Leadership Learning Series #18
“Irony of Integrity” Summary
October 5, 2017
Amanda Goeller
Materials:
Center for Creative Leadership Study 2016 Irony of Integrity
Requested everyone come prepared to engage!
Session Summary:
Beginning Journey:
Discussed the struggle to present on the topic I wanted to: Sports Leadership and not polarize the group. Took us back to LCDP FEI week 1 where we indicated which characteristics we valued the most in leaders (thank you Jasmin for having photos of everything): Integrity
Irony of Integrity Study:
Quick review of the study and then the main take away from the study:
1)Integrity didn’t have a statistically significant value to mid-level manager’s success at the mid-level manager level yet it did have a statistically significant value to the C-level executive’s success. However, many people are promoted to executive level due to performing well at the mid-level manager role. So is this a reason that executives are failing – there isn’t as much of a need at the mid-level positions so they aren’t learning that attribute and how it plays to success in the workplace until they fail at the senior levels?
2)Executives often rated themselves higher than their subordinates did in the character attribute of integrity.
Group Question: Where you surprised by the results of the study and why: There were mixed reviews but majority of people that answered in the group said they were surprised, thinking that integrity would have rated higher in the mid-level managers as well. Though most weren’t shocked that the senior executives rated themselves higher in integrity then did their subordinates. Others weren’t as surprised.
Perspective:
I didn’t take a lot of stock in the study but it did make me look into the character attribute that didn’t rate high for either mid-level managers or executives: Perspective.
Continued Journey: Perspective
Discussed how my father used sports in my life to draw leadership parallels. I remember how my father specifically used the sport itself to teach me, not the athletes themselves, the sport itself.
Background of the football clip: Ravens/Steelers 2011, in Pittsburgh, where the Ravens NEVER win. Down by 4, on the Steelers 40 with 42 seconds left.
Football game clip:
Overview: Torrey Smith (rookie Wide Receiver) drops the first TD thrown to him, it would have been the game winning TD and it was a perfect pass – would have been a touchdown. Then with only 15 seconds left on the clock Joe Flacco (quarterback) throws the exact same pass to Torrey Smith again and he catches it for the game winning TD!
Leadership attributes found in the 42 seconds of football, 5 of which were the same attributes we listed as a group at FEI.
Group Participation
Perspective Changes:
4 pictures (one by one) of controversial “leaders” - not everyone will view each of these people as leaders but because of their following – they are leaders. It just might not be a leader you admire. So instead of writing it off lets come up with leadership attributes that they possess (positive). Everyone threw out qualities.
1)Lady Gaga
2)President Bill Clinton
3)Beyoncé
4)Kim Kardashian
NOTE: This one more people had trouble with so I noted her resume: Over 17 million followers on Instagram, $53 million dollar net worth, 2015 top 100 most influential people, made being famous famous, has a song, several perfumes, multiple TV shows, mobile game, app, jewelry line, fashion line, makeup line. Donates 10% of her earnings to charity and requested donations to charity in lieu of baby gifts.
When Kim Kardashian’s picture came up some people initially said – no, this will be a short list (check it out – it’s the longest) and there is no way we can do this. And everyone played off each other and were able to. I thought the input of Social Intelligent was astute as it brought it back to the earlier study we had all read. In the end, I was told I made at least one believer, as she has a different perspective on Kim Kardashian.
Group Questions/Discussion Summary:
Group discussed whether a change of perspective is good or can be used elsewhere: Group noted it can be used:
-Political appointees
-Supervisors
-Ourselves
-Help NOAA define core values
Open time for group discussion:
Question to Amanda: “In terms of integrity do you have a perspective on the current state of football with regard to the anthem protests.”
My answer: This is a touchy subject. I over simplified the issues but essentially both sides feel as though they are acting with integrity. They truly believe that, so that it what makes this topic very hard. And in fact, the two extreme sides aren’t even discussing the same topic, they are arguing or debating different topics. The group added that both topics cut deep and another reason why it is so volatile.
Question back: “Do you think the leadership challenge is “integrity is in the eye of the beholder”
My answer: Yes (though cautious because while I don’t think integrity is an absolute I do realize there is still a framework to fit, example: I will never thinking killing is in the eye of the beholder – although then there is war, or terminal illness…hmmmm).
The group added that reviewing the Webster dictionary of integrity it even states artistic values and moral values but doesn’t state what those are?
What I wish I had said: That in cases like this – where integrity characteristics comes into play, is how the discussion takes places and how reactions are handled. Meaning, if you can recognize that both sides are coming from a place of integrity and there are just two different perspectives, then how to have an open/calm/educational/smart/respectful conversation is where the true leader emerges.
Final Product:
I took the words used for the four examples and made a word jumble to show all the positives that can come from just a different perspective.
Page 1 of