S/he’s got class…

Helen Mirren

A friend of mine is planning a book about the concept of ‘having class’  or ‘being a class act’ and what that means to different people. He asked me for my thoughts, and after going back and forth between several ideas, I came up with the following: 

I believe the concept of ‘class’ has to have a strong tie to the idea of ‘upper class’ from which it probably originated.   I believe it has evolved to mean the best of upper class sensibilities and behavior.  When I began considering what it means to ‘have class,’ I realized I was going in the direction of defining ’class’ primarily in terms of ‘good character,’ but I have changed my mind.   I can imagine a homeless person, in dirty clothing having good character, but not ‘class.’  I can also imagine a well to-do person having all the outward indicators of upper class affluence, but not what I would consider ‘class’ (think Donald Trump.)    So while I can NOT imagine someone of poor character having ‘class,’  I CAN imagine someone of good character not having ‘class.’   Therefore, in my mind,  ‘class’ is a subset of good character, and good character is a necessary but insufficient quality of ‘class.’

‘Class’ for me requires the virtues of good character, honor and integrity, but with the sophistication and outward demeanor and appearance that one would expect of the best representatives of the privileged class.   In my mind, the person of ‘class’ has a certain pride and even vanity – self confidence, poise, self-possession, and dignity, tempered with a humble understanding and acceptance of one’s place in the universe.   I also believe that ‘class’ must include etiquette and good manners appropriate to context, as understood by one’s culture.  The person of ‘class’ is at home with the wealthy and more privileged classes, while at the same time respectful of and comfortable with those on the less privileged end of the social spectrum. 

The idea of ‘class’ (in my mind) is very much in alignment with Aristotle’s idea of the ‘magnanimous man’ or person of excellence.   For Aristotle, the purpose of life is to become as good as one can be, given one’s genetics, place and role in society.   The person of excellence represents the best that man can become (for Aristotle, in his time and culture, this was an exclusively male prerogative.)  Aristotle’s ‘magnanimous man’ or person of excellence has been educated, trained and his virtue and character developed to become a role model and esteemed leader in the community.   Though I’ve never seen ‘class’ used in the definition of Aristotle’s person of excellence, I imagine it would be an important quality – though humility was never a great virtue in Aristotle’s time.  The virtue of humility creeps into my definition of excellence and ‘class,’ due to my own modern American egalitarian prejudices.

 In short, ‘class’ to me means a confident upper class poise and demeanor, with a strong moral overlay of honor and virtue, respect for others, and humility.  ‘Class’ not only describes a person’s being, but also must describe that person’s overall behavior – how s/he presents him/herself to the community.   Having ‘class,’ is judged by the community in which a person lives and acts. 

If you have any thoughts on ‘class,’ and would like to add your input to the discussion and his book,  simply comment on this blog (he’ll be checking comments), or contact Dan Bozung directly at dbozung@gmail.com

Asking the Right Questions

Socrates

I just spent two full days going through a training workshop in the Marshall Goldsmith method of Executive Coaching at the Marshall Goldsmith School of Management at Alliant International University.  I’d met Marshall Goldsmith and heard him speak a couple of times and have read a number of things he’s written.  I find his approach and philosophy very appealing.  I am exploring the possibility of becoming an Executive Coaching myself, so I thought I’d attend this seminar/workshop to learn more.  It was a good call -  not only did I learn a lot, I met some great people and enjoyed myself.

The concept of “Executive Coaching” is relatively new, but it makes sense.  A leader has a lot going on, and his/her actions and decisions can impact a lot of people, and the stakes can be high.  Little things matter.  It is sometimes difficult for leaders to get the unvarnished truth.  Human beings under pressure often don’t see themselves and their situations very clearly.  We all see ourselves and our world through an opaque lens, distorted by our egos, experience, prejudices, desires, and wishful thinking.  A ‘coach’ can help the leader cut through some of that, to clean some of the grime off the mirror so to speak, to help leaders see themselves and their situations more clearly. The coach can offer perspectives that those who are most impacted by the leader’s decisions may not feel free to provide.

 There are a number of ways the coach can do that – and one of the most important is to ask the right questions.

Peter Drucker once said: “The most common source of mistakes in management decision-making is the emphasis on finding the right answers rather than the right questions.”    I learned that executive coaching is very much about asking the right questions to help the leader think differently about a problem.   We heard a story about a very dynamic and successful leader who complained about being misunderstood by her subordinates.  After listening to her complain that her subordinates had a narrow and unfair perspective of her, the coach asked her, “Well, what can you do to change their perceptions?”  That simple question was a catalyst that helped her realize that indeed she had some responsibility for how she was perceived.  That realization and the steps she subsequently took to change how she presented herself to her subordinates, and thus how they perceived her, ultimately led to better teamwork and greater success for her and her organization.

Asking the right questions can be key in much of what we do.  Teaching is largely about asking the right questions – pioneered by Socrates in what has come to be referred to as ‘the Socratic method.’   The ‘right’ question will challenge and inspire the student, the leader, any of us to look differently at what we do and how we perceive an issue.   It seems however that the ‘right’ question has to come at the right time to be most effective.  There is a Buddhist proverb that says, “When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.”  And maybe when the student (meaning any of us – we are all ‘students’) is ready, s/he will hear and take seriously the ‘right question,’  actually reflect on it, be challenged, inspired, and perhaps transformed by it.   The question can ‘turn the key,’ but if the engine is frozen, or the spark plug wires are unplugged, or the gas tank is empty,  nothing happens – other things have to be in place for the engine to turn over.

The successful, but misunderstood leader described above was ready to consider the question the coach posed to her, to consider her own power to be more than merely a victim of being misunderstood.   She was ready to own the problem, take responsibility, and be held accountable.  The coach was merely the catalyst, with the right question, at the right time.

Asking the right questions is the first step; being willing to struggle with the question, and consider  potential answers is even more important.  It takes courage to ask oneself hard questions and to face and consider possibly unpleasant answers.   Many of us don’t have that courage, or we don’t have it all the time. 

Camus said that philosophy must begin with the question, “Why not suicide?” Now that’s a fundamental question!   The answers we come up with in considering it might help us to sort out our life’s priorities.  While it’s a great and important question, I’m not sure that an executive coach should pose that one at the beginning of his relationship with a client!