stopped to consider how our beliefs about leadership have been affected by prevailing cultural ideas.


The theoretical foundation for many of our beliefs about leadership, especially in Western nations, was derived from the ideas of several renowned philosophers from ancient Greece. These ideas were disseminated widely through the influence of the vast Roman Empire.


The Roman Empire existed for nearly eight hundred years, from about 250 b.c. to a.d. 476. It was the most powerful empire in history. At its height, Rome ruled over virtually the entire known world. No nation or empire since then has equaled its power and influence. The Romans admired the Greeks, and their thinking was greatly influenced by Greek philosophy. The Greeks held the idea that there were superior and inferior races. When Rome invaded Greece and took over that great empire, the Romans adopted this philosophy. They ruled with the idea that Romans were superior to the rest of the peoples of the world. As we will see, the basis of their perceived superiority was that they had certain distinctive traits, and that they had been chosen by the “gods” to be the leaders.


The Romans’ philosophy led them to accept the idea that subjugating other peoples was a good and acceptable practice. As their empire extended across the world, their ideas about races and peoples influenced how they treated their subjects and how their subjects came to think about themselves. The essence of these ideas still affects us today.


I have read the writings of Plato and Aristotle, and the thoughts of Socrates. While they said many helpful things, I am astonished that people still accept much of what they believed about leadership, because, in my view, their basic theories are flawed.


Let us examine some of our widely accepted theories of leaders and leadership that come from Greek philosophy.


1. The “Birth Trait” Theory


This theory holds that some humans are born with unique qualities that earmark them for leadership, while the majority of people—who do not possess these traits—are destined only to follow and be subordinate. Aristotle said that from the hour of a person’s birth, he was marked for either leadership or subjection. Aristotle promoted the concept that we sometimes express today in these words: “Leaders are born, not made.”


I have investigated the traits that the Greeks and Romans valued, and they were things like the shape of one’s nose, the color of one’s eyes and hair, the fairness of one’s skin, and one’s height. If you didn’t happen to have the preferred manifestations of these traits through genetics, you were automatically relegated to a lesser status—to servitude.


Earlier, we discussed how people often choose leaders based on the leaders’ appearance and stature, rather than for their character or even their abilities. Various studies have clearly indicated that personal traits, as well as circumstances, do contribute to the kind of leadership a person exercises. Yet while a person’s leadership may be affected by his physical traits and other factors, these do not constitute the whole picture of leadership.


Moreover, some people today have the idea that only individuals with certain traits can be leaders, reinforcing the ancient belief that leaders are superior to the rest of the population. Yet, as we discussed in chapter 2, every person exercises leadership in a particular area of gifting. We all have a unique gift or gifts, and none of us is intrinsically “superior” to others—even when they are under our authority or oversight.


2. The “Chosen by the Gods” Theory


Another Greco-Roman theory that corresponds to the “birth trait” theory is that leadership is reserved for a favored few whom the “gods” selected for elite positions over the masses. The “chosen ones” are to control, manage, and direct the lives, aspirations, fortunes, and futures of those who are “not chosen.”


To the people living in the Roman Empire, this meant that if the gods didn’t choose you to be a leader, you were destined to spend your life as a slave or a servant. So, if you were not a Roman—a member of the elite race—your lot in life was to be second class. You could never rise to the caliber of someone worthy of real leadership.


This theory supports the idea of a class system. If you believe the gods choose some people to be rulers and others to be slaves, then if you happen to be among the slaves, it wouldn’t matter if you earned five PhD’s and knew more than all the other leaders combined—you would always be seen as inferior and existing primarily for the benefit of those who were born leaders. In most countries, up until modern times, people did not move from a lower class to a higher one. If they were born to parents who belonged to the nobility or upper class, they remained in that station throughout their lives. If they were born to parents who were servants, they couldn’t aspire to be anything but a servant.


We still see this attitude today in many nations among those who think that a person’s “pedigree,” social status, and education at exclusive schools alone qualify him to be an elite leader. Those whose lineages are from “lesser” origins, and whose social standing and education are not as prestigious, cannot aspire to the highest and most influential leadership roles.


3. The “Charismatic Personality” Theory


This theory promotes the idea that only certain individuals who possess a unique measure of “charisma”—who are extroverted and charming, have superb communication skills, and so forth—are leaders.


Charisma is a Greek word meaning “favor” or “gift.” So again, the idea was that certain people were endowed by the gods with gifts that made them superior to others. Today, when they encounter someone who has charisma and charm, many people automatically assume he is a leader or destined to become a leader.


A person with a charismatic personality can use his natural gift while exercising his leadership, but it will not make him a true leader—neither will it sustain him as a leader. Note that each of the above theories has nothing to do with a leader’s character, only his personal features or natural abilities. Furthermore, according to these theories and their offshoots, many people today who are active leaders in business, economics, education, religion, science, and many other fields could never have been leaders.


4. The “External Factors” Theory


In addition to the above ideas from the Greeks and Romans, our culture has other traditional views of leadership that focus mainly on external factors. One such view is that leaders are formed as they learn to deal with particular circumstances: If you put a person in a certain situation with specific criteria and stimuli, he will emerge as a leader.


While outside circumstances play a critical role in shaping the character and abilities of leaders (a topic we will explore later), this theory does not generally emphasize a leader’s inner purpose, beliefs, and convictions—all of which are essential for successful leadership.


Another idea is that leaders are developed by studying leadership at a college or university, or by participating in other leadership courses and training. Many people believe that if a person has earned an MBA or attended leadership conferences, he is qualified to lead others.


I am not opposed to leadership training—I train leaders all the time. Yet many leadership courses do not cover some of the essential elements of leadership development, such as we discussed in teaching 2. In addition, education and training alone are not sufficient means for becoming a leader— especially if a person does not merge his training with the knowledge of his unique purpose and the exercise of his intrinsic gifts.


A Perpetual Influence


Let us look briefly at how the Greek and Roman ideas of leadership found their way to us. When the Roman Empire eventually fell apart, it became many local states and kingdoms, which developed into the countries we know today. Much of Europe is made up of former colonies of the Roman Empire, and through the influence of various European nations on their own colonies, Greco-Roman philosophies, including those about leadership, spread even farther.


Assumed Superiority


When some of these European nations starting obtaining their colonies, they embraced the idea of the superiority of certain races, in which the oppressor believes he is superior to the oppressed. Over the years, this concept solidified as the idea that a leader is superior to his followers. This damaging philosophy is still taught in a number of our colleges and universities, seminaries, and leadership training schools, which produce many of the leaders of our nations.


This is why, when university graduates and professionals obtain positions of leadership, many of them automatically feel superior to others. They may not consciously realize they have this attitude; it may exist in their subconscious minds. However, it manifests in their attitudes toward their leadership roles and in their relationships with other people—especially their followers, employees, or subordinates.


Sometimes, the worst thing you can do is give someone a title, because suddenly he thinks, I am better. I am privileged. Whether the title is president, executive, senior partner, supervisor, director, manager, pastor, or anything else, it becomes a problem for many people because their minds are still influenced by these false philosophies of leadership.


I find this to be the case among people all over the world. I often speak to groups in developing countries. Of the approximately 7 billion people on earth, about 5 billion of them live in nations that were formerly colonies of European powers. In these nations, the belief system remains that only


particular people have the right to lead, and the rest of the masses, who don’t have special traits, charisma, and so forth, can never be leaders.


Sometimes, the worst thing you can do is give someone a title, because suddenly he thinks, I am better. I am privileged.


The “Black Crab Syndrome”


The sad fact is that those who have been oppressed don’t seem to take on a different mind-set once they throw off their oppression and experience a measure of freedom. They suddenly adopt the same philosophy and attitudes toward their own people that had been used against them. For example, they may think, My skin color is lighter than yours, so I must be better. Why do people do this? Because it is the model of authority and power they have learned from their culture and by their personal experiences, so that it is ingrained in their thinking and attitudes.


Thus, they act according to the “black crab syndrome,” which keeps their emerging societies from becoming places where all people are valued and encouraged to better themselves. The black crab syndrome is a phenomenon named after the behavior of real crabs. Suppose you caught or purchased some live black crabs to serve at a party. You plan to prepare them later on that day, and you need to store them somewhere. You could just place the crabs together in a barrel, and you wouldn’t even have to put a lid on top of the container. You could be assured that none would escape. Why? Because the other crabs wouldn’t allow a single crab to climb over the rest to reach the opening at the top. If a crab were to climb up so that it got close to the top, the others would pull him back down again. Yet if the crabs would only allow each other to reach the top, many could go free.


This mind-set of not wanting someone else to get ahead of you, and therefore not helping him and even actively working to keep him down—or pulling him down when he begins to succeed—is also prevalent among people in developed nations. Everyone is afraid that someone else will become better off than he is or gain more advantages than he has.


Thus, the leadership mind-sets of the Greeks and Romans still rule us. We think we need to be superior to others in order to feel special, chosen, and safe.


Misfocused Priorities


Due to the above views that we have inherited through our culture, the professors and other instructors who teach leadership courses and seminars at our universities, institutes, and workshops usually focus on such aspects of leadership as these: power, position, titles, skills, gifts, talents, educational qualifications, knowledge, and personality. They do this because these are the ideas that they were taught or otherwise assimilated into their belief systems.


Therefore, in both formal and informal settings of leadership training and practice, we continue to overemphasize certain concepts of leadership while neglecting the most important—character. Again, many of the above ideas are factors in leadership, but they do not define what it means to be a true leader. Most important, they do not produce a true leader.


Perhaps 90 percent of the people we consider leaders found their way into their leadership position based on the traditional leadership theories we’ve discussed. They possess outstanding gifts and skills, they hold impressive academic credentials, they were born into wealthy and/or prestigious families, they exercise some form of natural power and influence, or they have appealing physical traits. While directors, managers, human resources personnel, and electors may have considered the leaders’ character when hiring or voting for them, it likely wasn’t the first, second, or perhaps third consideration for many of them.


I want to emphasize again that natural attributes and acquired skills have not prevented numerous leaders from failing at their responsibilities and falling from their former heights due to indiscretion, greed, or hubris—thereby destroying their own potential. In the introduction to this series, we looked at a number of famous people who possessed traits that, according to traditional thinking, should have guaranteed their success as leaders, yet they fell. You probably know of other leaders who had all the indications of promising lives and careers but forfeited their positions.


“To educate a man in the mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society.” —Theodore Roosevelt


The Path to Character


What we believe about leaders and leadership has a tremendous effect on what type of leader we become and whether we will fulfill our inherent leadership purpose. It determines whether the path we embark on, guided by our personal beliefs and convictions, will lead us to develop honorable character that will support our leadership or will lead us to develop character flaws that will undermine it.


In the next teaching, we will continue to study the process of character development by looking at the nature and role of values.