VIM Executive Coaching draws upon many “wisdoms,” cultures and certainly, modern tools to help truly outstanding people to become the strong executive leaders we know them to be. That said, we often reach back to the great Zen teachers who had much to share in regard to understanding leadership and focus.
It brings to mind a conversation we had with a young executive who came in for a consultation.
Allow us to paraphrase. She asked about our acceptance of the advantages of mindfulness meditation. We did. Then she asked, “Well, isn’t being mindful the same as not being attached to anything?”
We were uncertain as to what she meant. She clarified. “Well, I heard that people who meditated believed in not being attached to anything. I’m the kind of person who is passionate about people. I could never abandon people who work for me.”
A point of common confusion
We understood and respected her question, but we could not follow the conclusion. In our view, those who practiced, who strove for mindfulness, are among the most compassionate, connected, non-judgmental people we knew.
We were pleased to share the following quote which was taken from ancient Zen wisdom for modern practitioners. It is as fully relevant now, as it was then (please note the italics are ours):
“Non-attachment allows for full participation in life. It does not mean indifference or carelessness, but rather you should do your best and not worry about the results.”
It is a beautiful piece of advice.
We explained to her that an executive leader who strives to be fully mindful and non-attached, does not judge or pre-judge, does not conclude before weighing the facts, and strives, always for compassion and authenticity.
We further explained that we have certainly known executive leaders who were bigoted, small-minded, mean-spirited and closed to change. However, none of those attributes were from those who were non-attached to an outcome. In fact, being closed to change is the opposite of mindfulness.
As an example, we pointed out a situation where two individuals, locked in disagreement, were brought before an executive leader.
One of the individuals knows and socializes with the leader on a regular basis, and has done so for more than 10 years. The individual has kids in the same school as her kids, etc. The other individual is “just” an employee who is, in fact, unknown as a person to the leader (but it is rumored he is politically, socially and spiritually 180-degrees from the leader).
The matter brought before the executive leader concerns a third employee who has been discovered to have accepted a couple minor bribes from a vendor. The good acquaintance of the executive leader favors giving the offending employee another chance (though bribe-taking is against all company policy). To complicate the matter, the offending employee is also in the social circle of the leader and the friend.
The other executive is demanding the bribe-accepting employee be terminated because it not only sends a terrible message to keep her on staff, but may potentially affect contracts and morale in the future.
How would you rule this? Should the executive leader, side with her employee-friend and, by extension, their mutual friend? It should be, a “no-brainer” as they say, but sadly, we have seen similar scenarios all too often. In fact, many so-called employee-manager friendships have perpetuated terrible behaviors and outcomes.
The non-attached executive would not enter the discussion with any other consideration except the facts. It might lead (and has) to a loss of friendships and should lead to appropriate disciplinary actions, but it is the correct path.
Yes, there is a personal price to pay for mindful decisions to do what is right; then again, there is a comfort in such decisions in knowing that mindfulness led to truth.