Heroic Leadership

by Chris Lowney

  Every annual report boasts some version of the now tired cliche "Our people are our most important asset." But are the managers of these companies actively involved in finding and developing aptissimi-not just saying that their people are their most important asset but committing time, insight, and energy to unlocking the total potential of those most important assets? Do teams see their managers-including the chief executive and top management-still working to turn themselves into aptissimi? Or do they see Pooh-Bahs whose commitment to their own development ended once they reached a certain rung on the corporate ladder?

  Point to the vein in the mine

  It would be convenient-and save a lot of time-if managers could concoct magic words to unleash motivated performance on a mass scale. It doesn't happen, never has, and never will. The corporate mission will likely fire up only those who drafted it, precisely because the process of shaping it made it personally important to those involved. So leader-managers must find ways to help their subordinates make it personal-the key to self-moti vation. As Jesuit directors of the Exercises were reminded, "it is a lesson of experience that all men are more delighted and more moved by what they find out for themselves. Hence it will suffice just to point, as with the finger, to the vein in the mine, and let each one dig for himself."8

  Loyola and his colleagues would have been pleased to find their approach validated in research conducted four centuries after them by management consultants McKinsey and Company. Pursuing strategies to help companies attract and retain scarce talent, McKinsey asked top executives what motivated their best talent. Following is an excerpt from their findings:

  Percentage of top 200 executives rating factor absolutely essential [to motivating talent]:

  What do aptissimi want? They want to exercise initiative ("freedom and autonomy") and make a meaningful contribution ("job has exciting challenges"). And they care about the values and culture of a workplace: what colleagues stand for, how they treat one another, and how they approach opportunities and ideas. In a phrase, they care about the modo de proceder. What they don't much care about is the piece of paper, judging by the meager 16 percent who identified "inspiring mission" as a key motivator. In Jesuit terms, what excites aptissimi is working in an environment where people understand that everyone is a leader and everyone leads all the time.

  Support and trust the leaders you lead

  "Olivier, cut your suit according to your cloth; only let us know how you have acted." 10 Once a manager has molded leaders, he or she must support them. Most managers encourage subordinates to show more initiative-until it actually happens. Then things become a bit uncomfortable. Subordinates actually make decisions, and they don't always do things as their manager would. Sometimes-God forbid-they even make mistakes. Then managers start trumpeting a different song, to the tune of micromanagement.

  The leader-manager instead follows Loyola's instinct that those "who are on the ground will see better what should be done."11 What's more, the leader-manager has the courage, trust, and patience to support subordinates through mistakes, understanding that the most effective leaders are often fired in the kiln of their early missteps-developing resilience, the ability to learn from mistakes, and the wisdom to accept oneself and one's teammates as imperfect.

  When subordinates are courageous enough to venture out on a limb for the company, leader-managers are courageous enough to back them in their risk taking. When de Nobili and Schall needed support from Rome, they got support, not a brushoff from riskaverse Jesuit generals suddenly more interested in covering their own backsides. Conversely, it was a bad sign for Jesuit heroism when Paraguay Jesuits received instructions to stand down from their cause instead of assurances that their general was wading into diplomatic battle behind them.

  Don't lead unless you're ready for adventure

  When leadership is working, it hurts-the good news is the bad news. The leader who finds and develops aptissimi, gives them opportunities to lead, and supports their risk taking will almost inevitably find him- or herself with the same staffing and prioritizing headaches that perennially throbbed throughout Jesuit headquarters. It's a great problem: fired-up teams constantly uncovering new opportunities, all convinced that they're working on "the greatest enterprise in the world today"-and all clamoring for reinforcements. The time to worry is the day the headache stops. When bottom-up leadership ends, it gets nice and quiet at the top. But those who want peace will do better with a monastic lifestyle, not with the world-immersed lifestyle of four-pillared leadership.

  In a world of bottom-up leadership, leader-managers

  • lead themselves, inspiring others by their own example and creating environments of greater love than fear

  • find and develop aptissimi

  • help subordinates locate their inner switches for motivated performance

  • trust and support those who are "on the ground"

  A thirty-hour investment per employee

  Loyola is a model of the leader-manager. He himself coached many first-generation Jesuits through the Spiritual Exercises, guiding these future leaders through a self-assessment of strengths, weaknesses, values, and worldview. It was a significant commitment: they met once a day for thirty days for as much as an hour each visit. How many years would it take most managers nowadays to chalk up thirty hours of unadulterated one-on-one developmental discussion? Most would squeal that the many pressing demands of their high office would prevent them from coaching individual subordinates so extensively (never mind that Loyola himself presided over a multinational company that doubled in size every few months).

  Perhaps they would be right. Or perhaps shortsighted. The thirty-hour coaching session should be thought of as an investment. Loyola's paid off handsomely in enormous operating leverage. While managers today frequently waste time second-guessing subordinates' decisions, Loyola took a hands-off approach: "Whatever means you shall judge to be better in our Lord, I fully approve.-.-.-. In this matter we have but one will, but you are in closer touch with affairs where you are." 12 While executives today typically trust only themselves and their inner circle to handle top-level sales or diplomatic contacts, Loyola confidently dispatched a long parade of Jesuits to face off with world leaders-from the king of Portugal to the Mughal emperor. Not a bad return for a thirty-hour investment per Jesuit. And the investments had a huge multiplier effect. Loyola got to know and trust his future leaders through Exercises that also prepared each one to represent the company as a focused, confident, self-aware Jesuit. What's more, each inherited from Loyola the tradition of investing oneself in developing the next generation.

  Leader-managers today commit to making similar investments in their subordinates, not out of duty or some vague desire to be nice, but out of what might be called enlightened love: a personal desire and commitment to unlocking each person's potential combined with an understanding that the return on a well-developed leader far outstrips that of countless other investment opportunities.

  STRONG LEADERS QUESTION THE STATUS QUO

  Jesuits embraced four self-reinforcing leadership principles and were grounded in the tradition that each generation would mold its successors to live those same core principles. The perfect leadership machine? Well, not quite. It was only as perfect as each Jesuit, which is to say not very. Aptissimi or no, they were still human. Once their self-reinforcing, self-replicating leadership contraption was flying, Jesuits could hardly afford to flip on the autopilot and enjoy the ride. It was exactly the opposite. As their successes mounted, the Jesuits found that remaining committed to their principles grew not easier but harder. Why? Ingenuity, magis-driven heroism, and self-reflection inevitably forced them to question the status quo-their own behaviors, the work they were doing, and the cultures in which they operated.

  The Jesuits were soon faced with the challenge that confronts every successful company: to keep reinventing themselves instead of resting on their laurels. Once they had "arrived," the motivation to keep reinvent
ing themselves was less obvious-it's little wonder that they avoided agonizing over their wildly successful school system and whether it was eroding their prized mobility and flexibility.

  That Jesuits fell short of their own leadership principles is no indication that their model was flawed. There is no sure-fire leadership formula, because no formula is humanproof. It's not a tragedy to fall; the tragedy is not accepting and understanding one's missteps, learning from them, picking oneself up, and moving forward again a wiser, better leader. Effective leaders stick to their countercultural, inquiring, magis-driven approach, knowing that trouble will likely arise when they stop asking questions and challenging themselves and others. The modern-day leader who maintains a self-reflective instinct, like the Jesuits who did so nearly five centuries ago, avoids the worst leadership tragedy of all: waking up one morning plagued by the distressing question "What have I been doing with my life for the last year, last five, last thirty?"

  LEADERS, BUT NOT ALWAYS SAINTS

  The Jesuit leadership principles don't guarantee worldly success, nor, for what it's worth, do they guarantee outstanding holiness for those living them. Almost two hundred Jesuits-includ ing Ignatius Loyola and Francis Xavier-have been canonized or beatified by the Catholic Church.13 No Jesuit church seems complete without some ornate, triumphant depiction of these twin towers of heroic Jesuit sanctity. But precious few of the other Jesuit leaders profiled here have achieved the same saintly distinction-not Ricci, Goes, Schall, de Nobili, Clavius, or Lainez. Perhaps we should take this as small reassurance that the Jesuit leadership way is not a Trojan horse harboring a particular set of religious beliefs.

  Still, then as now, it was a religious calling that inspired Jesuits-both saintly and stumbling-to embrace those leadership principles. In fact, every Jesuit would insist that following Jesus is the primary, and ultimately the only, nonnegotiable of the "way." Heroism, love, and ingenuity become meaningful to them as a path to living that religious faith.

  But it was not their religious beliefs that made them leaders. Nor, given the apparently weak correlation between stellar Jesuit leadership and eventual sanctity, did leadership necessarily make them better, holier, more grace-filled Christians. The four principles are not "for" any belief system, and they "work" independent of any belief system. Though for the Jesuits-as for anyone-a clear sense of their purpose in life undoubtedly brought greater energy, commitment, and desire to lead.

  The Jesuit leadership way might not be a Trojan horse for Christianity, but a powerful vision shared by many of the world's great religious traditions nonetheless flows just beneath the surface of these principles. Real leaders-real heroes-find fulfillment, meaning, and even success by shifting their gaze beyond selfinterest and serving others. And they become greater-enhanced as persons-by focusing on something greater than self-interest alone.

  The notion may have a quaintly idealistic, out-of-touch ring in the rough-and-tumble modern world. It's easy enough to accept Polanco's claim that "Jesuits learn best by teaching others." Most would agree that teaching others is in itself a learning process for the teacher, in regard to both the subject matter and oneself. But what might be called "Polanco's paradox"-that serving others benefits oneself-is by no means a phenomenon limited to the teaching profession alone. It plays itself out in other, unlikely arenas. John Kotter and James Heskett, the authors of Corporate Culture and Performance, surveying the relentlessly Darwinian corporate battlefield, found that leaders at outstanding companies-were distinguished by their ability to transcend narrow self-interest to focus broadly on shareholders, customers, and employees. In sharp contrast is the dominant culture at mediocre, also-ran companies: "If the managers at the lower-performing firms do not value highly their customers, their stockholders, or their employees, what do they care about? When asked, our interviewees most often said: `Themselves."' 14

  An earlier chapter quoted Harvard Business School professor John Kotter's discouraging judgment: "I am completely convinced that most organizations today lack the leadership they need. And the shortfall is often large. I'm not talking about a deficit of 10% but of 200%, 400% or more in positions up and down the hierar- chy."15 Kotter was right, and the leadership deficit he discussed is much broader than a mere corporate problem. That gap won't be closed by a few Pooh-Baps atop large organizations clinging to "one great man" or "one great moment" leadership theories.

  Instead, the gap is filled one person at a time, one day at a time-in families, classrooms, offices, firehouses, nursing homes, playing fields, and libraries. It's filled by all who refuse to drift through life simply going through the motions and instead commit to purposeful leadership. The world's most successful school system "just kind of happened," one teacher at a time, one day at a time, one school at a time. So too, our society's leadership gap-even one as great as 400 percent-evaporates as parents, teachers, managers, and others seize, one by one, the opportunity to make a leadership statement with their lives.

  HOW Do YOU GRASP YOUR OWN LEADERSHIP ROLE?

  How do you become a leader who makes the kind of impact on the world that Ignatius Loyola did?

  • You appreciate your own dignity and rich potential.

  • You recognize weaknesses and attachments that block that potential.

  • You articulate the values you stand for.

  • You establish personal goals.

  • You form a point of view on the worldwhere you stand, what you want, and how you will relate to others.

  • You see the wisdom and value in the examen and commit to it-the daily, selfreflective habit of refocusing on priorities and extracting lessons from successes and failures.

  Self-awareness is the prelude to fulfilled, committed engagement with the world-and to greater, more heroic leadership. Leaders choose the impact they want to make when they mold a personal modo de proceder. Whatever their chosen mission, be it "helping souls," raising the next generation, writing a symphony, or selling insurance, those living the Jesuit leadership way champion four values:

  • understanding their strengths, weaknesses, values, and worldview

  • confidently innovating and adapting to embrace a changing world

  • engaging others with a positive, loving attitude

  • energizing themselves and others by heroic ambitions

  This way-like all genuine leadership-focuses on the possible, the future. Love-driven leaders seek out and honor the potential in self and others. Heroic leaders seek to shape the future rather than passively endure whatever unfolds. And ingenuity-driven leaders uncover ways to turn human potential into achievement and a vision of the future into a reality.

  For the first Jesuits, adopting Loyola's way meant taking a chance on an unproven leader and his untested vision. But those embracing that way today have a bit more to go on. The formula has since been tested across generations, across continents, and across cultures. It has served explorers, mapmakers, linguists, astronomers, theologians, sannyasis, musicians, social activists, writers of children's stories, lobbyists, preachers-even school teachers and cannon manufacturers. It is the integration of four essential pillars:

  • self-awareness

  • ingenuity

  • love

  • heroism

  Acknowledgments

  is my pleasure to thank some of those who read parts of the manuscript or provided other valuable support: Christina Best, Klecius Borges, Laurel Brien, Thomas Cahill, Vin DeCola, S.J., Laura Dillon, Cristina Garcia, Barbara Hack, Pat Hammond, Jim Higgins, S.J., Rev. Paul Keenan, Paul Kiernan, Charlie McGovern, Monica Neal, Pedro Prieto, Bernadette Prigorac, Ray Schroth, S.J., Justo Tarrio, S.J., and Georgina Turnbull.

  Lou Jerome's astute comments and ingenuity helped frame a key section of this work. Jim Loughran, S.J., was a perceptive reader who also provided encouragement throughout the project. Mary Anne Myers's comments on the proposal were a great writing tutorial. Jesuit John O'Malley's vision of early Jesuit history influenced my thinking
even more profoundly than the liberal sprinkling of his works throughout the endnotes would suggest. I was honored to have him read the manuscript and I greatly benefited from his insightful comments. Gerry Cameron, Gail Elia, Peter Honchaurk, John Law, Chris Lynch, and George Simon all offered helpful suggestions.

  Thanks to my agent, Jim Fitzgerald, for chancing a first-time author's unsolicited proposal and successfully shepherding it to a publisher. Jim Manney brought this work to Loyola Press and offered steady encouragement while I finished it. My editor, Vinita Wright, made this a better book; her astute suggestions came with tangible support (and were delivered with kid gloves when necessary). Heidi Hill, Terry Locke, Melissa Crane, and Heidi Toboni were advocates for the book's themes, always looking for ways to make its message more powerful. Many more of their Loyola colleagues may go unmentioned due to space constraints, but none go unappreciated.

  My friends and one-time managers, Walter Gubert and Nancy Harwood, championed my request for a leave of absence from J. P. Morgan, enabling me to launch this project.

  Before I ever scribbled notes about leadership, I saw it modeled all around me-first by my parents, of course, and in my early years by those who endowed a church, school, and apartment building on 93rd Street with more leaders per block than any other street in Queens. My mother, sister, and brother continue to manifest the kind of love and loyalty that the Jesuit heroes surely envisioned for their team.

  It was my great privilege at J. P. Morgan to be surrounded by a number of great leaders-those who managed me in New York, Tokyo, Singapore, and London; others who worked for me or alongside me as peers.