Temat: SPIRITUALITY AND LEADERSHIP by Sherry L. Hoppe

Spirit-driven leadership requires an inner journey,
wholeness, and reflection.

Spirituality and Leadership
Sherry L. Hoppe*


*SHERRY L. HOPPE is president of Austin Peay State University in Clarksville,
Tennessee.

The twenty-first century dawned without the long-feared computer disasters legions had predicted would bring the world to its “knee chips.” More quietly and much more stealthily, the new century brought a renewed interest in the polar opposite of technology: spirituality. Surely, the intellect that put zillions of bits of data onto tiny chips has discovered that the soul is really just a figment of the imagination. Indeed, an article in the September 27, 2004, edition of Newsweek described the brain as “a pocket PC for the soul, managing the information at the behest of a ghostly user” (Pinker, 2004, p. 78). Pinker even avows that science has now proved the “soul” is no more than an “information-processing activity of the brain” (p. 78). Undoubtedly, many will rebel against findings that move the soul from the spiritual realm of the heart to the science of the brain. That may be the case even in American secular universities. After all, the earliest colleges of Colonial America honored both the intellect and the spirit, with theology holding a “foundational position, alongside the classics and the rudiments of science. . . .
Education of the whole person—knowledge, talents, soul, and character—guided the enterprise, and question of ultimate meaning formed the discourse of the day” (Strange, 2004, p. 1). Only in the nineteenth century did intellect achieve preeminence, and soul was relegated to religious studies as its only proper place. Through almost all of the twentieth century, American higher education “witnessed a distinct dividing of the waters of human experience, with things of the spirit receding to one bank and things of the intellect to the other” (Strange, 2004, p. 1). In recent history, though, American higher education has seen a reawakening of an interest in spirituality. In the decade of the nineties, spirituality made its way into hundreds of books (McDonald, 1999). Interestingly, Marcic’s (2000) review of approximately one hundred books and one hundred journal articles on workplace spirituality revealed that less than 20 percent mentioned God or other deity. If a higher power is not at the heart and soul of spirituality, what is?

Definitions
Defining spirituality has been the subject of many writers in recent years (Bolman and Deal, 2001; Chickering, 2004; Conger and Associates, 1994; Dalton, 2001; Fried, 2001; Hicks, 2003; Narayanasamy, 1999; Scott, 1994). Because this volume devotes an entire chapter (Chapter One) to such definitions, this chapter will not enter the debate. Instead, I note a dichotomy presented by Blanchard (1999): “We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience” (p.92). While this does not define spirituality, it does point out the almost inevitable outcome of any study on spirituality: more questions are asked than are answered.
For the purpose of this chapter on leadership and spirituality, I adopt a nonrestrictive definition of spirituality that allows the outcome of ongoing questions: the search for depth and meaning in our entire being. (I will use spirit and soul almost interchangeably, although some authors, including Bolman and Deal [2001], see soul as “personal and unique, grounded in the depths of personal experience” compared with the spirit as “transcendent and all embracing. . . . the universal source—and the oneness of all things” [p. 9].) As leaders, we may translate the search for depth and meaning into three questions Emmanuel Kant asserts should be asked in regard to our spiritual beliefs: “What can I know? What can I do? [and] What can I hope?” (Raper, 2001, p. 24). Dalton (2001) suggests other questions: “Why am I here? What am I meant for? What is worth living for? How can I be for myself and also for others? Whom and what do I serve? What is it that I love above all else?” (p. 17). Asking ourselves these questions sets the stage for developing leadership attributes that use not only the head and the hands but also the heart. Bolman and Deal (2001) remind us, “the heart of leadership is in the hearts of leaders” (p. 11), whereas Kurtz and Ketcham (1992) describe spirituality as transcending the ordinary “and yet, paradoxically, it can be found only in the ordinary. Spirituality is beyond us and yet is in everything we do. It is extraordinary, and yet it is extraordinarily simple” (p. 35). Conger and Associates (1994) cite a study by Wade Clark Roof, a religion professor, to describe what some call “heart knowledge”: “‘In its truest sense, spirituality gives expression to the being that is in us; it has to do with feelings, with the power that comes from within, with knowing our deepest selves and what is sacred to us . . . ’” (p. 9).

Attributes of Spiritual Leadership

Accepting the premise that asking the questions is more important than answering them and that each person views the questions from his or her own frame of reference, one can still believe “Spirituality is assumed to be a dimension of the human being that is shared by all persons” (Hicks, 2003, p. 50). Consequently, all leaders will likely consider some or all of the following attributes in their quest for spiritual leadership: inner journey, meaning and significance, wholeness, and connectedness.
Inner Journey. Discovering who we are by looking deep inside ourselves sets the compass for the search for truth and meaning as individuals and as leaders. Bolman and Deal (2001) call for “classic means: an examined life, a spirit of inquiry and genuine experimentation . . . ” (pp. 151–152). They purport that the “contemporary search is grounded in the age-old journey of the soul that has been a core preoccupation of every human culture since the beginning of time” (p. 4). Material success, enough for more than one generation of post-Depression Era Americans, is no longer satisfying for scores who find something elusively missing from their lives. Bolman and Deal (2001) assert that “the signs of spiritual hunger and restlessness are everywhere” and “are convinced what’s really missing is soul and spirit” (p. 5). They believe that “when each of us plunges into the depths at the core of our being, there we find soul” (p. 9).
Meaning and Significance. Raper (2001) uses The Moviegoer to remind us that every individual would likely undertake the “search” if not “sunk in the everydayness” of life (p. 24). Those who find a way to rise above daily minutiae to try to make sense of the world and their place in it, even if the questions go unanswered, are on the path to greater understanding of self and meaning. Raper (2001) quotes Nietzsche’s famous lines as proof of the reason for the quest: “‘He who has a why to live for, can bear almost any how’” (p. 24). The answers within us help us overcome seemingly meaningless tragedies—not with all questions resolved but answered with a belief in who we are in the context of something more than our physical being.
For leaders, that centering of oneself enables a steady course in troubled waters. Leaders must continuously examine why they want to be in leadership roles. This can be accomplished in numerous ways, including reading and reflection, seminars and retreats, and daily introspection. For example, as part of an initiative for the Journal of College and Character, three dozen college and university presidents recorded their reflections for several years in diaries. They examined broad implications of what they were doing and how they were leading as well as what was required of them as leaders. They moved beyond the routine into self-examination, discussing how they did or did not set aside personal beliefs and values in their decision-making process (Nelson, 2002).
All leaders need to understand their motivations and their inner struggles about what is right and what is wrong. They should debate with themselves the risks of openness. And they should seek purpose for their life and work. The attribute of meaning enables spiritual leaders to “offer the gift of significance, rooted in confidence that the work is worthy of one’s efforts and the institution deserves one’s commitment and loyalty” (Bolman and Deal, 2003, p. 345).
Wholeness. Lives in the twenty-first century are often fragmented and individualized. As leaders, we often compartmentalize our activities, thoughts, and even values into public and private realms. Even within our public realm, we detach and isolate ourselves (especially our inner selves) from others. Bennett (2003) describes the dangers of such separation as “insistent individualism,” which “views persons as detached and only externally or incidentally related to others” (p. iii). He opposes insistent individualism because of its adverse affect on faculty and staff relationships and sees evidence in “atomistic and unconnected curricula, isolated disciplines, and fragmented departments” (p. 25). He adds that insistent individualism “underwrites a philosophy of education that highlights separation; it invites the ethical charge that the academy does not practice the self-examination it preaches; and it glorifies a spirituality of selfpreoccupation” (p. 25). In contrast, he suggests “relational individuality” as a healthier approach that “celebrates learning and learnedness as shared endeavors, and finds fulfillment in practicing openness to others” (p. xiv). He describes this as practicing hospitality, where confidence in self (achieved through self-examination and self-identity) enables a leader to give and receive (Bennett, 2003). That giving and receiving can transform the life of both the giver and the receiver. How does a leader open himself or herself to giving and receiving? For some, giving is easy. It comes from an ethic in which one sees leadership as a “higher calling” (Bolman and Deal, 2001, p. 106). For others, though, neither giving nor receiving comes naturally. Bolman and Deal (2001) believe this is because many leaders rely mostly on the “rational side of enterprise” (p. 147). Separating the rational or business side of the enterprise from the spiritual dimension creates the risk of work becoming just the opportunity to make a living rather than opening the possibilities for making a difference. Bennett (2003) emphasizes that “those who make openness to others a habit seek ways to overcome the fragmentation and isolation of both individuals and institutions. They develop philosophies and ethics that promote both individual and common good. Thus they create conditions for healthy spiritualities—understandings of self as linked with others in commitments that attend to others, advance insights into self, and promote ethical fulfillment. They draw on their different strengths to pursue the common tasks of revitalizing traditions of openness—traditions that are becoming weakened and depleted as higher education becomes more a business than a social institution” (p. 185). Spirituality thus adds a self-transcendent awareness necessary for wholeness (Greenstreet, 1999). Transcending self involves an encounter with otherness that Dalton contends is “a universal instinct toward connection with others and a discovery of our place in the larger web of life” (Dalton, 2001, p. 17).

Connectedness. The universal instinct toward connectedness described by Dalton does not match Conger’s (1994) description of our tendency to “stereotype spirituality and life in organizations as opposing forces, one taking us inward to ourselves, the other taking us outward to the world” (p. xiii). However, for many of us, the place where we work has become our primary source of community. We spend more time there than any other place. We form friendships that extend beyond the workplace. And it is where we find challenge in life and an opportunity to contribute (Conger, 1994). Can we have such connectedness at work without bringing our spirituality to the workplace? Using the definition of spirituality chosen for this chapter (the search for depth and meaning in our entire being) requires connections—wherever they occur—to be a part of the wholeness, the search for meaning in all parts of our lives. This is especially important as many people try to fill the gaps created by the splintering of the extended family, the diminishing impact of rituals and traditions in churches and temples, and the growing cynicism and apathy of the civic community (Conger, 1994). In short, wholeness demands connectedness in heretofore-unexpected places in our lives, including work. In the chaos of juggling multiple responsibilities and dealing with the often-fragmented components of our lives, Conger (1994) reminds us of the grandeur and mystery in the world and the connection among all humanity, championing the notion that “spirituality, more powerfully than most other human forces, lifts us beyond ourselves and our narrow self-interests. . . . It helps us to see our deeper connections to one another and to the world beyond ourselves” (p. 17). Those connections extend not only to others but also to historical events, to nature, to vision, and to things of the spirit (Palmer (1987). The larger reality also includes an understanding of our place in the world and beyond. For a leader, this means first connecting with one’s own self before connecting with the world and its inhabitants—at work and in life at large.

Impact of Spiritual Leadership
The inner journey leads one first to a sense of self and meaning and then to an acknowledgment that connectedness is essential for wholeness in our lives. The journey leads not to a destination but to a spirit-filled life that can transform our roles as leaders. The transformation requires recognition that within our own being and throughout our connectedness, all human beings are flawed. Without this discernment, trustworthiness and compassion cannot flow freely from the leader; the absence of tolerance on the two-way street of connectedness creates dissension, and meaning is distorted. A person’s ability to be tolerant of others’ weaknesses and flaws is dependent on an inner compass that remains steady despite others’ actions. Covey (1990) points out that “correct principles are like compasses: they are always pointing the way. And if we know how to read them, we won’t get lost, confused, or fooled by conflicting voices and values. Principles are self-evident, selfvalidating natural laws. They don’t change or shift. They provide ‘true north’ direction to our lives when navigating the ‘streams’ of our environments. Principles apply at all time in all places. They surface in the form of values, ideas, norms, and teachings that uplift, ennoble, fulfill, empower, and inspire people” (p. 19). I believe that “true north” direction comes from a spiritual compass that includes the recognition that our flawed humanity requires forgiveness and tolerance at the very core of our brokenness. Without such a positioning within our inner being, leadership can become misguided and misdirected. Bolman and Deal (2001) affirm the “dual messages of human imperfection and human transcendence” but maintain that “paradoxically, in accepting our imperfections, we develop the conviction needed to embark on an ill-defined search for a better place” (p. 67). They contend that denying imperfections means denying our humanity, disconnecting us from our soul. To avoid such a disconnection with its concomitant spiritual bankruptcy, leaders must recognize their own limitations and those of their followers: some based on personal experience with the history of the institution, some based on person experience outside the organization, and some just based on inherent human fallacies. Leaders must develop a tolerance for those broken by life and work, even when it means their actions are hurtful to the leader. As a university president, I am keenly aware of the necessity for tolerance and have previously addressed the topic in a convocation speech in an attempt to mend the fences that are inevitably and continuously in need of repair between administration and faculty on most campuses. Some of what follows draws from that unpublished convocation address. Manning (2000) wrote The Ragamuffin Gospel not for the “super spiritual,” but for the “bedraggled, beat-up, and burnt out” (p. 15). Interestingly, followers seem to think they are the only ones who fit that description, but leaders often feel that way themselves. Perhaps we are not that way all of the time, but if we are honest, we will admit that we all are, in Manning’s words, “inconsistent, unsteady humans whose cheese is falling off their cracker” (p. 15). Leaders, like followers, sometimes grow weary and discouraged along the way.
Quoting the French philosopher Maurice Blondel, Manning (2000) notes, “‘If you really want to understand a man, don’t just listen to what he says but watch what he does’” (p. 52). An Episcopal priest who lost his own compass at one time, Manning speaks from personal experience when he points out, “The dichotomy between what we say and what we do is so pervasive in the church and in society that we actually come to believe our illusions and rationalizations and clutch them to our hearts like favorite teddy bears” (p. 122). He tells us, “When I get honest, I admit I am a bundle of paradoxes. I believe and I doubt, I hope and get discouraged, I love and I hate, I feel bad about feeling good, I feel guilty about not feeling guilty. I am trusting and suspicious. I am honest and I still play games” (p. 26). If leaders are honest, do we not all have the same paradoxes within us? Can we not say to one another (in Manning’s words) when others make mistakes or when they offend us, “Yes, ragamuffin, I understand. I’ve been there too” (p. 151)? Manning (2000) reminds us that perhaps we should pause occasionally and realize, “Usually we see other people not as they are, but as we are. . . . If we have made peace with our flawed humanity and embraced our ragamuffin identity, we are able to tolerate in others what was previously unacceptable in ourselves. . . . Solidarity with ragamuffins frees the one who receives compassion and liberates the one who gives it in the consciousness awareness, ‘I am the other’” (pp. 151, 153). Spiritual leaders must be humble enough to acknowledge mistakes, and more importantly, we must forgive each other when mistakes are made. If we wait until our opponent—the colleague or other follower who has offended us—is good enough, moral enough, and diligent enough to be trusted, we may wait forever. And if we allow ourselves to be broken and bent by what others do, we may end up like the birches in one of Frost’s poems. Frost describes the birch trees after the ice has melted from their branches,

You may see their trunks arching in the woods
Years afterwards, trailing their leaves on the ground
Birches
—Frost ([1916] 1963)

Spirit-filled leaders, like the speaker in “Birches,” sometimes

. . . grow weary of considerations,
And when life is too much like a pathless wood
Where your face burns and tickles with the cobwebs
Broken across it, and one eye is weeping
From a twig’s having lashed across it open.
I’d like to get away from earth awhile
And then come back to it and begin over.
—Frost ([1916] 1963)

For a leader, beginning over again is usually just a reaching down into the core being for renewal and strength. So the inner journey continues and is the never-ending source undergirding the sacred responsibility of relationships. Central to that responsibility is compassion. Kouzes and Posner’s book Encouraging the Heart (1999) espouses the belief that to lead people, you have to care about them. People do not need encouragement. They can do their best without it. But it does help them perform at a higher level. For this reason, Encouraging the Heart is based on the “principles and practices that support the basic human need to be appreciated for what we do and who we are. It is about the importance of linking rewards and appreciation to standards of excellence. It’s about why encouragement is absolutely essential to sustaining people’s commitment to organizations and outcomes” (Kouzes and Posner, 1999, pp. xii-xiii). These authors remind us that the word encouragement has its root in the Latin word cor, which means “heart.” Courage stems from the same root. Thus, “to have courage means to have heart” and “to encourage—to provide with or give courage—literally means to give others heart” (p. xvi). So we return to where we began: looking for the soul and spirit in the heart instead of in the head. Within spirit-driven leadership, courage to make tough decisions and face difficult challenges comes from within as well as from the intellect or rational being. But courage has a second meaning. Cor also serves as the root for “cordial.” Kouzes and Posner (1999) aver that encouragement is also about being charitable and generous. Leadership is thus dichotomous: “It’s about toughness and tenderness. Guts and grace. Firmness and fairness. Fortitude and gratitude. Passion and compassion” (pp. xv-xvi). Bolman and Deal (2001) would add, “Love is the true hallmark of great leaders-love for their work and love for those with whom they work” (p. 108). Bolman and Deal (2003) contend that love is absent from most organizations and institutions. Building on the work of Whitmyer (1993), they add, “Caring begins with knowing—it requires listening, understanding and accepting. It progresses through a deepened sense of appreciation, respect and, ultimately, love. Love is a willingness to reach out and open one’s heart. An open heart is vulnerable. Confronting vulnerability allows us to drop our masks, meet heart to heart and be present for one another. We experience a sense of unity and delight in those voluntary, human exchanges that mold ‘the soul of the community’” (p. 339). Kouzes and Posner (1999) insist that if people work with leaders who encourage the heart, they not only will work harder but will feel better about themselves. Self-esteem goes up, and people’s spirits are set free, often inspiring them to become more than they could ever have imagined. “This, indeed may be our ultimate mission as leaders” (Kouzes and Posner, 1999, pp. 11–12). Bennis (1989) sees this focus on others as a true calling and purports it is an inevitable outcome of leaders who have fully integrated lives.

Conclusion
Like Scott (1994), it is my “contention that coming to a deeper understanding of spirituality and leadership can be facilitated by an exploration of three things: the division we experience between the private and public
realms of our lives, our capacity for self-knowledge, and the organizational structures in which we work and live” (p. 65). In this chapter, I have endeavored to address the first two of these and leave the remaining journey
for the individual to pursue in his or her own organization. Although the public and private dimensions of our life will always have some division, a truly spiritual person will have a wholeness through connectedness of both to the core being. Chavez (2001) speaks of spirituality as the “sense of myself as a whole, authentic, human being living in connection and communion with those around me” (p. 69). Such a life begins with an inner journey and continues with a reflective life. Contemplation is essential for leaders to have a sense of who they are, what they care about, and what they believe in—in essence, to have a bedrock in soul and spirit that gives meaning to life (Tichy and Cohen, 2003). “The Katha Upanishad describes the person who does not operate from a spiritual core as ‘scattered as the rain that falls in craggy places, loses itself and becomes dispersed throughout the mountains.’ In today’s fast-paced world, with the rate of change increasing exponentially, ancient wisdom cautions us that we need an anchor and a place to stand that will provide stability and direction” (Allen and Kellom, 2001, p. 162). As Madame Chiang Kai-shek said in a speech during a time when it appeared that World War II would be lost, “In the end, we are all the sum total of our actions. . . Day by day, we write our own destiny; for inexorably . . . we become what we do” (Waitley, 1983). If we lead from the spirit within us, what we become will be whole and authentic.

References
Allen, K. E., and Kellom, G. “Learning to Connect: Spirituality and Leadership.” In V. W. Miller and M. M. Ryan (eds.), Transforming Campus Life: Reflections on Spirituality and Religious Pluralism. New York: Lang, 2001.
Bennett, J. B. Academic Life: Hospitality, Ethics, and Spirituality. Bolton, Mass.: Anker, 2003.
Bennis, W.Why Leaders Can’t Lead: The Unconscious Conspiracy Continues. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989.
Blanchard, K. The Heart of a Leader: Insights on the Art of Influence. Escondito, Calif.: Honor Books, 1999.
Bolman, L. G., and Deal, T. E. Leading with Soul. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001.
Bolman, L. G., and Deal, T. E. “Reframing Ethics and Spirit.” In Business Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003.
Chavez, A. F. “Spirit and Nature in Everyday Life: Reflections of a Mestiza in Higher Education.” In M. A. Jablonski (ed.), The Implications of Student Spirituality for Student Affairs Practice. New Directions for Student Services, no. 95. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001.
Chickering, A. “Encouraging Authenticity and Spirituality in Higher Education.” College Values [online], 2004. http://www.collegevalues.org/articles.cfm?id=1171&a=1. Accessed Sept. 20, 2004.
Conger, J. A. “Introduction: Our Search for Spiritual Community.” In J. Conger and Associates (ed.), Spirit at Work: Discovering the Spirituality in Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.
Conger, J. A., and Associates. “Preface.” Spirit at Work: Discovering the Spirituality in Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.
Covey, S. Principle-Centered Leadership. New York: Fireside, 1990.
Dalton, D. “Career and Calling: Finding a Place for the Spirit in Work and Community.” In M. A. Jablonski (ed.), The Implications of Student Spirituality for Student Affairs Practice. New Directions for Student Services, no. 95. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001.
Fried, J. “Civility and Spirituality.” In V. W. Miller and M. M. Ryan, (eds.), Transforming Campus Life: Reflections on Spirituality and Religious Pluralism. New York: Lang, 2001.
Frost, R. “Birches.” Selected Poems of Robert Frost. Introduction by Robert Graves. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963. (Originally published 1916.)
Greenstreet, W. M. “Teaching Spirituality in Nursing: A Literature Review.” Nurse Education Today, 1999, 19, 649–658.
Hicks, D. A. Religion and the Workplace: Pluralism, Spirituality, Leadership. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Kouzes, J. M., and Posner, B. Z. Encouraging the Heart: A Leader’s Guide to Rewarding and Recognizing Others. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999.
Kurtz, E., and Ketcham, K. The Spirituality of Imperfection. New York: Bantam, 1992.
Manning, B. The Ragamuffin Gospel. Sisters, Ore.: Multnomah, 2000.
Marcic, D. “God, Faith, and Management Education.” Journal of Management Education, 2000, 24(5), 628–649.
McDonald, M. “Shush. The Guy in the Cubicle Is Meditating.” U.S. News and World Report, 1999, 126(17), 46.
Narayanasamy, A. “ASSET: A Model for Actioning Spirituality and Spiritual Care Education and Training in Nursing.” Nurse Education Today, 1999, 19(4), 274–285.
Nelson, S. J. “Internal Journeys of College Presidents: Diary Reflections About Leader and Values: Abstract” College Values [online], 2002. http://www.collegevalues.org/ articles.cfm?a=1&id=988. Accessed Sept. 20, 2004.]
Palmer, P. J. “Community, Conflict and Ways of Knowing: Ways to Deepen Our Educational Agenda.” Change Magazine, Sept./Oct. 1987. Center for Teacher Formation.http://www.teacherformation.org/html/rr/community.cfm. Accessed Sept.
25, 2004.
Pinker, S. “How to Think About the Mind.” Newsweek, Sept. 27, 2004, p. 78.
Raper, J. “Losing Our Religion: Are Students Struggling in Silence?” In V. W. Miller and M. M. Ryan (eds.), Transforming Campus Life: Reflections on Spirituality and Religious Pluralism. New York: Lang, 2001.
Scott, K. T. “Leadership and Spirituality: A Quest for Reconciliation.” In J. Conger and Associates (eds.), Spirit at Work: Discovering the Spirituality in Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.
Strange, C. “Spirituality at State: Private Journeys and Public Visions” College Values [online], 2000. http://www.collegevalues.org/articles.cfm?a=1&id=134. Accessed Sept. 20, 2004.
Tichy, N. M., and Cohen, E. “Why Are Leaders Important?” In Business Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003.
Waitley, D. Seeds of Greatness. Old Tappan, N.J.: Revell, 1983.
Whitmyer, C. In the Company of Others. New York: Putnam, 1993.