Obama's Inauguration - The Principles of Hope

Last week's Inauguration address by President Obama once again showcased his extraordinary speaking talents. My impression is that the delivery of his speech deftly weaved together the threads of Presidents Kennedy and Clinton, of Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr., and reaffirmed the role we have come to see as a cornerstone of his identity: statesman and orator.

Yet this time, there was something more. It was his moment to offer a first glimpse of the course he intends to set for the world's most powerful nation over the next four years. He's given us the agenda that will drive his behaviour as President and that will guide the staff of his administration.

NeuroPower Leadership: the Compassionate Leader

I've written previously that Obama is frequently able to embody what within the NeuroPower framework (as developed by author and strategist Peter Burow) is called a NeuroPower Leader.

Specifically, he is able to manifest the characteristics of what is termed the Compassionate Leader, which is the result of integrating the two NeuroPower archetypes of Chancellor and Navigator. Before we go on, I'll give you some detail on how NeuroPower suggests these archetypes are formed.

Archetypes and the 6 Intelligence Centres

Each of our individual personalities comprises two archetypes. An archetype is formed through the combination of three of the six thinking functions that NeuroPower suggests make up the majority of our brain's activity.

These six thinking functions (also called Intelligence Centres, or ICs for short) may be grouped in their three respective pairs under the following headings:

Innovation and Vision
Logic and Passion
Data and Empathy

Note that there isn't a stark divide between each pair, so it's not "Data versus Empathy," rather (following the Jungian conception of behaviour) they are the respective endpoints along a continuum of possible behaviours.

Master/Mirror Archetype and Integration

As we each tend more toward one or the other end of these three continua, we'll each come to prefer or rely on one set of three thinking functions as our "default" mode of operating. The combination of these three preferred modes of thinking results in our Master archetype. Meanwhile the other three thinking functions that represent our less-preferred ways of operating combine to form our Mirror archetype.

To take President Obama as an example, I would argue that his default mode - that is, the three ICs that he tends to favours in the first instance - are the Innovation, Passion and Empathy ICs. The archetype that results when these three are combined is the Chancellor archetype and, since these are his preferred three ICs, the Chancellor is his Master archetype profile. The corresponding three ICs (Vision, Logic and Data respectively) therefore combine to form the Navigator archetype and this is his Mirror archetype profile.

The two key concepts to grasp here are that:

• We all have access to all six of these thinking functions or Intelligence Centres. Reintegrating your Master profile (made up of your "preferred" three ICs) and your Mirror profile (made up of the other three ICs) is the central developmental challenge each of us faces in our efforts to express our fullest capacity as people - hence that's also the primary developmental focus of the NeuroPower framework.
• The Master profile tells us what we want out of life, the Mirror profile reminds us of what we need. How this plays out is that our Master archetype forms our self-identity (i.e. where we place our focus and how we communicate with others; to that degree it also determines how others view and value us as individuals) while the Mirror archetype influences our behaviour.*
  

Up to the Inauguration we've seen a good deal of Obama's Master archetype, the Chancellor, and this has determined our sense of his identity. In this speech we begin to see the integration of his Mirror archetype, the Navigator, and get a sense of how that is likely to guide his behaviour.

Here is the video of his speech and below that are two short descriptions of the Chancellor and Navigator archetypes. I invite you to use these archetypes as a lens through which to view the content and delivery of his message, to see how seamlessly he has integrated the best aspects of each and how he brings them to the service of his purposes.

You can visit the original YouTube page here.

The Chancellor**

Chancellors are charming, enthusiastic, energetic and ambitious. They like competition, negotiation, promoting ideas and people and rising to the top. Chancellors are found among some of the most senior leaders and officials in society. They live to work and rise to challenges, particularly those complex people issues that others cannot seem to sort out.

Chancellors are passionate about projects with which they are involved; they are highly adept at getting team members to achieve their respective objectives, each for their own reasons. Indeed they are the ultimate diplomats: they strive to build bridges both externally, between groups and people and internally, within the sometimes conflicted breast of an individual with whom they may be interacting. They are altruistic at heart and dedicated to authenticity and bringing out the best in others.

At their best, Chancellors are genuinely charming, excellent negotiators, diplomatic, strive for esprit de corps to foster high-performing team environments, and have a warmth and kindness about them, even a sort of venerability as they put us in touch with our own better natures.

The Navigator***

A Navigator’s mind is structured and visionary. These traits combine to produce a person with a clear vision and the discipline and structure to achieve it. They are super-dependable and like to be a respected contributor to the community and a pillar of society.

Very emotionally detached, Navigators are inflexible when discussing plans, directions, approaches and logistics. If they are given no advance warning, however, they can cope with flexibility and ambiguity and perform brilliantly ‘on the hop’.

Navigators are very focused when there is a clear vision, executing enormous mind over matter, suppressing unwanted emotions and disciplining themselves and the people around them.

At their best, Navigators are the embodiment of faith, exhibiting complete confidence in the achievement of their goals and never, ever giving up hope. They are protective, almost patriarchal figures. They excel at visionary planning, holding responsibly to the agreed course of action, reaffirming the guiding principles that underlay their plans, and encouraging role excellence in themselves and others. They love to explore and conquer new realms, leading themselves or a group into uncharted territory or experiences - and to do so with honour and respect for others.


Reaffirming the principles of hope

For me, Obama's message was an inspirational reaffirmation of American ideals, principles and the responsibility that comes with power and leadership.

Looking outward to the world and (re)building bridges, he has set his stake in the ground to say clearly and confidently:

...we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more. [my emphasis]

Welcome back, America. The world has missed your leadership and your culture's deep, abiding belief in the power that ideas can have in shaping the world. As anthropologist Margaret Mead reminds us:

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.

TM



*adapted from the NeuroPower handbook, edition 1.0.5 (2008), p 746
**adapted from the NeuroPower handbook, edition 1.0.5 (2008), pp 270-271
***adapted from the NeuroPower handbook, edition 1.0.5 (2008), pp 364-65, 375, 562

What makes you stronger? Resilience & meaning-making

Traditional Western psychology suggests that the cause of people’s psychological problems lies in what happened to them in the past. According to this view, at some point early in each person’s childhood something “bad” happens (a trauma or an unfulfilled need). As a result, that person will spend the rest of his or her life repressing, compensating, avoiding or exhibiting any number of other problematic behaviour patterns based on reaction to that initial “bad” thing.

And so we get the simplistic and linear equation:

difficult childhood = problems as an adult

and the corollary:

adult with problems = adult must have had a difficult childhood.

Yet there are countless examples all over the world of people who have had terrible experiences as children – including those displaced by war, famine, poverty and other extreme situations – and yet they have managed to develop into well-adjusted and even happy people. Meanwhile, sadly, there are people who struggle with serious problems as adults who had relatively happy childhoods.

So the linear equation does not hold true – there seems to be something else at work here.


Resilience and meaning-making

Resilience describes the human being’s ability to survive, recover and persevere against various obstacles and threats.

Some people are made stronger rather than weaker by their past life experiences – how does this happen? Interestingly, much of it has to do with the story that you tell yourself about what happened.

Our brains are meaning-making machines. It’s a process that happens automatically and continually. What this means is that we constantly create narratives to make sense of our lives and the world.

The good news is that since we each write our own narrative or story about the world, it is entirely within our ability to change that narrative to create one that serves us better as we grow and develop through life.

You can create a narrative that promotes self-respect and hope without distorting the facts. This is a more comforting and optimistic view than the problem-focused approach most often used in traditional psychology – but is this just being a Pollyanna slapping a happy face on tragic situations?

No it’s not.


Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich staerker

“What does not destroy me, makes me stronger.”
- Friedrich Nietzsche


In his excellent book It’s Never too late to have a Happy Childhood, Ben Furman cites research on how people recover from catastrophe and crisis which suggests the key factor in recovery is how people choose to make meaning of what happened.

After a bank robbery, for example, it is important that the staff has a chance to talk about what happened immediately and that everyone present during the robbery receives positive feedback. Everyone should be able to think that their reactions were meaningful, or at least understanding and normal in the circumstances. They should realize that each of them acted the best they could in that situation. [p52]

Taking this example to the wider context of how people make sense of childhood traumas and past problems in life, Furman continues:

The past is a story we can tell ourselves in many different ways. By paying attention to the methods that have helped us survive, we can start respecting ourselves and reminiscing about our difficult past with feelings of pride rather than regret. [p56]

You’re not “broken”

Admittedly, “bad” things do happen to people. The view offered in traditional Western psychology is that people are somehow “broken” or “defective” as a result and their life’s task is therefore to overcome past traumas.

What if it’s the case that people are capable of all things, but circumstances and “bad” events cause them to play to certain of their talents and abilities more than others? This is quite a different view, which suggests: people are not broken, they’re just not accessing everything that they were born capable of doing. So faced with life’s challenges, people develop “strong suits,” their default, habitual mode of behaviour - but there is absolutely nothing to suggest that they cannot develop their full potential and diversify across the full range of human abilities.

Viewed in this way, our past difficulties become a rich source of evidence for our own coping abilities and resilience in the face of adversity. We can rewrite our narrative to describe how the things that did not destroy us have in fact made us stronger and better able to withstand adversity. Furthermore, we can explore the full range of our talents and how they can help us to grow into well-adjusted and fully-functioning human beings.

We can come to view our past hardships as something of a gift. I heard a proverb once that is, I think, of Chinese origin:

One disease, long life; no disease, short life.

I take this to mean: if you never face adversity, you will be more likely to succumb to the first major problem you encounter; whereas, if you have been strengthened by the things that have challenged but not destroyed you, your resilience is much greater.

The thought I like best from Furman’s book is that everyone is due a certain amount of happiness in life. If you didn’t have that happiness in your childhood and early life, imagine how much more you can expect to find later in your life!

Wishing the world were other than it is gives you nothing more than a potent recipe for unhappiness...acting to make it what you want is a step toward happiness and satisfaction. So – get started on rewriting your narrative today!
TM

Social animals, status chimps, clever humans

We are social animals. Our sense of self develops first in relation to our environment and immediate caregivers, then the others in our family unit, our clan, our tribe or our village. Our identity involves a complex dance between the polarities of being grounded as a part of something larger (relatedness to others) and the expression of self (individuality).

This dance is described in psychological terms as the interaction of the superego (parental and societal rules), the id (self-expression) and the ego (sense of self and of personal agency).

The ego helps us to set our individual goals and identify our motivation to achieve them. And because of our social nature, we also discover that in order to accomplish many of the tasks in our lives we require the assistance, support, and cooperation of others.

Like our nearest animal relative, the chimpanzee, our social relations are encoded with status, with games and a pecking order – literally the “who’s who in the zoo”. Status helps lend some structure to our interactions with the other members of our group and, in evolutionary terms, helps to ensure the survival of the group entity. As an individual, status can be simultaneously reassuring (we know where we fit in) and tremendously threatening.

To illustrate the point, look at the picture below, and imagine that you are the orange circle in each of the two groupings.

From the work of German Psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus.

What feelings do you experience when you imagine your position in the group on the left versus the group on the right?

Is your ego telling you that one situation is acceptable and the other is not?

Do you take comfort from the fact that in both groups, you are actually at the centre of a group of others?

Most interestingly, did you spot that in both groups, the orange circles are in fact exactly the same size…?

The point is this: we are animals and therefore social. We are (essentially) chimps and therefore have status in our groupings. Yet we are more than our animal origins.

As humans we can apply our larger brains and evolved minds to define and shape our own reality. This enables us to keep our ego-based fears from getting in the way of our relatedness to others.

Now this is not to demonize the ego (which is a normal and necessary part of who we are) it's a call for a reality check. And a reminder that we have the choice to define our own reality such that, no matter the “size” of those around us, we are less concerned with the relative differences in size than with striving to be the best orange circle we can be.

Abraham Lincoln is reputed to have said, “People are just about as happy as they make up their minds to be.” If you define your happiness as always relative to those around you, it will remain always beyond your control.

On the other hand, if you choose to define happiness for yourself then you will always be the best measure of its accomplishment – and you will be better positioned to reach out to others to help you get there, since you’ll have nothing to fear from them and everything to gain.

Choose wisely, it’s your life after all!
TM