SECURITY, GUIDANCE, WISDOM AND POWER: AN ANALYSIS OF COVEY’S PRINCIPLE-CENTERED LEADERSHIP

SECURITY, GUIDANCE, WISDOM AND POWER: AN ANALYSIS OF COVEY’S PRINCIPLE-CENTERED LEADERSHIP

 

  I.             Introduction

Leadership paradigms have been in existence since the inception of the modern organization. A recent addition to this school of thought is provided by Stephen Covey. In an attempt to resolve the existing dilemmas that classical leadership theories fail to settle. In a sense, the work of Covey presents a modern take on the age-old problems organizations encounter. He called this new leadership model as Principle-Centered Leadership (PCL). As stated in the book, the use of principles such as security, guidance, wisdom and power are important for leaders in dealing with problems in the organization. This paper intends to look into these principles and how it could be implemented on the line of work that I have. In the same way, an analysis of the book will also be provided such that the strong points and the major criticisms will be presented. The main source of the arguments and the discussion will be based on Covey’s “Principle-Centered Leadership.”

 

II.           Security, Guidance, Wisdom and Power

The concepts of security, guidance, wisdom, and power are regarded by Covey as the sources of strength that an individual could acquire innately. Covey defined security as “our sense of worth, emotional anchorage, self-esteem, and personal strength.” ()  This means that the sense of security of an individual defines the capability of an individual to stand on his own, the ability to recognize his strengths and weaknesses and the ability to realize how these could be used in his individual growth. Personally, I reckon that an individual’s security inherently applies to decision-making capabilities of an individual. A sense of security provides an individual confidence in his resolve and keeps him from being reliant on other people. For instance, in operations of the company, people tend to put blame on certain individuals who “screwed up” or failed to do their jobs efficiently. As long as an individual finds a way to assign blame, he/she will always have the tendency to encounter failure. His/her inability to recognize the capacities or limitations of his/her self and environment clouds his/her judgment such that he/she will inevitably acquire a sophomoric decision. For leaders having a sense of security strengthens their resolve and consequently allows them to see situations with a more objective and even critical perspective. In such a way, the entire organization reaps all the benefit.

On the other hand, guidance is recognized by Covey as “the direction we receive in life.” () He added that the foundations represent one’s conscience based on the principles and values held closely by the individual. For my part, one could recognize guidance as the sense of right or wrong of the individual. For individuals holding leadership positions, it is imperative that their sense of right and wrong holds a strong foundation. Otherwise, they could fail to finish an endeavor. In connecting it with the concept of security, the notion of guidance will allow individuals like me to establish well-founded goals and courses of action. Having a good sense of security and a set of principles that will serve as one’s guidance will essentially paint the path where one could realize certain goals. Guidance illuminates the uncertain. When one knows his/her goals, he/she is bound to achieve it because he/she is able to ascertain the courses of action needed to do the job.

In relation to the discussion above, one could effectively perform and realize these goals by wisdom. Covey defined wisdom as “a keen understanding on how the various parts and principles apply and relate to each other.” () In relation to the concept of guidance, an individual’s sense of wisdom establishes the person’s ability to see what things should be and the existing conditions without leaving out the recognition of the gaping chasm that subsist between them. In a practical sense, this wisdom comes from the education and training we have acquired and even in the mistakes that we have made in the past. In both instances, the use of such dimensions has helped me in foreseeing what will happen in the organization as we encounter certain situations.

Power, on the other hand, is defined by Covey as “the capacity to act.” () He simply puts it as the strength and the courage to accomplish something. As I reckon, this is fundamentally an individual’s political will. As leaders, one’s ability to trigger change represents this dimension. For leaders to create any semblance of development in their organization, they should first take steps in instigating change. It is the capacity to depart from one’s comfort zone and the resolve to take measured risks that creates great leaders. However, in taking these considerations, leaders must first have a strong sense power such that their resolve will not waver midway of the endeavor. On a personal sense level, this dimension reflects on the capacity of the individual to live with his/her decisions and take responsibility on it. As stated above, along with wisdom, security and guidance, the use of power represents a balance for the individual; devoid of dependencies, failures, and impacts of the externalities thrown at us by the real world.      

 

III.         Analysis of the Book

It is a well written material; however I could not help but realize some of the flaws in Covey’s book. Generally, the book presents a generic self-help formula in fixing one’s personality in line with leadership situations. Bordering on being preachy, the book provides the reader an account of immediate solutions on certain issues of daily living. Though it provides great insights on self-improvement, there are still questions lingering on the practicality of such claims held by the book. Moreover, it appears that the perspective held by Covey seems too idealistic and even naïve. Regardless of its views on the improvement of the self for leadership situations and complex views of the dimensions discussed above, the discussions in the book seem to center on the individual thus neglecting other important elements of the organization such as culture of the collective. Nevertheless, the book provides a vast contribution to the leadership literature. It tackles the problems held by the leader as an individual. And as an individual, a leader should strike a balance within him such that he/she realizes not only the organizational goals but also the personal missions he/she has constructed.

 

Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com