IF THE LORD HAS BLESSED YOU with the gift of discernment, use it in your leadership. Our gifts are our uniqueness, and our greatest spiritual strength is always in the uniqueness of who we are. You reach integrity by being who you are in all the fullness God intended. The false self is the person whom you try to imitate. The most grateful compliment we can pay our Creator is to fulfill and optimize our uniqueness. How can we pray, asking God to make us someone we aren’t or to do something we are not gifted to do? Our leading should be according to who we are.
I have known many excellent leaders who were not given the gift of discernment. They could not read people. They could read figures. They excelled in science, engineering, mathematics, and administration. They depended on management skills, behavioral research, organizational charts, methods, and the types of learned skills taught in business school.
Those blessed with discernment, however, develop sensitivity, empathy, and intuition. I am one of these types, having used discernment for many years both in manufacturing (twenty-five hundred employees) and in ministry (chairman of several national ministries).
I was fortunate in my career to have both Ray Stedman, pastor of Peninsula Bible Church, and Baxter Ball, vice-president of Mobil, verify my discernment and intuition. They encouraged me to use these in my leadership. Early on, my mentor Maxey Jarman emphasized utilizing strength and buttressing weakness. I had natural leadership gifts and a strong desire to lead but little training in the usual skills.
A word about my background may be helpful to you: My father was pastor of a small blue-collar church. I never heard the word business mentioned in my home. After graduating from high school, I went out to find a job, my first experience in business. At age twenty-six I became head of a corporate function and by my early thirties a vice-president of operations. I was weak with numbers, and disliked the monotony of administration. In addition, I was not blessed with great physical energy. I never had the urge to rush from one thing to another, keeping a lot of balls in the air. I’m not a type-A personality.
I realized that both numbers and administration were vital. I overcame my lack in the numbers area by always having a capable numbers person with me. I picked an assistant who enjoyed detail to follow up on routine administration.
My strength was in vision, picking and placing people, and coordinating their efforts. Here my discernment was a tremendous help to me.
I was encouraged to use and develop discernment skills by a simple statement of the revered retailer John Wanamaker, who said, “A mule balks in his head before he balks in his feet, and so do people.” Another confirmation came in reading a survey made of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra about who had been the most effective director. Toscanini won it, hands down. When asked about his strength, one of the players said, “He could anticipate when you were about to make a mistake and keep you from making it.”
He had discernment.
Later I found another confirming illustration. The manufacturing company for which I was vice-president of operations made high-precision instruments. For years the quality control was put on the individual piece as it went through operation after operation. When an operation damaged the piece in the process, it was very expensive. Our engineers developed a method of establishing the control on the machine as well as on the part. When a machine was going out of tolerance, they would shut it down before it damaged parts.
While individuals obviously vary much more than machines, I found that if I could read people correctly, I could keep up their productivity and minimize their mistakes.
Discernment, like musical talent, is innate; however, both must be practiced and developed. Simply having the gift of music does not make one a concert pianist.
Learning to listen and observe
Words are the windows to the mind. Socrates said, “Speak, young man, that I might know you.” Productive listening is active and intense listening. It is hearing more than words. Most of the time we grasp just enough of what people are saying to maintain conversation.
Using our discernment to lead requires much more. The following are ways to interpret what people are actually saying:
1. Manifest listening. First we listen for the meaning of words, both dictionary and colloquial. For example, young people today say “bad” when they mean “exceptionally good” (e.g., “He’s a bad cat”).
I am always surprised when people do not ask the meaning of words they don’t know. I have never known a really intelligent person who will let you use a word he or she doesn’t know without stopping to ask its meaning.
Next we listen to the selection of words, which can be intellectual or emotional. Then comes the pace, the speed with which a person speaks. Then the rhythm, which is the peaks and valleys.
Then the tone of the words. Tone is greatly indicative of the emotions.
It is helpful also to notice the manipulation of words (e.g., as it is done by the Washington spin doctors and the media).
Psychiatrists listen for glitches in the use of words. One psychiatrist told me that when we have a glitch it is generally because two ideas collide, and he is interested in which idea was suppressed and which was expressed.
I have found it is important to listen to the tone of slang, vulgarity, or profanity. The tone tells me whether it’s intentional or a habit, whether it’s a tool or just an expression.
The use of words and accents often gives us a glimpse into someone’s past. The drummer Buddy Rich told me that he could hear a player’s history when he heard how he played jazz. He knew whom he had been listening to, who he idolized, what general part of the country he came from, and whether he had a religious background.
People who have a public vocabulary that is different from their private one sometimes let a private word slip into their public expression, and that opens a window into the person’s thought process.
Those who use diplomatic language ordinarily want to avoid offending anyone and seldom put their cards face up on the table.
2. Latent listening. One of our top salesmen became an alcoholic. We worked to scrape him off the bottom and get him sober and on top again. As he and I walked into a sales meeting, he lingered a moment and said, “This help I’m getting is going to keep me from drinking, isn’t it?”
The negative tone in “isn’t it” signaled that he was losing confidence, that we had better get together with him quickly or he would be back on the booze.
In latent listening, we try to learn why the person says what he says and why he says it at a particular time and in a particular way. Manifest and latent listening overlap; actually we are hearing both the what and the why at the same time. They cannot be cleanly separated.
The emotions greatly influence the tone, pace, and rhythm of speech, as well as the selection of words.
The choice of words discloses several things, including a person’s reasoning ability, his prejudices in the use of pejorative words, and his attempt to impress in the inappropriate use of large words. I have found that individuals with precise minds use precise language. Often, sensitive people use poetic words.
Again, it is possible to get a lead on whether people think in principles or techniques by the words they use (the breadth of illustration). They may illustrate from many different areas because they see a similar principle running through different experiences.
The tone of words is generally set by the emotion. If the tone is judgmental, I generally suspect self-righteousness or cynicism. A negative tone generally denotes a negative feeling about the subject. Whining is always minor-key and cheerleading major-key.
Emotion affects the pace at which a person speaks. Generally an excited person speaks quicker, and the pitch is higher. One night I was visiting with a psychiatrist friend in a social situation, and he asked me about an economic principle that I knew only vaguely. I knew he didn’t know anything about it, so I waded in with great authority. When I finished, he said, “You know very little about the subject.” I confessed and asked him how he knew. He said, “Because your pace and tone changed, telling me that you were on shaky ground.”
Excessive language is always questionable and generally is born of a desire to impress, intimidate, or ingratiate. Talking too loud can be an attempt to control.
Those who control their voice also raise a question about why. For example, on a witness stand you often see people try to control their voice. Is that because they’re right or because they’re afraid of being found out?
An interesting conversationalist or speaker has an interesting rhythm about his speech. A boring person has a sonorous tone. Rhythm can indicate personal involvement with the subject. Sometimes rhythm connotes performance rather than mere communication.
Interpreting laughter among associates is instructive. Where the relationship is open and free, so is the laughter. If language is merely polite, derisive, or carries innuendo, there is discord.
Sometimes it’s important to interpret interruptions, which may signal everything from being discourteous to being respectful. We normally think a person interrupting us is indicating that what he wants to say is more important than what is being said. On the other hand, it could be a subtle attempt to change the subject to protect someone or to add a different line of thought to the original one. Occasionally it just shows enthusiastic agreement that can’t be withheld. Interruptions in a group often mean the person is trying to take control—expressing power and rank, like a general interrupting a colonel. Often these try to hold the conversation or guide it by difficult questions or confrontation.
Some feel they are ordained talkers. One Sunday afternoon I was in the park in Los Angeles where the haranguers go to harangue. I fell in with a group listening to a man proclaiming his beliefs in loud, continuous talk. Walking around the edge of the group was a man muttering to himself, and I fell in behind him hoping to hear what he was saying. It was: “Hell, I came here to talk. I didn’t come here to listen.”
As leaders we must concentrate on these two types of listening: (1) manifest—we attempt to understand both the dictionary and colloquial definition of words, and (2) latent—we try to understand why the person said what he said, to know his emotional involvement.
3. Observing body language. People talk not only with their mouths, but also with their bodies. I once had an associate whose eyes would slightly mist over when he was shading the truth. Babe Ruth unfortunately telegraphed his pitch by sticking his tongue out when he was going to throw a curve ball.
Reading body language is an old subject, beat-up and often oversimplified by charlatans. I’ve attended seminars on the subject that defined specific body movements generically, applying to everyone equally. That is quackery at its worst. For example, I remember one speaker saying that when a person wraps his arms around himself he is being defensive. One of the most extroverted men I know does this when he gets excited, and I think he’s hugging himself rather than defending himself.
Nevertheless, body language is important and should be carefully observed, investigated, and verified in each specific instance.
First, gestures and words should agree. When they are in conflict, there must be a reason. A psychiatrist pointed out that a prominent politician spoke constantly of how he loved people while using hacking motions, like rabbit punches. It was hard to catch his sincerity.
One of the greatest salesmen I’ve ever known was the president of a jewelry company who had a genuine radar for people’s thoughts. He told me, “Don’t watch what a man can control. Watch what he isn’t thinking to control.” I once had an associate who when he became irritated patted his feet on the floor. It was important to notice that.
Coaches, sports commentators, and competitors constantly read the opponents’ body language. Tennis champion Chris Evert could put you inside the tennis player’s mind, as could John McEnroe. Ken Venturi does this for golfers. Isaiah Thomas was expert in reading basketball players. For example, he once said a player was losing confidence because he passed off instead of taking the shot.
Advertising constantly uses our belief in body language to prove the efficacy of a product: the sag before the snap and go, the frown before the smile. Most capable executives can walk into a plant and read the work pace in the employees’ body language. I can usually read a speaker’s emotions, nerves, lack of concentration, lack of preparation, and his involvement with the subject through his demeanor, because I’ve been there so many times myself.
Sometimes the material ownership of things enters into body image and therefore body language. Things and associations serve as symbols.
Once I was invited by a friend to sit in on a conversation between a father and a son who were having a problem. I wasn’t part of the conversation, so I concentrated on the boy’s face to see if I could read any changing expressions. When one matter came up, he developed a tic in his face. Later the subject came up again, and his face repeated the tic. I joined the conversation and brought the subject by the boy again. Again his face showed the tic. The tic and the general feel of the confrontation made me assume he was lying, so I challenged him. He confessed.
His father later told me that his son said, “I’m afraid of that guy. He can read your mind.” I couldn’t. I was simply observing his face, and it led me to a correct assumption. If his face had shown the tic randomly, I would not have known how to read it.
Three principles from psychiatry
Effective psychiatry often uses developed discernment. Those who use discernment in leadership can be helped by these principles:
1. Everyone is logical, according to his or her base. The psychiatrist Alfred Adler helped me to understand people who differed with me. Originally I thought that anyone who differed was illogical, since of course I was logical. He straightened me out by his writings when he said that every person is logical if you know the base from which he began his logic.
Now I realize I must find the base from which people start their logic. I never feel I understand the base until I can predict their future behavior. When I understand their base, I understand their logic. For example, if a person loses faith, the logic of his faith position will seem askew to chose who still have faith. When despair becomes a base, behavior can change from immorality to cynicism and immobilization.
Two people can be experiencing the same identical experience yet with two different conclusions—in fact, opposing conclusions. For many years I drove a sports car and enjoyed putting it through the corners, with increasing confidence. When my wife rode with me, she would inevitably scream as I powered through a corner, thinking I was going to roll the car. Rather disgustedly I’d say to her, “Mary Alice, I’ve done this hundreds and hundreds of times, and there’s no reason to think that I won’t be able to do it this time.”
She replied, “Driving the way you do, it’s inevitable that you will crash, and this may be the time.” She was perfectly logical; her base was that I was going to crash, and that each corner I took brought me closer to it. I had the opposite base of confidence, which meant that each corner I came to increased my skill in making the next one.
We were both logical; it was our bases that were not in agreement.
2. Dependence can create hostility. Another of my psychiatrist friends acquainted me with the term “hostile dependence.” That has been extremely helpful both in business and family as well as in mentoring.
Hostile dependence happens when a person is dependent and angry about it. Often this shows up in long-term marriages—the wife will become angry at her husband for no reason other than the fact that she is dependent on him and is angry about the dependence. It isn’t his treatment of her, but her dependence and lack of control that fuels her anger.
Older employees in a plant will sometimes turn against the company out of fear, when in reality there is nothing specific to be afraid of except their dependence on the company.
This even happens in our relationship with God.
3. People’s psychic space differs. Another psychiatrist friend acquainted me with the concept of “psychic space.” He told me of treating a lady who suddenly said, “I hate you! I hate you!” I asked him if she truly hated him, and he said, “No. I was simply violating her psychic space, and she had to get me out of it.” He said he backed away, and she became quiet and conversational again.
It is important to recognize the different areas of psychic space with our people. I have seen this element violated in small groups where people are encouraged to open up and later they were sorry they had done so, dropping out of the group because of what they had revealed about themselves. Private people should have their privacy respected.
Too often I find we invade people’s spiritual psychic space without earning the right or being invited into that space. Sometimes when a stranger has said to me, “What’s your spiritual condition?” I have wanted to reply, “What’s your financial position?” He would probably be horrified to be asked such a personal question, and yet there is nothing more personal than my spiritual situation. We should be interested in others’ spiritual condition, but interested enough to earn the right to inquire and perceive the right time to do so.
When using gifts of discernment, sensitivity, empathy, and intuition, we may be accused of being too “touchy-feely.” I don’t see discernment in this light at all. I simply believe that every fact is preceded by a feeling and if we rightly employ our discernment, we can affect the facts by understanding the feelings that precede the facts.
For seventeen years I lectured in the business program of a major state university. On one occasion the dean of engineering preceded me, and he knew I respected discernment and spiritual values. In a hostile manner, he announced, “I’m a scientist. I believe only in hard facts, the things that I can see, measure, know.” Respectfully, when I followed him, I tried to point out that life not only has its hard facts but its soft facts. I mentioned how the Taoist monks centuries ago pointed out the fact that the soft water shapes the hard rocks and shoreline, and, similarly, many times the soft facts shape the hard facts.
Many of our most valuable qualities can be included in the soft facts of life, such as love, loyalty, patriotism, courage, commitment, consistency, and even character itself.
Discerning patterns in others
Dr. James Cain, noted diagnostician at Mayo Clinic, impressed upon me the importance of coming to the clinic over a long period of time so that they could develop a health pattern for me—that is, so that they could set up ranges on the elements of my health. As long as I stayed within that range, they were not concerned, even though there were some idiosyncrasies within the range. If I went out of that range, they immediately began to find out why.
I have found that with discernment we are able to determine patterns of behavior in our associates, particularly those who are close and important to our leadership. Christ had three close disciples, and I find most leaders need to have a few close to them to share in the leadership.
I have found it helpful to employ people in the area of their gifts and passions. Then you have only to coordinate them, not supervise them.
I have established a long list of items by which to discern the skills and passions of my people. It would be too lengthy for this discussion; but it would begin with character, for I have found that character determines how a person uses his or her intelligence.
Next I want to know the person’s confidence level, which permits him or her to attempt something with a positive attitude and with concentration. Loss of concentration is often disastrous.
Concept of self is important—how does the person see himself?—not his self-image, but his self-worth. This has a lot to do with a person’s willingness to accept responsibility and to develop himself.
Relational skills are important, particularly in team play. Loners can be stars but rarely good team members. It is good to know if a person is cooperative or competitive, and under which conditions and circumstances.
A person’s skill and passion should promote the vision of the organization. In many organizations the volunteers are the larger group, so it is doubly important to establish patterns for the leaders core.
Getting the right people in the right place with the right attitude is more important in a small organization than a large one. Actuarially, one person in a group of a hundred represents only 1 percent, while one person in a small group of five represents 20 percent. Unfortunately I’ve seen some small organizations that lacked the confidence to demand quality in each individual. The smaller the organization, the more quality each individual must have.
The only excuse for activity
Like me, maybe you as a leader have had the natural talent and desire to lead but lacked skills. Some of this can be compensated for with the use of discernment. A lack of professional, executive skills doesn’t mean you can’t fulfill your calling. Use your uniqueness, your giftedness. Develop it. Depend on it. Believe in it.
When I saw the old wrangler on whose life the movie The Horse Whisperer was based, I felt a kindred spirit. He used empathy rather than dominance. He adopted a different role for the wrangler and a different experience for the horse. He moved from a hierarchical system, which was tyrannical, to a team or mutual interest. He no longer depended on the horse’s fear, but on its friendship. His orders became friendly suggestions that he knew would be accepted.
The famed basketball coach John Wooden, “the winningest coach,” also used his own system. He supposedly never mentioned “win” to any of his teams; he simply emphasized doing one’s best. This was a different emphasis than the norm. It excluded learning dirty tricks, bending the rules, violating recruiting rules, and falsifying grades, which winning can often rationalize. Wooden made it possible to win even while losing, if one had done one’s best. He had a sensitivity for talent.
We lead to accomplish the vision of our calling. We optimize the use of the gifts and passions of our associates in attaining what we genuinely believe is the will of God for the glory of God. Once I had a boss who had this slogan on his wall: “Results is the only excuse for activity.” We are to be judged by the spiritual results we achieve, not by the human methods that we use.
Copyright © 1998 Fred Smith, Sr.
