The relationship between attitudes and assumptions, as described earlier, is so important because it clarifies where many of our assumptions come from. By adopting the attitudes of the people to whom we have been exposed, and on whom we were dependent in the first years of our life, we adopted their assumptions too. In this way, we took part in their ways of living, including all their ideas, stories, images and feelings, which were attached to these attitudes. These ‘attachments’ were not at all clear to us then, but – as discussed in Chapter 7 – they had the opportunity to gradually unfold and develop within us. These assumptions are now part of our ‘basic trust’ (Erikson, 1968) – that is, as far as we developed such a ‘basic
trust’ – that we developed in our first years of life, the trust that life is (at least to a certain degree) manageable, comprehensible and meaningful (Antonovsky, 1987). Attempts from the outside to change these attitudes can then easily be interpreted as intrusions into this basic trust, with all the intense reactions that might be evoked by all that.
By adopting the attitudes and assumptions of the people who raised us, as well as of the other people who have influenced us, we have literally and figuratively identified ourselves with them. We relate in comparable ways to the world, without noticing that for one second.
Another interesting point here is that somebody’s power position determines the amount of attention they receive. That is, more powerful people almost automatically draw our attention. As a result, we tend to adopt their attitudes and consequently we tend to look at the world from their perspectives. This is in practice a matter of biology. The same also happens in other ape species (Chance & Larsen, 1976). A well-known example of this phenomenon is that hostages, who are fully dependent for their survival on the whims of their captors, tend to adopt their captors’ views. This so-called Stockholm syndrome helps the hostages to survive, because by adopting this mindset they can better pre- dict what the captors are up to. The adoption of the captors’ point of view often hap- pens without the hostages noticing that they are completely changing their views of the world.
It is interesting to realize that small children are equally dependent on others for their survival as are hostages. Anna Freud (1971) spoke in a comparable context about ‘identifi- cation with the aggressor’. This makes it all the more understandable that we have adopted our parents’ attitudes – and assumptions – to such a great degree. We just have taken them up in our body: we have ‘in-corporated’ them (literally put them in our body, ascorpusis Latin for body).
This adoption of the point of view of the ‘more powerful’ person has important impli- cations for leadership. As leaders are by definition powerful, they draw much attention. As a result, their followers tend to take over their attitudes and assumptions without question.
Leaders then become by definition strong role models who can use their attitudes to influ- ence their followers’ motivation and behavior. The downside of this is that a leader who displays inadequate attitudes can have a devastating effect on his employees’ motivation and behavior. So leaders should be aware of their modeling function and be very careful about their attitudes. They should walk their talk, strongly and perceivably.
In order to be maximally contagious, an attitude should be energetic and show clear intent. High energy makes attitudes more vivid (Nisbett & Ross, 1980) and salient (Taylor
& Fiske, 1978) – that is, more likely to attract attention – because it appeals more strongly to the observer’s emotions (James, 1890/1950). The most distinguishing characteristic of Mao Zedong, for example, appears to have been his unbridled energy (Spence, 2000). Clear intent refers to being undivided in one’s attitude; that is, not showing mixed objectives or restraining oneself too much. It also means displaying a clear focus and purpose, being determined, certain and optimistic. Unclear or mixed intent has a self-disqualifying effect:
don’t look at me, I don’t know either. Clear intent is also perceived as a sign of sincerity and authenticity (Heidegger, 1962; May, 1969), of being the same on and off the job (Bennis &
Thomas, 2002).
Being authentic is most of all a matter of knowing and being convinced of your own suppositions and goals. This may take a lot of work and exercise. Mahatma Gandhi, for example, put in a great deal of effort and reflection to be as clear and undivided as possible (Nair, 1998).
Essentially, authenticity is a special case of a more general pattern: the leader as hero (Campbell, 1988; Smit, 1997). Heroes enter the stage when things are not good. Exemplary heroes usually retreat from society to a secluded place for some time, where they don’t need their intellect for everyday concerns. Some – Jesus, Moses and Mohammed – preferred deserts. Ignatius of Loyola chose a grotto. A prison-like environment, such as in the cases of Sadat, Lenin and Mandela, and even a desolate garret – Hitler – can do the trick as well. In such an environment, heroes have room to face the painful difference between how things are and how they ought to be. Their hero-like capacities manifest themselves most in enduring this discrepancy and all the inherent aversive feelings as long as necessary. To this end, they descend to the level of the assumptions. Here they slay their dragons and find the seeds of the new approach, which take them to visionary heights where the new vision can fully unfold. Most of the time, this vision is a vigorous new combination of well-known elements, which turn out not to be completely obsolete after all. Lastly, heroes step down again to the world of everyday life, armed with the blueprint of a new approach to overcome the discrepancy. Once returned to society, heroes try to implement this vision there. Though this sounds like a purely individual affair, it doesn’t need to be. As the stories about the Argonauts and the Trojan War demonstrate, heroes can band together. A group, a management team for example, can do the same and, when things are very complicated, to probably even better effect.
When leaders know their modeling power, they can use their attitude deliberately to propose to their people what they want them to do. This implies that they must pay special attention to their own attitudes. The first step here may literally consist of looking in the mirror and inspecting their habitual attitudes. What relationship proposals do they imply?
Do they communicate what the leaders want them to communicate? By carefully modifying habitual attitudes and experimenting with them, it is possible to be more in control over those attitudes; that is, to display the attitudes that one wants to display. This enables one to take more responsibility for one’s attitudes and to be more precise and effective in what one wants to get across. The main guideline here is to be honest with oneself (see Chapter 5).
Some leaders exaggerate their attitudes, make them larger than life and supporting them with elaborate gesturing, in order to make them more salient. Infamous examples are Mussolini and Hitler, as caricatured by Charlie Chaplin inThe Great Dictator. Hitler also put up a display of near frenzy when addressing big crowds. A modern variant can be seen in the performances of pop stars, though spreading frenzy there appears to be more of an objective in itself.
Energy and clear intent are part of charismatic leadership, energizing and steering follow- ers. In an organization, this implies a direct confrontation with the members. Charismatic leadership then represents a classic, up-front approach to leadership. This approach is char- acterized by much repetition: displaying the positions one wants to display, time after time, in all relevant situations. It also involves advertising a strong moral stance: I act as I do because this is the best way to act. However, what is the best way to act? This is the line of action that maximally furthers theraison d’ˆetre of the organization, its mission, in a morally sound way.
An important instrument here is a convincing story (Postman, 1999), preferably one with catchy metaphors, acting as a self-fulfilling reality and indicating action guidelines. So good leaders are more than averagely successful storytellers, casting themselves as protagonists.
A good mission must also apply to the longer term and picture a destiny worth taking risks
for. When a mission is well embedded in the organization’s history, it gains an extra sense of logic and self-evidence. Furthermore, it should provide a visual component – as the word
‘vision’ already implies – as well as a feeling of adventure and challenge. Moreover, the success of a mission is partly a function of its novelty, triggering curiosity and creativity.
A good mission lastly leaves enough room for personal interpretation, adaptation and transformation, is flexible enough to be applicable in a changing environment and allows for a choice to take it or leave it.
Essentially, championing a mission is an incremental approach, a serial, remedial and fragmented process, which takes a great deal of effort and stamina. Essentially, this is the task of the leader. In everyday practice thistoujours frapper, as the French call it – keep on pushing, in English – boils down to the rules of thumb in the following sections. Though the rules given are intended for leaders, they also apply to consultants and all other change agents.