EDITORIAL

 Influence: leadership starts with “self” language

Back to Index

EDITORIAL: Influence: leadership starts with “self” language

Johny Van Aerde, MD, PhD

 

Although leadership is often defined as “the capacity to influence others,”1 we cannot forget that our inner voice influences the self. That inner voice uses the same language as our external voice uses to influence others. Does a specialized language for leadership exist? How can the language of our inner voice influence us when we interact with the world as leaders? Although most articles in this issue deal with influencing others, this editorial addresses how the language of our inner voice and our mindset influence our approach to the world and offers reflections on how we can make this work better for us as leaders.

 

Language has a representative and a constitutive role.2,3 Using the representational or symbolic role, we give descriptions and explanations. For example, the sounds of words, like “hammer” or “chair” communicate what those words represent symbolically. This role is less likely to affect our mindset, as there is general agreement on what those words represent.

 

However, the constitutive or generative role fulfills a future-oriented purpose by creating new possibilities. This role is particularly needed for complex societal constructs like “equity for all,” or “the roles of a health care system.” Generative language is the bridge between the present and the uncreated future; what we say and how we say it influences not only the future we will create together, but also our own vision of possibilities.3

 

Our mindset and inner narratives can often be our biggest barriers to success. Although our inner voice never stops, we can change its language. Using generative language for our inner voice helps remove barriers that limit our view of what else is possible and what goals are attainable. By modifying the type of language our inner voice uses, we influence our own vision of new possibilities. By changing the language of our outer voice, we influence others in seeing what else is possible for organizations and systems.

 

The way we see ourselves as leaders is based on our internal, often limiting narratives affected by our mental models, assumptions, and beliefs. For example, if you have to have all the answers to be a good leader, you will not be effective, as you can never have all the answers. What is your mental model of leadership? Do you need to revisit your values, assumptions, and beliefs and examine your mental model of leadership to help you become a better leader? If our mindsets influence the language of our narratives and inner voice, how can we affect those mindsets to change that language?

 

According to Dr. Dan Diamond,4 a physician who has worked in many disaster areas, our mindset influences the type of language we use for our inner narratives in two dimensions: power and purpose (Figure 1). People can choose to be powerless or powerful and empowered; people’s purpose can run between serving self (being a taker) and serving others (being a giver). The two dimensions — power and purpose — delineate four mindsets that will influence our language and inner narratives.

 

These are mindsets that each of us might use at different times; they are not different types of people. Controllers or manipulators believe they have the power to make a difference, but it is all about benefits for themselves. Bystanders care about the outcome, but don’t do anything about it as they underestimate what they can do; their mindset makes them a powerless giver. Victims’ mindsets make them powerless and a taker: “I don’t have any power, I am working in a lousy place, I have to look out for myself.” Their underlying emotion and motivation can be fear. In Man’s Search for Meaning,5 Viktor Frankl described how to reverse the mindset of a victim by revisiting purpose and values. Thrivers are powerful givers, who feel able to make a difference and make others successful, to be a servant leader for the common good.6 Thrivers believe that they can make a difference in the service of others, for the organization, or for the system.

 

According to Covey,7 there is a third dimension, the freedom to choose or the lack thereof, which leads to a mindset of pro-activity or re-activity. Reactive people are often limited by their mental models when responding reflexively to external stimuli. Proactive people see the freedom to choose their response to a stimulus from the external environment. They are still influenced by external stimuli, physical, social, or psychological, but their response to the stimuli is a value-based choice. As Frankl wrote, the response to what happens to us can be experienced as more painful than what actually happens.Top

 

Recognizing our response-ability (our ability to respond) is what will make things happen within our circle of influence. The language of reactive people absolves them of response-ability and becomes self-fulfilling; it becomes a paradigm of determinism in that “I am not response-able, not able to choose my response.” Proactive people on the other hand use generative language for working on the things they can do something about, thereby enlarging their circle of influence. In choosing our response to a circumstance, we powerfully affect our circumstance. Our language is an indicator of the degree to which we see ourselves as reactive or proactive. Examples can be found in Table 1.

 

In Bringing Leadership to Life,1 Dickson and Tholl state, “A leadership mindset is the mental predisposition that shapes our leadership responses, and therefore our level of effectiveness.” As a leader, pay attention to what you are saying to yourself. That inner voice is there all the time, but the type of language it uses will generate different narratives for ourselves and influence others into thinking, “What else is possible.”

 

References

1.Dickson G, Tholl B. Bringing leadership to life in health: LEADS in a caring environment. London, UK: Springer; 2014: 65.

2.Souba W. The science of leading self. Open J Leadersh 2013; 2(3): 45-55.

3.Souba C. The language of leadership. Acad Med 2010; 85(10): 1609-1618.

4.Diamond D. Beyond resilience. Bremerton, Wa.: NogginStorm; 2015.

5.Frankl V. Man’s search for meaning. Boston: Beacon Press; 2006.

6.Greenleaf R. Servant leadership. Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press; 2002.

7.Covey S.  The 7 habits of highly effective people. New York: Free Press; 2004.

 

Author

Johny Van Aerde, MD, PhD, FRCPC, is editor-in-chief of the Canadian Journal of Physician Leadership and executive medical director of the Canadian Society of Physician Leaders.

 

Correspondence to:

johny.vanaerde@gmail.com

 

 Top

Language has a representative and a constitutive role.2,3 Using the representational or symbolic role, we give descriptions and explanations. For example, the sounds of words, like “hammer” or “chair” communicate what those words represent symbolically. This role is less likely to affect our mindset, as there is general agreement on what those words represent.