Self knowledge can be sought by looking through distorted lenses, but it can only be achieved by looking through clear glass.
There are two different ways to understand self-knowledge: (1.) learning about yourself by observing your inner experience and your transactions with the world. (2.) Challenging and eventually changing your mental models (similar to beliefs) to reduce the gap between your capacity and current functioning level. The distinction between these two is not easy to see but is critical to transforming your world in ways that can only be achieved by transforming yourself. An example from computer technology may help.
We are all born with a source code that represents our multiple potentials (capacity) yet to be modified by experience. There are two hard wired tendencies that come with our source codes: (1.) to interpret ambiguity as danger, and (2.) to increase the intensity, frequency and duration of our habitual responses in the face of stress. We are the descendents of ancestors whose brains honed and automated these tendencies. In the knowledge based world of the 21st century where long term vision, global perspectives, and innovation serve to create competitive advantage these very same tendencies can unfortunately limit our effectiveness. These tendencies are everyone’s default and learning when to be guided by them and when to ignore them is the result of emotional intelligence, a benefit of increasing self-knowledge. From the standpoint of neurobiology, growing into psychological and spiritual maturity involves engaging parts of our brain that are not fully developed (i.e. frontal lobes) until our mid-twenties when the frontal lobes become fully functional.
Our culture and early environments (especially family) serve as the basic software necessary to make our source code operational. But development is never that simple. Culture and family often have well intentioned agendas that are not always closely aligned with taking full advantage of our amazing brain. Often, even the best of intentions are fraught with software restrictions that result in having to give up too much access to our original capability and design. In essence, we say to ourselves, “The only way I can maintain a relationship with that parent (culture) is if I assume the role that is expected of me.” We learn how to compromise who we are to negotiate these early experiences, often giving up what is possible for what is valued by others. With repeated rehearsals these compromise formations eventually become habits and solidify into enduring but often tacit mental models. Since these compromises are often at the expense of our true self they rarely if ever are genuinely fulfilling.
As if this was not enough, there are experiences that damage our fragile models as well. The software itself can become contaminated by malware, viruses, or other interfering processes that force us to give up too much in order to make things operate at all. Unexamined mental models limit optimal access to our true selves and others so that the gap between our functional ability and our innate ability is simply too large and creates a sense that we are not fully alive. I was once asked by a bestselling business author who was interviewing me on her radio show what I thought was the greatest impediment to CEO self-knowledge. My answer was simple, “relative success”. The good news is that none of us have to settle for relative success, i.e. doing better than others but requiring too little of ourselves in the process. Fulfillment is everyone’s potential.
This website is devoted to the premise that we are happiest, most effective, and generally at our best when we are operating close to our capacity and experiencing flow. This also happens to be a state that has very positive effects on those around us. A desirable byproduct of this often follows. The relationship between leaders and followers tends to improve, as purpose, commitment and creativity contribute to productivity with an energy that is impossible to achieve in any other way. All in the organization are energized as the space between capacity and performance becomes more evident and begins to narrow.
In the words of Marianne Williamson, “Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us…Your playing small doesn’t serve the world.”
Used with Permission - Copyright 2011 William D. Anton, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved
