Lincoln on Leadership, Donald T.

¶ … Lincoln on Leadership," Donald T. Phillips (YEAR) paints a portrait of former President Abraham Lincoln as an extremely adept leader with a vast, effective, and honest arsenal of leadership strategies. So timeless were Lincoln's methods that Phillips often relates them to success in practice today (YEAR). Interestingly, though, Lincoln faced two decades of failure before becoming one of the world's greatest leaders to ever live. From 1831 to 1858, the former President faced a string of losses, 'terrible' situations, and defeats (Janke, 2010). It is my contention that Lincoln was a great leader because he used many of the strategies of Ellis, Epictetus, and other philosophers that promote control over one's emotional destiny.

Lincoln actively fought against a number of Albert Ellis' Irrational Beliefs, specifically No. 5: "The idea you must be miserable when you have pressures and difficult experiences; and that you have little ability to control, and cannot change, your disturbed feelings" and No. 6: "The idea that if something is dangerous or fearsome, you must obsess about it and frantically try to escape from it" (Ellis, 1997, p. 155, 177). Moreover, Lincoln's model for both leadership and life illustrates how people -- 'normal' people, by all means -- are not controlled by 'negative' situations which are, after their commencement, completely out of their control. Additionally, Lincoln's behavior showed a strong correlation to Boyd's (2010) idea of predetermined destiny, and how successful individuals address their predetermined destinies by, instead of trying to change situations over which they have no control, accepting them, recognizing their own weaknesses, and building on the strengths they know they have. Likewise, it can be argued that Lincoln was aware of Epictetus' philosophy that "Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions" (135).

Before becoming President of the United States, Lincoln had suffered these events: two business failures resulting in two declarations of bankruptcy, defeat for a seat in the State Legislature, the death of a fiancee, defeat in an election, defeat in a bid for Congress three times in a row, defeat for a seat in the U.S. Senate, defeat for the office of Vice President, and another defeat for a seat in the Senate (Janke, 2010). How might he have overcome such obstacles and become one of the greatest leaders America -- and the word -- had ever seen?

Most don't overcome such a consistent pattern of defeat -- they quit after their first try (Ellis, 1987). Most do not do as Ellis says -- that is, "attempt to eliminate or improve [the] painful condition [or] accept it philosophically" (1997, p. 161). Unfortunately, this behavior surely leads down a path of unsatisfaction and the non-realization of one's goals. As we have seen in both the text books and in the online resources, one must control one's emotional destiny, as Lincoln surely did, by realizing that things and events are not inherently 'bad' -- it is merely one's interpretation that assigns a thing the label 'bad' (Ellis, 1976).

A thing cannot be 'bad,' 'good,' or 'neutral' without a human perceiving it. A thing simply 'is.' Moreover, what is 'bad' to one human may not be 'bad' to another. Also necessary to consider is the context in which the thing is viewed. Is the thing 'bad' to a person that will be born 100 years from now? How could one know that? These ideas are, in essence, what Ellis is talking about when he speaks of controlling emotional destiny; nothing is 'good' or 'bad;' it's all a matter of interpretation.

To give a specific example. There is a large rock in front of a door. A man needs to get in the door. The large rock is too heavy to move. The man cannot open the door. If the man does not open the door, the man will die. Another man is watching, but sees that the rock is too heavy, still, for the both of them to move. The observer judges the situation as such: "The rock is bad because it is blocking the door and is too heavy to move out of the way. If the man cannot open the door then the man will die. Death is bad. The rock is bad. The situation in front of me is bad."

This type of thinking employed, however, would be seen by Ellis and Epictetus as "incorrect" (which is, admittedly, another interpretation, but working in the context of a persuasive argument, I must choose a side). The philosophers would most likely ask the observer questions such as these: "How can a rock be bad? The rock might be bad for the person, but is it bad for the insects living underneath it? If we moved the rock, might it kill those insects? Might the rock, then -- in its current position -- be good? Why should this man's death be bad? How do you know that this man might not kill ten people in his lifetime if he were to live, thus preventing the births of countless future people? In this context, wouldn't the rock's placement be good, as it would save the lives of many more humans than just one, the one about to die? What if the rock, in its current location, is saving the lives of 20 people behind the door, whom which the man outside wants to kill? Isn't the rock good in that context? How can you know if the rock, the situation, or the man's death is good, bad, or neutral?

Of course, this is an extreme example, because any sane observer in this situation would make the decision -- probably because their goals include "helping other humans," -- to try to move the rock out of the way as fast as possible in an effort to save the man's life. Still, the example illustrates Ellis' point of, when faced with a difficult situation, one does not have enough information to accurately view the situation as 'for' or 'against' something (read: good or bad), and would thus be 'wrong' in making this assessment. Rather, it is one's actual thoughts that are 'for' and 'against' things. Furthermore, because one cannot change the situation (regarding the example) one is now powerless, if one views the situation as 'bad,' to change what is 'bad.' This situation, if it is true, is thus insurmountable and bounds one to live in a suffering state the rest of one's life. if, however, one understands that the situation itself is not 'bad' or 'against' something, but that it is one's thoughts that 'make' the situation bad, then one subsequently has the power to change one's interpretation of the situation and possibly see it as 'not bad' or 'manageable' (Ellis, 1997). This is what Ellis and his Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy is all about (1962; 1976; 1987; 1997).

Returning back, then, to Lincoln and his relative adherence to concepts expounded by Ellis, REBT, Epictetus, and a number of the online readings, Lincoln executed many other interesting, savvy, and intelligent strategies of leadership in the face of dire situations, such as the American Civil War. In the most general sense, Lincoln "lead by being led" (Phillips,-YEAR, p. 99). In other words, the former President paid great heed to his cabinet members' suggestions, and often followed them when he felt they were right or they knew more about him regarding the subject at hand (Phillips,-YEAR). Most significantly, though, he 'let' them take credit for their ideas that succeeded while taking the blame for their ideas that failed (Phillips,-YEAR). It was in this way that he developed excellent networking skills, kept his subordinates happy, and encouraged innovation among his subordinates, especially -- as mentioned by Phillips -- among high-profile generals of the Union Army in the Civil War (YEAR).

Such a strategy toward Lincoln's management of his subordinates is reflected by an idea in the Enchiridion by Epictetus, when he said, "Don't be prideful with any excellence that is not your own. If a horse should be prideful and say, 'I am handsome,' it would be supportable. But when you are prideful, and say, 'I have a handsome horse,' know that you are proud of what is, in fact, only the good of the horse (135).

More importantly, however, this particular strategy of Lincoln's directly illustrated his belief that if a fearful situation exists -- for example, the disapproval of a government and an entire nation, the prospect of being defeated in a bid for reelection, and the loss of one of the biggest wars in American history -- he must not shrink from it or frantically try to escape it. In other words, he had successfully defeated Ellis' Irrational Belief No. 6 (1997).

When one does not shrink from a fearful situation, as Lincoln behaved, Ellis explains, one understands that the consequences of the situation may be harmful, and that they may actually occur, but that once one "has taken reasonable precautions to ward off" such situations, one can "usually do little about them" if they do occur (Ellis, 1997, p. 164). "Worry, believe it or not," Ellis continues, "has no magical quality of staving off bad luck. On the contrary, it increases your chances of disease or accident by unnerving you" (Ellis, 1997, p. 164). Thus, worrying about and subsequently avoiding fearful situations really accomplishes nothing but perpetuating the fearful situation and the worry; the situation will continue to exist if it isn't addressed. If the situation causes one distress, it follows that one will continue to feel distress unless the situation somehow, magically, disappears. Indeed, Elko & Ostrow (1991) point out that those with anxiety are prone to 'worry about worry,' worry about the outcome itself, and even perform worse than those that do not worry. Moreover, in situations where one is the leader, such as in Lincoln's case, fearful situations almost never disappear, because leaders are precisely the individuals that are expected to spearhead fearful situations.

Lincoln further fueled his adeptness as a great leader by following what Janke (2010) termed "The Ingredients of Self-Discipline:" (1) self-control: acting in control of one's thoughts, emotions, and behaviors, (2) motivation: the innate incentive inside a person that energizes her efforts, (3) persistence: the ability to endure adverse situations and carry on one's tasks unaffectedly, and (4) goals: striving to achieve the attainment of a situation that symbolizes to oneself "success."

After all, consider Lincoln's failures at the beginning of his career; they weren't just two or three minor setbacks over the course of a couple months. His string of 'defeats' were consistent events that spanned the course of over 27 years (Janke, 2010). Had Lincoln not had self-control, he might have gone, literally, crazy, and thus, obviously, never have become the President of the United States. Had he not been motivated, he would have quit after his first business went bankrupt, or his second, or after he was defeated three times in four years in bids for the U.S. Congress. Indeed, Lincoln's motivation did seem "Super-Human," as Janke seemed to enjoy referring to him as (2010). Had the former President not been persistent, how could he have endured the loss of a fiancee, the trials of leadership of the Civil War, the string of defeats, and the constant push and pull of the Congress and his Cabinet members on his Presidency? Indeed, he must have had goals, for else what would he have worked so hard?

The purpose of this essay has been to relate a number of the assigned readings, both in the texts and online, to the way in which former President Abraham Lincoln led the United States during his presidency. I hoped to use the President's time in office as a sort of analogy -- striving to show an understanding of emotional destiny, how Lincoln's strategies for leadership were directly applicable to 'normal' people today, and how his strategies, which closely aligned with the philosophies of Ellis, Epictetus, and a number of the authors of the assigned readings, as well as other various Internet resources, can serve as a modern guide for efficient problem solving, a healthy, stable view of the world, and a rational approach to thought and behavior.

Selected points significant to leadership in a Guide to Rational Living by Ellis, a. And Harper, R.A. (1997).

Chapter 14, "Controlling Your Own Emotional Destiny"

"Irrational Belief No. 5: The idea you must be miserable when you have pressures and difficult experiences; and that you have little ability to control, and cannot change, your disturbed feelings" (p. 155). Pressures and difficult experiences are often characteristics of positions of leadership. Thus it is important to understand that this belief is indeed irrational.

"When faced with an actual...deprivation...you can accept it philosophically and try, as best you can, to ignore or distract yourself from it" (p. 161). This passage relates to leadership strategies to overcoming group problems. If something goes wrong, a capable leader should accept it philosophically; recognize its existence and move on by taking steps to work around it with the resources available.

If you're criticized, first judge the validity of the criticism. If it is totally or in part valid, take steps to modify your behavior to accept your own 'failings' and others' disapproval.

Chapter 15, "Conquering Anxiety and Panic"

"Irrational Belief No. 6: The idea that if something is dangerous or fearsome, you must obsess about it and frantically try to escape from it" (p. 163). Leadership requires accepting dangerous or fearsome situations. Such an attitude allows careful assessment of alternatives and priorities. "The more you upset yourself, the less you will be able to wisely cope with real danger" (p. 164).

"As noted above, Skinner was opposed by the majority of psychologists for his views, defined his own conclusions as 'good' and 'reinforcing,' and chose to see their opposition (social disapproval) as not particularly penalizing" (p. 172). To act with resolve and innovation, one must often see opposition as a positive development -- as a sign that an innovative strategy is being pursued.

Leadership can result in disapproval. "Disapproval may be advantageous -- but is only a self-defined 'horror'" (p. 174).

Chapter 16, "Acquiring Self-Discipline"

Irrational Belief No. 7: The idea that you can easily avoid facing many difficulties and self-responsibilities and still lead a highly fulfilling existence" (p. 177). Leadership is rife with tough decisions. Avoiding them reinforces future avoidant behavior. Leaders are not effective when they avoid tough decisions. Leaders that take on difficult decisions with gusto are the ones held in the highest regard.

"We achieve few outstanding gratifications without risk-taking" (p. 178).

It is difficult for one to begin a task in which he understands that the benefits of said tasks will not be reaped for some amount of time. The 'trick' is to understand that avoiding beginning a necessary task will only reinforce the belief that one is not capable of doing the task, making it more difficult in the long-run.

Bullets -- Chapter 17, "Rewriting Your Personal History"

Irrational Belief No. 8: The idea that your past remains all-important and that because something once strongly influenced your life, it has to keep determining your feelings and behavior today" (p. 187). In other words, potential leaders may prevent themselves from becoming leaders because they've never done anything of the sort in the past.

It is important for leaders to keep an open mind when facing difficulties; they must not think that, because they were 'defeated' in one type of situation, they will always be 'defeated' by other situations of a similar type.

Understand that your present is your past of tomorrow (p. 194).

Online Reading Response

At first glance, "The Seven Faces of Destiny" by George a. Boyd, on his website, "Mudrashram Institute of Spiritual Studies," appears to lie in direct contradiction to the chapters assigned that regarded controlling one's emotional destiny, for this section of the website initially makes the claim that a "karmic template is handed down to you at the time of your birth and includes the blessings and adversities of your fate." At first, I took this to mean that Boyd was asserting that one didn't have control over one's emotional destiny. However, the author soon goes on to qualify his writing: certain facts regarding one's existence are inalienable; "traits of destiny" can exist as physical characteristics, particular talents (or lack thereof) and more.

Some people, Boyd says (as does Ellis), blame themselves harshly for these "predestined" factors of their lives because they cannot control them. However, Boyd suggests that the wiser way of being is to work with your predetermined destiny; to recognize your weaknesses and building upon your strengths, because trying to change situations over which you have no control is a waste of energy, an exercise in frustration, and is best accepted and dealt with as a 'normal' part of life.

Much of this particular reading is focused on karma, on karmic destiny, and things like "karmic accretions," which don't necessarily appeal to me. Still, what remains easily recognizable is the value to be taken from Boyd's thoughts on situations of which we have little to no control.

"The School of Self-Discipline," a website created by Michael Janke, containing excerpts of a book by Michael Janke, deals with self-discipline and how it can make humans into "Super-Humans." What Janke seems to be attempting to signify with this term are, simply, highly influential people, and specifically, famous historical figures (as per his examples).

Self-discipline has four key ingredients -- self-control, motivation, persistence, and goals. If we are to achieve self-discipline, all four of these characteristics must be in place and enforced on a daily basis. Janke also writes that, to ensure "success," one must understand how to strengthen the ingredients of self-discipline while eliminating self-destructive behaviors.

In general, I believe Janke's point is this: one shouldn't let their habits -- of which they know are preventing increasing levels of health and happiness -- continue to 'rule' their lives. Janke's message is one of control, liberation, questioning authority (of habits), and 'anti-helplessness.' He preaches that one can actually control one's destiny, rather than act helpless to self-created patterns which one feels may be impossible to quell. Once one realizes that she can take control -- or questions the authority of her habits -- she is liberated, enabling a broader, more enriching experience of life.

Epictetus, in "The Enchiridion," makes the case, for the most part, that one should only concern oneself with things in one's control: "opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions." One should not concern oneself with things that are not in one's control "body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions." In a sense, the Enchiridion directly relates to the assigned readings by Ellis and "The Seven Faces of Destiny." What all these writers want is for us to recognize that there exist things -- situations, people, events, inanimate obstructions -- that, once they begin to exist, we cannot control. Often, these writers will say, people become disturbed at the existence of such things. However, the writers, Epictetus included, hold that worrying oneself with the existence of a situation that is beyond one's control in effect symbolizes the release of one's control to an uncontrollable situation. This is undesirable, decreases control, decreases happiness, and prevents the realization of personal goals.

Annotated references (5)

Elko, P. Kevin and Ostrow, Andrew C. (1991). Effects of a Rational-Emotive Education

Program on Heightened Anxiety Levels of Female Collegiate Gymnasts. The Sport

Psychologist, 5, 235-255.

This study by two sport psychologists seeks to address four hypotheses: 1) gymnasts who participated in a program that employs Rational-Emotive Therapy (RET) on anxiety levels would have lower levels of cognitive anxiety, 2) lower levels of somatic anxiety, 3) less negative self- statements, and 4) higher levels of performance when compared with their baselines. Significant to my empirical essay is the authors' discussion of the traits of those individuals prone to anxiety: they have lower expectations for personal performance, higher-than-average frequency of worry about performance outcome and anxiety itself, and poorer performance. The authors moreover list cognitions that contribute to anxiety in athletes: the approval of others (including parents) and worrying about making mistakes. The authors believe that RET, which holds that events do not 'cause' anxiety, but an individuals' perception of those events, can reduce anxiety in their sample of athletes.

Ellis, a. (1962). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. Secaucus, NJ: Citadel.

This book, written by the father of RET, Albert Ellis, lists myriad techniques that Rational-Emotive therapists uses to help clients overcome psychological issues. Therapists encourage and often 'force,' in a sense, their patients to engage in activities of which they are afraid in an effort to create a "counter propaganda agency" against irrational fears (p. 95). Rational Emotive therapists 'assign' 'homework' that "desensitizes and deconditions" clients to irrational beliefs (p. 188).

Ellis, a. (1976). RET Abolishes Most of the Human Ego. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research

and Practice, 13(44), 343-348.

"RET Abolishes Most of the Human Ego" recaps the position of Rational Emotive Therapy and explains how it "attempts to abolish most of the human ego" (p. 348). It argues that methods of personality change -- such as Zen Buddhism -- that strive to minimize the influence of the human ego are often overlooked, have little popularity, or are the center of much dispute. Significant ideas in this article include declaration that RET assumes that a human ego's main goals are to "(1) [remain] alive and healthy and (2) [enjoy] himself or herself -- experiencing a good deal of happiness and...little pain or dissatisfaction" (p. 348). Egos necessitate certain beliefs, many of which are discussed, and subsequently 'proven' 'detrimental' by RET, in the article.