Last week the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s oldest and largest Islamist organization, a group that has been banned, off and on in Egypt since 1948, won 47 percent of seats in the lower house of parliament.

Which leads me to ponder a question that has always intrigued me: how does a political party, or an individual for that matter, make the transition in identity (and action) from a radical activist position, outside the mainstream, to the head of government?

Major political transitions are seldom considered to be psychological as well as political events, but how could they not be? The citizens of the former east bloc countries didn’t just wake up one morning with a democratic understanding, attitude and behavior. Growing up in a totalitarian regime results in a state of mind, a set of behaviors that doesn’t shift when government does. Being a member of a banned, radical extremist group to suddenly being the party in the seat of power is a profound shift in identity. Looking at history, the track record for making this transition is not good. Many radical parties entered through revolution and proceeded to jail, torture, ‘re-educate’ or assassinate opponents.

It takes people years to grow into their sense of power, to grow from a young adult dependent on others to being the one responsible for others. Companies grapple with this all the time. Someone is promoted from front line or factory floor into a management position but doesn’t or can’t fill those leadership shoes: they see their new staff still as colleagues, and react competitively with the people they are meant to develop. And this is true everywhere, not just in the business world: parents struggle with this, often failing to recognize their higher rank and resorting to yelling, screaming, even violence when provoked by their children. Teachers who feel insecure or who need their egos stroked are every student’s nightmare. (more…)

The death of Vaclav Havel yesterday reminds me of the essence of politics, the greater sense of service and community that defines politics in its purest form. Havel, a dissident, playwright and the first president of the Czech republic after the fall of communism, believed in a politics was that was “a practical morality, as service to the truth, as essentially human and humanly measured care for our fellow humans.”

His rhetoric about community and relationship is missing in our current polarized and polarizing political climate. Long before people spoke of emotional intelligence, Havel was championing it. In discussing what he learned during his tenure as President of the Czech Republic, Havel says he realized that the most essential assets for any politician are

fellow-feeling, the ability to talk to others, insight, the capacity to grasp quickly not only problems but also human character, the ability to make contact, a sense of moderation: all these are immensely more important in politics.

Is there still room for such kind of politicians? Am I naïve to believe that politics could someday embody these ideals? Perhaps. Yet I hold out the hope that we can and will get there one day.

How and when does power become abusive? I’ve explored this topic here frequently, and while I don’t think power is inherently abusive or corrupting, without education and training on how to use it, abuse of power does and will happen. Hence the title of this blog.

One thing often overlooked in leadership training (which I believe should focus more on power and how to use it well) is that we do not enter positions of power as blank slates, but come into positions of power with our personal story of power. We grew up in a context of power relations, and how we enact the role of the leader is influenced by a social identity forged in part by power relations. Preparing for a position of power should start with an inventory of what one has already experienced about power.

As a coach and trainer, one thing I constantly see is that we seldom outgrow the power identity we grew up with. Not only that, our earliest identity of power  asserts itself under threat or stress. Growing up smaller than the other kids, and being picked on in school, growing up poor or disadvantaged, following an older brother or sister who did better in school, or being the only Jew in the town, all of these experiences are like unresolved wounds or complexes that stay with us, and influence our self-esteem, relations with others, and more generally, how we perform in our roles. We lead with and from our wounds.

And wounding can come from both a deficit and an excess of power, and the complicated mix of both. There is no doubt, as research confirms, low status is wounding. Lack of access to resources, systemic oppression, low self-esteem, internalized lowered expectations and stereotyping influences health, opportunity, success, well-being, happiness, etc. But we are also wounded psychologically by exclusivity, unearned privilege, entitlement, and the “price of the ticket,” fitting into an elite club whose membership is the cost of our authenticity.

But our early experiences with power can also be affirming and enabling. We are empowered through the connection with our lineage, a knowledge of ancestors, connection with the community or with a spiritual belief. We can also transform our earliest suffering into self-esteem and empowerment by awareness of having endured or survived hardship.

Yet unless we develop awareness of these initial experiences, and our unresolved wounds, the temptation to use the power of the role to soothe our pain is too great. Like an addict using a substance to flee a miserable state of mind, power becomes an artificial boost, a ‘substance’ to soothe and alleviate an internal sense of low status. But this isn’t an immutable fate. It can be worked on with focus and self-awareness. I’m looking forward to exploring this and more on the intersection of the person and the role in the Leadership Lab in a couple of weeks.

Power is not a singular attribute but a tricky intersection between the power of the person and the power of the role. I’ve written elsewhere about this tricky problem of the fit between the power of the person and the power of the role, the interaction of power and status.

Poor use of power most often stems from a dissonance between the personal power of the one in the role and the power of the role itself.

Now a study published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology shows how this dynamic happens in a research study. The implications of this are vast and useful for everything from ethics in corporate governance to bullying in schools.

What makes it even trickier is that status is not static; it fluctuates depending on many factors. Under threat and attack, our status can go down. In fact, under threat, when triggered, it’s common to regress to the place where we have been hurt or wounded, because that is where we learned to defend ourselves. This is why power needs to come with a User’s Guide: We regress to our place of lowest status, and from there, reach for our biggest rank to defend ourselves.

I’m starting to prepare my workshop on the Gold Coast of Australia in December. This year’s workshop is called The Leadership Lab. It focuses on the inner development of the leader, something I’m very interested in.  I’m fascinated by what is not included in leadership development. Conventional leadership training  usually focuses on 1) so-called soft (yet hard to master) skills such as communication, coaching, team work, 2) technical skills such as strategy, financial management, negotiation,  innovation, leading change, and 3) power, influence, and understanding one’s own leadership styles.

What’s missing though, is learning how to use your skills under pressure. The moment is not the classroom. If you don’t practice under stress, you can’t perform under stress. It’s that simple. Cops understand this, the military understands this, athletes understand this. But leadership training doesn’t always understand this. You cannot access your tools under stress unless you have trained to access your tools under stress. Arny Mindell focuses on this aspect of facilitation in what he calls “the second training.”  (more…)

Tomorrow the first module of the Inner Activist program launches. This program, several years in the making, is the brainchild of Brad Jarvis, whose own journey of development led him to create a personal development program to help change makers, social entrepreneurs, leaders and activists be radically more effective in their life-serving work.

I was recruited by Brad, and two others on the founding team – Ian Curtin and Frank Quimby, to consult with them on the development of the program. It was a daunting task of bringing together 6 different personal growth and adult education modules into one unified program. It’s been a great privilege working with the Inner Activist team – 21 amazing educators, social innovators, facilitators and trainers. In honor of this big moment, I’m posting something one my colleagues on the team, Natasha Aruliah, wrote for the Inner Activist blog, on the ‘hierarchy of oppressions,’ and the development of conscious use of power.

I’m here in Denver at the 2011 Worldwork Conference – 260 people from all over the world, learning about the planet and its vast problems, and also learning how to facilitate and resolve conflict. Today I’m part of the facilitation team. Sitting here over my coffee, getting ready for the day, I’m reminded of my post, “Leading Under Fire,”  which I originally called Game Day. I’m reposting it here, and I think I’ll also give it a re-read, reminding myself of all my good points, as I get ready for the day. Enjoy!

Read the full post here.

My friend, Ioan Mitrea, who founded his company, Sellerengine, sent me this terrific post on the challenges of leadership: What’s The Most Difficult CEO Skill? Managing Your Own Psychology. The author, Ben Horowitz, is writing about being a CEO of your own company. But his words ring true for stepping up into any leadership position:

The first problem is that everybody learns to be a CEO by being a CEO. No training as a manager, general manager or any other job actually prepares you to run a company. The only thing that prepares you to run a company is running a company. This means that you will face a broad set of things that you don’t know how to do that require skills that you don’t have. Nevertheless, everybody will expect you to know how to do them, because, well, you are the CEO.

Read the full post here.

I was browsing through some old movies the other day and came across Love Story. Remember Love Story, Ryan O’Neal and Ali MacGraw? The line the movie made famous was Love Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry. I was a teenager when the movie came out, and I thought that sounded pretty cool. Looking back, I think it’s ridiculous. If anything, love means having to say you’re sorry… often. Or as John Lennon said, love means having to say you’re sorry every 15 minutes. (more…)

The plane had already pulled away from the gate and was sitting on the tarmac for what seemed to be an eternity. I fidgeted nervously along with my fellow passengers. Then came the dreaded announcement: “Ladies and gentlemen, we have a mechanical problem with one of our engines. We have to return to the gate.” (more…)