I was recently at a leadership conference and realized that so
much of the language of business leadership could also be considered Internal
Family Systems (IFS) or “parts language.” One thing I learned is that business people
love to categorize, label, and use acronyms to explain things. An activity we
did on Day 1 led to a few of my internal “parts” being labeled as my ultimate leadership
style. This way of explaining my leadership behavior and motivation is not as
helpful to me as it was in my 20s before I learned a more effective way to
understand my internal parts, through Internal Family Systems theory (Schwartz,
1997). I am not the first, nor will I be the last, to attempt to apply Internal
Family Systems theory to business. But I learned a valuable lesson that weekend which gave me clarity about my internal and external leadership.
The above-mentioned exercise on which we embarked during this
weekend was completing The Essential DISC Training Workbook (Hedge, 2013). DISC
is an acronym (no surprise) for four dimensions of leadership that stand for Dominance,
Influence, Steadiness, and Conscientious. As I opened the book and turned to
page 12, I was confronted with a familiar task of choosing between either
similar or opposite personal characteristics that best describe my leadership tendencies.
Twenty-four sections later, and my head spinning with words like
"unobstructed,” “unrestricted,” and “stable“ that seemed more well-suited
to descriptions of a city planning project than to human leadership. I made it
through, though. From the first of the 24 sections, however, I felt a familiar
dread of not being sure I was picking the most accurate descriptors for myself,
thereby spoiling the possibility of an accurate label to describe me in one
word. "Am I choosing words I wish represented me?" "Is this how
I am, how I used to be, or how I want to be?" "Am I confusing the
meaning of these words?" I became aware of my insecure parts, those that
second guess my comprehension, self-doubt, and competitive parts. These parts
work together to motivate me to do things as close to perfectly as I can. If at
this point I had thought to stop, close my eyes, and acknowledge the parts that
were present and ask if they could step back while I completed the task, things
might have gone better for me. Unfortunately, my rule-following part had
already taken the lead and was steering my system into the task to ensure I
finished in the 15 allotted minutes, just like I was told. I felt rushed,
unsure, confused, irritated, but victorious when I finished with no time to
spare. At least that rule following part of me was content and fulfilled.
Unfortunately, that victorious feeling was short-lived as the presenter told us
there would not be time for us to score ourselves yet, but instead we would
process as a small group the meaning of the four leadership types without
knowing what we were.
Now my part that carries some insecurity was overwhelmed by
my figuring-out parts, which are much more well-practiced and effective! New
questions then began in my mind. Was I a “dominant” leader like I was in my
teens and 20s? “No,” I assured myself, “I've evolved and softened since then.”
No sooner did I assure myself I was not a D than I received a text from a
colleague across the room with whom I was currently on a Board of Directors for
my professional Association. "I'm sure you did not come up as Dominance
but instead you must be Steadiness or Conscientious," he teased.
Confirmation of my fears! I didn't even have to score myself, my colleague scored
me himself. My Dominance parts have been clear for him and everyone else to see.
I then felt two other parts emerge at once...deflated and relieved. Deflated
that I apparently haven't evolved my leadership style much at all in 25 years,
and relieved that the feisty, directive, efficient leadership parts had not gone
away either. I Iike those parts too much to watch them be shamed into a corner.
I realized what I have been hoping for is a wiser, more Self-led leadership
style to emerge in my mid-40s.
So it is true, I may lead external systems from more of a D position
with some I, S, and C mixed in. I have evolved quite a bit, though, in that I
am more capable of allowing my Self to invite various leadership parts of me to
help accomplished tasks or nurture collaborative conversations. What I took
away from this task at the leadership conference, however, is a renewed awareness
that no matter which of my D, I, S, or C parts are more predominant in a given
leadership moment, it is my Self that I want to be in the lead in my own
internal system to help parts emerge when needed. While Dr. Dick
Schwartz tells us that “all parts are welcome,” nurturing my Self as the leader of
my internal system will be the key for more effective leadership of external
systems as well.
Hedge, J. (2013). The
essential DISC training workbook: Add new meaning & depth to your results.
Redding, CA: DISC-I.org.
Schwartz, R. C. (1997). Internal
family systems therapy. New York: Guildford.
