"Near-Enemies" of Leadership, part 1
A Buddhist concept that can help you become a more mindful and effective leader
Many leadership coaching clients come in with a desire to cultivate certain skills or mindsets in themselves or their team (e.g. influence, executive presence, inspiring more accountability, resolving conflict). The first step in cultivating a skill or mindset is to gain a deeper understanding of it through identifying what assumptions we may be making about it.
A Buddhism concept of “near-enemies” can be helpful here. A “near-enemy” of X is something that is often mistaken for the ideal X, but is actually a distortion that's sometimes as destructive as the “far enemy” (aka a clear opposite of X). An example - while disconnection may be a “far enemy” of connection, people-pleasing is a “near enemy” of connection. While people-pleasing may appear like connection, it actually undermines it because it leads to self-betrayal that is not sustainable nor true. But we call it a “near enemy” because it’s easy to miss. A few more examples of “near enemies” from Buddhist teachings - a near-enemy of compassion is pity and one of equanimity is callousness/indifference.
This concept is powerful because we always gain a deeper understanding of a concept by exploring what it is not and why. And the tighter circle we draw around what a concept is not, the more precisely we can grasp the concept itself.
We can apply this to certain virtues, skills, and states we're trying to cultivate in ourselves, as people and as leaders.
Here are 3 examples that have helped my clients, and some questions you might want to ask yourself if these resonate with you.
#1: A near-enemy of “influence” is manipulation - so influence, but don’t manipulate. Influence is about nudging someone towards an action that can benefit them, and is based on consent, choice, transparency, and vision. It is focused on getting to a win-win for both the influencer and the influencee. Manipulation, on the other hand, is about exploitation - tricking someone into an action via subtle deception, control, or coercion. While manipulation can sometimes get you the result you want, people can sense it and it will destroy trust and your long-term effectiveness as a leader.
💭 Say you are trying to push decision A through an organization. What would it look like to “influence” the organization, vs. “manipulate”? How does the above distinction help you push it through more effectively?
#2: A near-enemy of “accountability” is blame - so hold yourself and others accountable, but don’t blame. We need to hold our teams (and ourselves) accountable for what each of us commits to own, but this does not mean we need to blame. Inspiring accountability in your team is about empowering them with clear ownership and agreements - to let them know what they’re counted upon to be and do. Accountability is based in trust, respect, transparency, and mutuality. When an issue occurs, the expectation is that the accountable person will take charge to rectify the situation and evaluate how it can be prevented in the future.
Blame, on the other hand, is an emotional process intended to shame and discredit the blamed, which can be a natural tendency, but is actually counterproductive and oversimplifying. It says - you, the person, are the problem, rather than investigating what specific assumptions, contexts, mindsets, or personal tendencies/mistakes led to the issue. Blame often prevents us from better understanding the problems that led us to the issue, which hampers our ability to create a better result next time.
💭 Say a big project is severely delayed from what we promised to our customers. As a leader, what would using “blame” to address the issue look like? What would using “accountability” look like? How would you discern between the two?
#3: A near-enemy of “conviction” is stubbornness - have conviction, but don’t be stubborn. Leaders are looked to to make clear decisions, and to do them with conviction, so that they can inspire a group of people towards that direction. Conviction is about developing and telling a compelling story about what we should do and reminding people of that story even when times get tough; stubbornness is a refusal to edit that story given legitimate new information (including better alternatives). Conviction comes from truth, vision, passion; stubbornness ultimately comes from ego.
💭 Say you have proposed and championed strategy X for the last year. How will you determine how strongly to hold onto that strategy? How does the distinction between “conviction” and “stubbornness” help with that?
💡 Let me know your thoughts on the hypotheticals above (feel free to send me a DM by replying to this email or on Substack)! Stay tuned for part 2 for more examples of “near-enemies.”
As always, if you are looking to develop as a leader, PM, or person, I have some slots for new clients - schedule a free consultation.
🌱,
Cissy
