FIGURE 4.1: CASHMAN'S MODEL OF LEADERSHIP FROM THE INSIDE OUT
Cashman developed the following seven pathways to assist leaders to change from the inside out. Pathway One: Personal Mastery requires one to break free of self-limiting patterns by transforming shadow beliefs52 into conscious beliefs53 (Cashman, 1998:38). Expressing oneself authentically involves operating from one’s character (essence of who one is) as opposed to one’s persona (mask or external personality designed to cope with life circumstances) (Cashman, 1998:42). Pathway Two: Purpose Mastery involves following one’s true purpose.
52 Shadow beliefs is a term coined by the psychologist Jung and refers to beliefs which are
manifestations of hidden, unexplored or unresolved psychological dynamics that one is not ready to confront (Cashman, 1998:37).
53 A conscious belief is a belief where there is open awareness about its existence. Leadership from the Inside Out 1. Personal Mastery 2. Purpose Mastery 3. Change Mastery 4. Interpersonal Mastery 5. Being Mastery 6. Balance Mastery 7. AcDon Mastery
Cashman (1998:64) contends that the difference between purpose and meaning is that purpose focuses on the how and meaning on the why. Thus, purpose refers to how people express themselves in order to add value. Pathway Three:
Change Mastery involves releasing old patterns and adopting a fresh approach
to thinking or operating (Cashman, 1998:87). The change process should be aligned to one’s purpose and values. Pathway Four: Interpersonal Mastery involves leading through synergy as this mastery requires the dynamic interaction between persona power and synergy power to create value (Cashman, 1998:107). Cashman (1998:110) contends that several organisations adopt a mechanistic approach, whereby results are valued more than the synergy of individuals. The mechanistic approach tends to devalue people. This does not advance the organisation’s goals because individuals in this instance do not know how to contribute meaningfully to an organisation.
In contrast, organisations that operate from an organic, inside-out approach tend to nurture individuals who, in return, contribute meaningfully to the organisation.
Pathway Five: Being Mastery means leading through being by connecting with
one’s innermost character in order to make meaningful, dynamic contributions (Cashman, 1998:131). Cashman (1998:146) argues that leading through being creates positive organisational results because an inner calm enables the leader to be more lucidly responsive to rapid changes and dynamics. Pathway Six:
Balance Mastery involves leading by centring one’s life so as to build resilience in
order to enhance effectiveness and fulfilment (Cashman, 1998:153). Balance Mastery requires that one connects to one’s inner core so that one is able to deal with external dynamics. Pathway Seven: Action Mastery involves taking action that is connected to purpose and which creates value (Cashman, 1998:180). A weakness of the model is that it contains no explicit discussion, nor is there any depiction of the way in which the model relates to organisations. The model focuses predominantly on the internal transformation of a leader. However, if the model is intended to improve the performance of leaders in organisations then
the relationship between the leader and the organisation should be more explicitly reviewed.
The strength of Cashman’s Leadership from the Inside Out Model is that it focuses on creating sustainable and fundamental change in a leader by following a systematic process. In addition, the Leadership from the Inside Out Model is set out practically and thus it is clear how to implement the seven pathways. The model also contains reflective exercises that promote deeper self-awareness and the internalisation of learning. Cashman (1998:27) criticised training programmes that propose quick fixes. He argues that although these programmes may achieve quick results, if the underlying chronic problems are not addressed, it will result in greater problems in the long term. This model, similarly to other spiritual leadership models, requires the leader to possess a certain level of maturity, wisdom and discipline in order to embark on a journey of deep, internal transformation.
A unique aspect of this model is its emphasis on being. Being is pure consciousness based on a concept of non-dual oneness (Cashman, 1998:136; Fry and Kriger, 2009:1683). Most of the other emerging leadership theories within the spiritual paradigm focus on having (i.e. possessing the right skills, competencies, resources and behaviours for the task at hand) and doing (i.e. behaving or expressing activities that are appropriate to the situation) (Fry and Kriger, 2009:1687).
4.2.3
Stephen Covey’s Whole Person Leadership Model
The purpose of Covey’s Whole Person Leadership Model is to enable people to break old habits by addressing the root causes of problems and growing from the inside out so that they find their voice and assist their team and their organisation to find their voices. Covey’s Whole Person Leadership Model is based on three
hardwired birthrights54 (Covey, 2004:40). Firstly, everyone has the freedom and the power to choose. When individuals take responsibility, instead of blaming, they move from being a victim to being response-able and accountable. Secondly, people are all governed by principles or natural laws which are universal, timeless and self-evident. These principles direct individuals to their true north and assist them to develop moral authority (Covey, 2004:46). Thirdly, individuals comprise four intelligences (Covey, 2004:50-53): mental (IQ ‒ the ability to analyse, reason, think abstractly, visualise and comprehend); physical (PQ ‒ the body’s ability to be in balance and function optimally); emotional (EQ ‒ the ability to know oneself, be self-aware, possess social sensitivity, be empathetic and communicate effectively); and spiritual (SQ ‒ the central intelligence and source of guidance for the other intelligences as it enables us to develop moral authority by following our higher purpose and be connected with the infinite).
However, a shortcoming of this model is Covey’s assumption about the hardwired birthrights of individuals. These hardwired birthrights are not always applicable to all people as claimed. With regard to rational intelligence or IQ, not all individuals are able to think rationally, for example the mentally challenged and very young children. The same applies to EQ where people diagnosed with, for example Asperger Syndrome, experience severe and sustained impairments in their social interactions (Montgomery, 2007:102). However, exceptions to possessing these birthrights should be understood within the context of all things being equal. Furthermore, unless a person is born with certain biological defects or has suffered gross personal injury that affected the functioning of any of his/her personal intelligences, then all people possess these birthrights.
54 Covey (2004:40) refers to hardwired birthrights as one’s “talents, capacities, privileges,
intelligences, opportunities – that would remain largely unopened except through our own decision and effort”.
Covey (2004) maintains that becoming a whole person requires two core processes, namely, finding your own voice and inspiring others to do the same. According to Covey, finding your own voice (Covey, 2004:65–66) involves the following four processes. Firstly, developing a vision (mental) that involves being able to visualise a future state. Vision is created twice, first in the mind and then in reality. The most important vision involves developing a sense of purpose and meaning. Secondly, being disciplined (physical) by possessing the relentless commitment and sacrifice required to achieve the vision. Thirdly, being passionate by possessing the fire, drive, strength of conviction and desire to sustain the discipline necessary to achieve the vision. Passion requires courage. If people’s passion intersects with their job they become self-inspired. Finally, using conscience by being guided by an internal moral sense of right and wrong, and being driven toward the meaning that serves as a guiding force in terms of vision, discipline and passion. Conscience is the opposite of ego, as conscience empowers, values feedback, is adaptable, is peaceful, shifts us from an independent to an interdependent state, and transforms passion into compassion.
Inspiring others to find their own voice involves, firstly, developing the type of leadership that is able to identify and address key chronic organisational problems, such as low trust, lack of sharing of vision/values and disempowerment. Secondly, leaders are required to model good moral behaviour, assist employees to determine and follow their vision, core values and organisational strategy, align organisational systems, structures and processes to the organisational core values and vision, and empower others to be more inspired and productive in their work.
A criticism of Covey’s Whole Person Leadership Model is the insufficient attention it accords to the monitoring and evaluation process. There is no explicit process that requires the constant reflection and monitoring of its application. The value of building this process into the model would be that it would compel
individuals to internalise it as a way of life, instead of applying it half-heartedly and abandoning the process during times of difficulty. In order for the 8th Habit to become habitual, a reflective process should have been integrated into Covey’s model, possibly relating to the discipline aspect involved in finding one’s voice. Stephen Covey’s (2004:270) Whole Person Leadership Model is depicted in