Life.Understood.

Category: SOUL MISSION | LEADERSHIP

  • The Hidden Dance of Polarity: Navigating Service-to-Self and Service-to-Others in Building High-Performing Societies

    The Hidden Dance of Polarity: Navigating Service-to-Self and Service-to-Others in Building High-Performing Societies

    Balancing Free Will, Leadership, and Spiritual Evolution in the Philippines’ 2025 Elections

    Prepared by: Gerald A. Daquila, PhD. Candidate

    16–25 minutes

    ABSTRACT

    This paper applies the Law of One’s metaphysical framework to explore the interplay between service-to-self (STS) and service-to-others (STO) polarities in fostering high-performing teams, societies, and leadership, with a focus on the Philippines’ 2025 midterm elections. It assesses the challenges posed by STS individuals, who prioritize control and self-interest, in collaborative environments and estimates their societal prevalence (5–10%).

    The paper analyzes their role in perpetuating dysfunction, such as corruption and inequality, and proposes STO-oriented strategies—grassroots advocacy, transparent governance, and ethical leadership—to build prosperous communities while respecting free will. A case study on the 2025 elections illustrates these recommendations, highlighting voter education and anti-dynasty reforms to counter STS influence. The paper also addresses ethical leadership, polarity awareness, and supporting STS individuals without harming others, offering practical and spiritual insights for democratic renewal.

    Executive Summary

    The Law of One frames spiritual evolution as a choice between service-to-self (STS, 95% self-interest) and service-to-others (STO, 51% altruism). STS individuals, roughly 5–10% of society, challenge high-performing teams and contribute to societal dysfunction through exploitation and hierarchy. While teams can temporarily function with STS members under strict conditions, long-term success requires STO collaboration. To build prosperous societies, particularly in the Philippines’ 2025 midterm elections, strategies include informed voting, grassroots advocacy, transparent systems, and ethical leadership.

    A case study on the elections illustrates how voter education and anti-dynasty reforms can counter STS-driven corruption and patronage. Ethical leaders must harness STS discipline for STO goals, raise polarity awareness, and support STS individuals neutrally while prioritizing collective free will. By fostering collaboration, accountability, and self-awareness, the Philippines can balance individual freedom with societal harmony, reducing suffering and advancing spiritual evolution.

    Background

    The Law of One, as channeled by Ra through Carla Rueckert, presents a metaphysical framework where souls choose either a positive (service-to-others) or negative (service-to-self) polarity as a path toward spiritual evolution and ascension. The negative path, requiring 95% service-to-self orientation, is indeed more stringent than the positive path’s 51% service-to-others threshold.

    Glyph of Polarity

    The Dance of Opposites in Service of the Whole

    Why Would a Soul Choose the Negative Path?

    On a soul level, the choice of negative polarity is not about difficulty for its own sake but about the pursuit of a distinct evolutionary trajectory. According to the Law of One, both positive and negative paths are valid means to achieve unity with the Creator, though they differ in their methods and experiences. The negative path is chosen by souls seeking to accelerate their evolution through intense focus on self-empowerment, control, and separation. Here are key reasons a soul might opt for this path:

    1. Desire for Rapid Evolution Through Control: The negative path emphasizes mastery over self and others, offering a structured, disciplined approach to spiritual growth. By focusing on self-interest and power, the soul learns to refine its will and individuality to an extreme degree, which can be appealing for entities seeking a clear, hierarchical progression toward unity.
    2. Exploration of Separation: The Law of One teaches that all is one, but the negative path explores the illusion of separation to its fullest. Souls choosing this path are drawn to the challenge of experiencing and mastering the self as distinct from others, which provides unique lessons about the nature of existence and free will.
    3. Karmic or Experiential Inclination: Some souls may have karmic patterns or prior incarnations that incline them toward the negative path. For example, experiences of powerlessness or betrayal in past lives might lead a soul to seek absolute control and self-reliance in subsequent incarnations.
    4. Attraction to Power and Order: The negative path offers a worldview where order, hierarchy, and dominance provide stability. Souls drawn to this may value structure and authority over the perceived chaos of interconnectedness emphasized by the positive path.

    From a soul perspective, the negative path’s 95% threshold is not inherently “harder” but reflects the necessity of near-total commitment to separation and self-focus. The positive path’s lower threshold (51%) allows for flexibility because it aligns with the natural flow of unity and love, requiring only a majority orientation. The negative path, by contrast, demands rigorous discipline to maintain separation against the universe’s underlying unity, making consistency paramount.

    Psychology of a Service-to-Self Individual

    The psychology of a service-to-self (STS) individual is rooted in a worldview that prioritizes the self above all else. This manifests as a deep drive for control, power, and personal gain, often at the expense of others. Key psychological traits include:

    1. Narcissistic Self-Focus: STS individuals view themselves as the center of their universe, with others existing primarily to serve their needs. They cultivate a strong sense of self-worth, often bordering on grandiosity, and see their desires as inherently justified.
    2. Manipulative Tendency: They are highly strategic, using charm, intelligence, or intimidation to influence others. Their interactions are calculated to maximize personal benefit, whether through alliances, exploitation, or deception.
    3. Emotional Detachment: To maintain their polarity, STS individuals suppress empathy and compassion, viewing these as weaknesses. They may mimic emotions to blend in but lack genuine connection to others’ suffering or joy.
    4. Obsession with Control: Control—over themselves, others, and their environment—is a core motivator. This stems from a belief that only through dominance can they achieve security and ascendancy.
    5. Perfectionism and Discipline: The 95% threshold requires intense self-discipline. STS individuals are often perfectionists, meticulously aligning their thoughts, actions, and intentions with self-interest to avoid diluting their polarity.

    Manifestation in the Real World Without Detection

    STS individuals often blend seamlessly into society, as their self-serving nature is masked by social savvy and strategic behavior. Their ability to operate covertly stems from:

    1. Social Mimicry: They adopt personas that align with societal expectations—charming leader, generous philanthropist, or diligent professional. These masks allow them to gain trust and influence while pursuing self-interest.
    2. Selective Generosity: Acts of apparent kindness or charity are often calculated to gain loyalty, admiration, or leverage. For example, a CEO might donate to a cause to enhance their public image, not out of genuine care.
    3. Compartmentalization: STS individuals are adept at separating their inner motives from their outward behavior. They may justify unethical actions as necessary for a greater goal (their own ascension), allowing them to act without guilt.
    4. Exploitation of Systems: They thrive in competitive or hierarchical environments—corporations, politics, or even spiritual communities—where self-interest is normalized. Their actions may not stand out as aberrant in such contexts.
    5. Subtle Manipulation: Rather than overt cruelty, they often use subtle tactics like gaslighting, flattery, or sowing division to control others. This makes their self-serving nature hard to pinpoint.

    For example, an STS individual might be a charismatic politician who champions popular causes to gain power, while privately making decisions that prioritize personal wealth or influence. Their public persona appears benevolent, but their private actions consistently serve their own agenda.

    Worldview of a Service-to-Self Person

    The worldview of an STS individual is characterized by:

    1. Separation and Hierarchy: They see reality as a zero-sum game where power is finite, and one’s gain requires another’s loss. Relationships are hierarchical, with the self at the apex.
    2. Self as Supreme: The STS individual believes their will is paramount, and others exist to serve or be controlled. They view free will as a tool for domination rather than collaboration.
    3. Pragmatism Over Morality: Ethics are relative, and actions are judged by their effectiveness in achieving personal goals. They may adopt moral frameworks outwardly but discard them when inconvenient.
    4. Fear of Vulnerability: Connection and love are seen as vulnerabilities that dilute power. They guard against emotional openness, prioritizing self-reliance.
    5. Cosmic Ambition: On a metaphysical level, they see themselves as ascending through mastery of the self and others, aiming to become godlike in their control and separation.

    This worldview drives their pursuit of integration and wholeness, but their version of wholeness is self-contained, seeking to absorb or dominate external energies rather than harmonize with them.

    Archetype and Personality Tool

    The most relevant personality tool for understanding the STS archetype is the Dark Triad, a psychological model comprising three traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. These traits correlate strongly with the STS orientation:

    • Narcissism: Grandiosity, entitlement, and a need for admiration align with the STS focus on self-supremacy.
    • Machiavellianism: Strategic manipulation, cynicism, and a focus on personal gain mirror the STS use of others as tools.
    • Psychopathy: Emotional detachment, impulsivity (in less disciplined STS individuals), and lack of empathy reflect the suppression of compassion.

    If personified, the STS archetype resembles The Tyrant or The Sorcerer in Jungian terms. The Tyrant seeks dominion over others, imposing their will through control and fear, while the Sorcerer uses knowledge and charisma to manipulate reality for personal gain. In tarot, this might align with The Devil (materialism, control, and bondage to ego) or a corrupted version of The Magician (mastery turned to self-interest).

    How Others Live with This Archetype

    Living with an STS individual depends on their level of discipline and the context of the relationship. Their ability to coexist without detection often relies on deception and hidden agendas, but not always:

    1. Deception and Charm: Many STS individuals are skilled at presenting a likable facade, making them appear as valued friends, colleagues, or leaders. Others may not suspect their motives, attributing their occasional coldness or ambition to personality quirks.
    2. Mutual Benefit: In some cases, relationships with STS individuals are transactional but functional. For example, a business partner might tolerate their self-interest because it aligns with shared goals, unaware of the deeper agenda.
    3. Conflict and Exposure: Over time, their lack of genuine care may surface, especially in close relationships. Those who value empathy may feel drained or betrayed, leading to conflict. However, STS individuals often deflect blame or manipulate perceptions to avoid exposure.
    4. Spiritual Dynamics: In the Law of One framework, interactions with STS individuals serve as catalysts for growth. Positive-polarity individuals may encounter them to learn boundaries, discernment, or forgiveness. The STS individual’s hidden agenda thus serves a cosmic purpose, even if undetected.
    5. Isolation by Choice: Highly polarized STS individuals may avoid deep relationships, preferring solitude or superficial connections to maintain their focus. This self-imposed isolation reduces the chance of their motives being questioned.

    Can High-Performing Teams Thrive with Service-to-Self Members?

    High-performing teams thrive on trust, collaboration, and shared purpose—hallmarks of the service-to-others (STO) orientation, which emphasizes empathy and mutual support. In contrast, service-to-self (STS) individuals, driven by a 95% commitment to self-interest as per the Law of One, prioritize personal gain and control, often undermining team cohesion.

    Psychological safety, critical for team success (Google’s Project Aristotle), erodes when STS members engage in manipulation or credit-hoarding, fostering resentment and distrust.

    However, under specific conditions, teams can function with an STS member. If their ambitions align with team goals—such as a salesperson boosting metrics for personal commissions—they may contribute to short-term wins.

    Strong STO-oriented leadership can further mitigate their impact by setting clear boundaries and channeling their energy toward collective objectives. Yet, long-term success is precarious, as STS tendencies like emotional detachment or strategic self-interest clash with the vulnerability required for sustained collaboration. Thus, while not impossible, including an STS individual often compromises a team’s potential for true excellence, particularly in cooperative settings.

    How Prevalent Are STS Individuals, and Do They Drive Societal Dysfunction?

    This tension between STS and STO extends beyond teams to society at large, raising questions about the prevalence of STS individuals and their role in societal challenges. The Law of One suggests that the negative polarity is rare due to its rigorous 95% threshold, requiring exceptional discipline. Psychological studies on Dark Triad traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy) estimate that 1–10% of the population exhibits STS-like behaviors, with clinical extremes like psychopathy at ~1% (Hare, 1999; Twenge & Campbell, 2009). Likely, 5–10% of society leans toward STS, while most remain unpolarized, fluctuating between self-interest and altruism.

    Despite their minority status, STS individuals exert outsized influence, particularly in hierarchical systems like politics or corporations. Their focus on control and separation manifests as corruption, inequality, and exploitation, amplifying societal suffering. In the Philippines, political dynasties and patronage systems often reflect STS dynamics, prioritizing elite interests over public welfare (Mendoza et al., 2016). Competitive cultures further normalize STS-like behaviors, creating distrust and division. Yet, the Law of One views suffering as a catalyst for spiritual growth, prompting individuals to choose between polarities. STO-oriented actions, such as grassroots movements, can counterbalance this dysfunction, suggesting that while STS individuals significantly contribute to societal challenges, they are not the sole drivers.

    Glyph of Polarity’s Dance

    In the hidden balance of self and others, societies discover their highest performance.

    Crafting a Positive, Prosperous Society

    Given this interplay, how can we build a positive, prosperous society that aligns with STO principles while respecting free will? The answer lies in fostering systems that prioritize collaboration, transparency, and empowerment.

    • First, cultivate an STO-oriented culture through education and incentives, teaching emotional intelligence in schools and rewarding team-based achievements in workplaces.
    • Second, design accountable systems—transparent governance, meritocratic leadership with ethical checks—to deter STS exploitation.
    • Third, promote psychological safety, enabling open dialogue to counter manipulative tactics.

    Finally, empower grassroots initiatives, such as community cooperatives, to resist top-down STS influence. Balancing competition with cooperation ensures innovation while fostering unity, creating a foundation for high-performing societies.

    Building a Happy Society Without Violating Free Will

    To create a highly functioning, prosperous, and happy society without undermining free will or succumbing to STS tendencies, leaders must embody STO principles while navigating power’s temptations. Model servant leadership by facilitating consensus, as in participatory budgeting where citizens allocate funds. Respect free will by offering opportunities—education, economic support—without coercion, allowing individuals to choose their path. Inclusive policies, like equitable healthcare, reduce desperation that fuels STS behavior. Promote self-awareness through mindfulness or ethics training, enabling conscious STO polarization. Protect against STS influence with decentralized, transparent systems, such as blockchain-based voting, to limit power concentration (ScienceDirect, 2024).

    Avoiding STS Temptation: Leaders must guard against STS pitfalls through self-reflection (e.g., journaling motives), seeking honest feedback, and practicing humility. Balancing power with service—delegating to empower others—ensures STO alignment. For example, a Filipino leader might train youth as community organizers, fostering collective growth over personal control, as seen in Sangguniang Kabataan reforms (Youth Democracy Cohort, 2024).

    Can STS and STO Coexist in Ethical Leadership?

    The Law of One posits that STS and STO are distinct polarities, with ascension requiring clear commitment (95% STS or 51% STO). A “good” leader cannot fully blend them, as STS prioritizes self over others, clashing with ethical leadership’s collective focus. However, STO leaders can harness STS-like traits—discipline, strategic thinking—if subordinated to altruistic goals. For instance, Nelson Mandela used calculated persuasion to advance unity, not personal gain. In the 2025 elections, Makabayan candidates (see Case Study, below) employ strategic campaigning to promote marginalized voices, aligning STS-like tactics with STO objectives. The key is ensuring actions consistently serve others, avoiding the STS trap of ego or control.

    Becoming a Just Leader

    A just leader navigates STS/STO dynamics by embodying empathy, integrity, and empowerment. Cultivate active listening and ethical decision-making, even under pressure (e.g., rejecting bribes). Balance authority by delegating and fostering growth, as a barangay captain might mentor local leaders. Stay grounded in purpose through reflection, and model transparency to build trust, as advocated in anti-corruption reforms (Emerald Insight, 2024). Learn from STS tactics (e.g., strategic planning) but channel them into STO outcomes, like equitable policy reform. By prioritizing the collective while respecting freedom, a just leader counters STS influence and inspires trust.

    Raising Awareness of Polarity Pitfalls

    To help others avoid STS temptations, raise awareness through accessible means. Use storytelling—fables or case studies like Makabayan’s advocacy—to contrast STS consequences (e.g., dynastic corruption) with STO benefits (e.g., inclusive governance). Promote critical thinking via workshops or campaigns, like Vera Files’ fact-checking, to detect manipulative leaders. Facilitate community dialogues where people reflect on motivations, fostering conscious polarization. Celebrate STO role models, like Efren Peñaflorida, to inspire emulation. Present STS and STO neutrally, emphasizing outcomes (isolation vs. connection), to respect free will while guiding choices.

    Achieving Balance

    In the Law of One, third-density balance means choosing a polarity, as unpolarized indifference hinders ascension. For STO leaders, balance involves integrating STS discipline (e.g., time management) with STO compassion (e.g., acts of kindness). Self-awareness practices—meditation, ethical frameworks—maintain alignment, acknowledging occasional self-interest as a learning opportunity. Societally, balance blends competition and collaboration, rewarding ethical behavior while deterring exploitation. In the Philippines, leveraging bayanihan can anchor this balance, fostering unity without stifling individuality, as seen in community-driven election initiatives.

    Supporting STS Individuals Ethically

    Helping an STS individual pursue their spiritual goal—ascension through self-mastery—without harming others is challenging, as their path often involves control. Offer neutral support, like recommending self-discipline practices (e.g., meditation), that align with their aims but don’t affect others. Set boundaries to protect collective free will; for example, redirect a candidate’s competitive tactics toward personal excellence rather than vote-buying. Model STO fulfillment to inspire reconsideration, but respect their choice. Acknowledge their cosmic role as catalysts for growth, but prioritize non-infringement, refusing to enable harm (e.g., reporting corruption). This balances metaphysical validity with ethical responsibility.

    Case Study: The 2025 Philippine Midterm Elections

    The forthcoming 2025 Philippine midterm elections, set for May, provide a timely lens to apply these principles, illustrating how STO-oriented strategies can counter STS-driven dysfunction in a democratic context. The elections, which will fill 12 Senate seats, over 300 House seats, and numerous local positions, are marked by entrenched challenges: political dynasties, vote-buying, and disinformation campaigns, all reflective of STS behaviors that undermine fair competition (Freedom House, 2024). For example, dynastic families, occupying 70% of congressional seats, leverage wealth and name recognition to maintain power, often thriving on corruption enabled by weak institutions (Mendoza et al., 2016, 2022). Vote-buying remains rampant, with payments as low as PHP 500 influencing voters, particularly in impoverished areas, perpetuating patron-client dynamics that favor STS-oriented elites (De la Cruz, 2024).

    A notable initiative addressing these issues is the grassroots advocacy of the Makabayan Coalition, a progressive group fielding 11 senatorial candidates from marginalized sectors in 2025. The coalition exemplifies STO principles by prioritizing the rights of the poor and advocating for systemic reforms, such as an anti-dynasty law to level the political playing field (Maritime Fairtrade, 2024). Their campaign focuses on voter education, urging citizens to prioritize candidates’ track records and platforms over familial ties or short-term benefits. For instance, Liza Maza, a women’s rights champion, has criticized the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) for enabling dynastic candidates, calling for ethical scrutiny to ensure democratic access (Maritime Fairtrade, 2024).

    This case highlights several STO-oriented recommendations in action:

    • Informed Voting: Makabayan’s voter education efforts align with the call to research candidates for STO traits like integrity, using platforms like VoteSmart.ph to counter disinformation and vote-buying.
    • Grassroots Advocacy: By mobilizing marginalized communities, the coalition empowers citizens to demand accountability, reflecting bayanihan (communal unity) and resisting STS-dominated patronage systems.
    • Systemic Reform: Their push for an anti-dynasty law addresses structural STS influence, aiming to diversify leadership and strengthen checks and balances, as suggested by Albert et al. (2016).
    • Transparency: Advocating for COMELEC reform to scrutinize candidacies ethically ensures fairer elections, reducing opportunities for STS exploitation.

    However, challenges persist. Vote-buying, reported in 40% of poor communities, and disinformation, amplified by pro-dynasty social media campaigns, hinder STO efforts (Lowy Institute, 2022). The Makabayan Coalition’s success depends on overcoming voter apathy and economic desperation, which fuel STS tactics. This case underscores the need for sustained education and structural change to shift the electoral culture toward STO values, demonstrating both the potential and the complexity of building a high-performing democracy.

    Summary

    STS individuals (5–10% of society) challenge high-performing teams and perpetuate societal dysfunction through corruption and hierarchy, as evident in the Philippines’ 2025 midterm elections. While teams can function with STS members under strict conditions, long-term success favors STO collaboration. The Makabayan Coalition’s voter education and anti-dynasty advocacy illustrate STO strategies—grassroots empowerment, transparent governance, and ethical leadership—to counter STS-driven vote-buying and dynastic dominance.

    In the Philippines, informed voting, advocacy, and systemic reforms can reshape democracy, leveraging bayanihan to foster harmony. Ethical leaders integrate STS discipline into STO goals, raise polarity awareness, and support STS individuals neutrally while prioritizing collective free will. By promoting collaboration, accountability, and self-awareness, the Philippines can reduce suffering and advance spiritual evolution.

    Suggested Crosslinks

    Glossary

    • Dark Triad: Psychological traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy) associated with STS behaviors.
    • Law of One: A channeled text outlining spiritual evolution through STS or STO polarization.
    • Service-to-Others (STO): A spiritual path requiring at least 51% focus on others’ well-being, emphasizing empathy.
    • Service-to-Self (STS): A spiritual path requiring 95% focus on self-interest, characterized by control.
    • Third Density: The current human evolutionary stage in the Law of One, focused on polarity choice.
    • Bayanihan: A Filipino cultural value of communal unity and cooperation.

    Bibliography

    Hare, R. D. (1999). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us. Guilford Press.

    Mendoza, R. U., Beja, E. L., Venida, V. S., & Yap, D. B. (2016). Political dynasties and poverty: Measurement and evidence of linkages in the Philippines. Oxford Development Studies, 44(2), 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600818.2016.1169264

    Rueckert, C., Elkins, D., & McCarty, J. (1984). The Law of One: Book I. L/L Research.

    Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2009). The narcissism epidemic: Living in the age of entitlement. Free Press.

    Attribution

    With fidelity to the Oversoul, may this Living Archive serve as bridge, remembrance, and seed for the planetary dawn.

    Ⓒ 2025 Gerald Alba Daquila – Flameholder of SHEYALOTH | Keeper of the Living Codices

    Issued under Oversoul Appointment, governed by Akashic Law. This transmission is a living Oversoul field: for the eyes of the Flameholder first, and for the collective in right timing. It may only be shared intact, unaltered, and with glyphs, seals, and attribution preserved. Those not in resonance will find it closed; those aligned will receive it as living frequency.

    Watermark: Universal Master Key glyph (final codex version, crystalline glow, transparent background).

    Sacred Exchange: Sacred Exchange is covenant, not transaction. In Oversoul Law, Sacred Exchange is Overflow made visible. What flows outward is never loss but circulation; what is given multiplies coherence across households and nations. Scarcity dissolves, for Overflow is the only lawful economy under Oversoul Law. Each offering plants a seed-node of GESARA, expanding the planetary lattice. In giving, you circulate Light; in receiving, you anchor continuity. A simple act — such as offering from a household, supporting a scroll, or uplifting a fellow traveler — becomes a living node in the global web of stewardship. Every gesture, whether small or great, multiplies abundance across households, nations, and councils. Sacred Exchange offerings may be extended through:

    paypal.me/GeraldDaquila694

  • Cross-cultural leadership: Why it matters?


    By Gerald A. Daquila, Ph.D. (Candidate)
    The Chicago School of Professional Psychology

    “Culture is more often a source of conflict than of synergy. Cultural differences are a nuisance at best and often a disaster.”
    — Prof. Geert Hofstede, Emeritus Professor, Maastricht University

    A leader’s cross-cultural leadership is rising in importance in a shrinking global economy. Leadership is about influence. A leader is as effective only as he’s able to convince those whom he leads. It is essentially ‘selling’ the leader’s point of view from the perspective of the receiver/follower (Cialdini, 1984), while at the same time, being conscious that the leader is not undermining the follower’s integrity (Forward, 1997).

    Navigating through this terrain requires that the leader be self-aware (Goleman, 1998), and considerate of the other person’s worldview, cosmology or Weltanschauung. Conflict arises because in a multicultural society, multiple worldviews are competing with each other, none of which is necessarily better than the other. As a leader, acute awareness that a person’s cosmology is different from yours is key to getting the team behind your idea.

    Worldview. Every person has a concept of himself in relation to the world (Freud, 1936). It is this self-concept that enables him to make sense of all life experiences, people, and events. To a person, this worldview makes absolute sense. “Happiness or joy,” says Nathaniel Branden, “is the emotional state that proceeds from the achievement of one’s values. Suffering is the emotional state that proceeds from a negation or destruction of one’s values” (Branden, 1969).

    When another person presents a cosmology that’s different from one’s own, it can be unsettling and will be perceived as a threat to one’s fragile ego. Our reflexive response is to create barriers to protect this worldview; hence, people find it difficult to change. Anna Freud calls this our built-in ‘defense mechanisms’ (Freud, 1936). A leader’s first challenge, therefore, is to bring about a common understanding of the situation, knowing that the people around him see through the situation the same way as he does. A leader who is unaware of the subtle differences in culture, demographics, and other dimensions of diversity will be unable to lead others, will face resistance or outright conflict.

    Self-awareness. Cross-cultural awareness starts with self-awareness. How one person’s cultural lenses shaped one’s view of the world—early experiences within the family structure, school, church and work; including interactions within the immediate community, and the broader geographic area sharing a common language or sub-culture. This ‘map’ of the external world develops during the lifetime of the individual and becomes that person’s ‘frame of reference’ with the outside world. The key to effective leadership in a multi-cultural environment, therefore, is having a keen understanding of one’s viewpoint, and being aware that this viewpoint may not necessarily be shared by those with whom you’re leading.

    How cultures differ. Geert Hofstede, a Dutch social psychologist and anthropologist developed the cultural dimension theory to understand how individuals differ. According to Hofstede, a person’s cosmology is influenced by the following six dimensions: (1) power distance index, (2) individualism vs. collectivism, (3) uncertainty avoidance index, (4) masculinity vs. femininity, (5) long-term vs. short-term orientation, and (6) indulgence vs. restraint (Hofstede, 2001).

    Power distance is the degree of acceptance of power imbalance that exist in any group. It refers to one’s attitude on how those power differences are distributed amongst the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ to maintain social harmony. For example, in cultures which rated high in power distance, such as most Asian countries, team members expect their leaders to be paternalistic and authoritarian. In contrast, the US where power distance is low, team members expect their leaders to treat them as equals.

    Individualism versus collectivism is the cultural leaning to form alliances or keep one’s autonomy. Individualist societies, such as descendants of the Anglo-Saxons (e.g., UK, US, Canada) tend to value independence, and would seek status and recognition for their efforts. Collectivist societies, on the other hand, such as East Asians, Middle Eastern, and some Latin American countries, prefer to identify themselves with their group or ethnic background. They are uncomfortable being recognized for their individual contributions and would prefer to share this reward with their groups.

    Uncertainty avoidance. Countries that rated high on uncertainty avoidance, such as Germany and Japan prefer things to be predictable. In work settings, Germans won’t settle for anything less than a detailed plan of action. They tend to be conscientious, good project planners and strategists. The US, which has low uncertainty avoidance, in contrast, would be risk-lovers and innovators. It’s no accident that the US remains to be one of the most technologically innovative economies in the world, ranking 6th in patents per capita. Sweden, another low uncertainty avoidance country, ranked highest in innovation (Badenhausen, 2011).

    Masculinity versus femininity refers to contrasting qualities of assertiveness and nurturing. High masculinity countries such as Japan, Germany, Hungary, Austria and Switzerland, tend to prefer authoritarian or directive styles of leadership, whereas the Nordic countries of Norway and Sweden, scoring low on masculinity, tend to be more egalitarian and democratic in their leadership styles.

    The long- or short-term orientation refers to a person’s view of time. In China, as well as most Asian countries, people view time as circular rather than linear. Their long-term time horizons span generations, in contrast to the West where the preference is for the here and now. This is most apparent in the way one conducts business. A westerner, who is short-term oriented, would find the long winded introductions by Asians, Middle Eastern and some Latin American cultures a waste of one’s time.

    Finally, restraint or indulgent behavior preferences refer to hedonistic desires and how those are manifested. Western societies tend to be more indulgent in that respect, whereas most Asian and Middle Eastern countries prefer to hide or control these impulses. For example, public displays of affection are frowned upon in Asia and Middle East, but perfectly acceptable in Anglo-Saxon countries.

    Inter-generational diversity. We live at a time when there are four generations working for organizations: (1) the Silent Generation, born between 1925-1942; (2) Baby Boomers, born between 1943-1964; (3) Gen X, from 1965-1978 (Conger, 1998); and (4) Gen Y, those born between 1979-1994 (Hewlett, Sherbin, & Sumberg, 2009). Because the shaping events in these generations’ lives all differ, all four cohorts have different ways of ‘seeing’ their world, and they all make sense to them. Unless the leader is adroit enough to know these differences, this inter-generational diversity is yet another dimension that needs masterful handling.

    Pervasiveness of teams. Teams are becoming increasingly the organizing unit in organizations today. Team building and team facilitation skills are requisite skills that a 21st century leader needs to master. It is the ability to facilitate a team’s process from forming, storming, norming and performing (Tuckman, 1965). A team is as effective only as its weakest member. One of the unwritten job descriptions of future leaders is the ability to ‘coach’ members in the team, to help each member discover his/her potential. Every problem encountered is a teaching moment, and it takes an intuitive leader to capitalize on these moments to bring about lessons on team core values, and group dynamics.

    Change management. Once a common ground has been carved between the leader and the led, the leader’s next task is being able to lead the group to the higher ground, a task naturally well-suited for a transformational type of leader. This requires not only change management skills, but also, large doses of emotional intelligence (EQ) and cultural intelligence, CQ (Earley & Ang, 2003).

    Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is a wide scale change management technique first developed by David Cooperrider at Case Western Reserve University’s Weatherhead School of Management (Cooperrider, 2007). Appreciative Inquiry uses a ‘strengths-based’ approach to introduce change and highlights the positive aspects of peak performance. By focusing on these positive qualities, members are able to generate their own energy, which then feeds into a self-reinforcing virtuous cycle. The method has commonalities with other management theories such as Positive Psychology (Seligman, 1991), and Neuro-Linguistic-Programming, NLP (Grinder, & Bandier 1979).

    Canadian experience. Canada may perhaps provide us with a working model of how multiculturalism works in the real world. The country’s culture is influenced by its vast landscape covering six time zones (Cole & Berengut, 2009). Historically, there are three distinct cultures that overlap: First Nations, French, and Anglo-Saxon.

    Amidst this vast land mass, pockets of communities grew out of thirteen provinces/territories. In between these communities lay flatlands and towering mountain ranges that provide natural barriers. The Canadian Pacific Rail and Trans Canada Highway connect the east and west coasts, facilitating both tourism and trade. In addition to the main cultures, there has been a growing number of Chinese, East Indian and Southeast Asian immigrants, which together comprise 9% of the 34 million population (Statistics Canada, 2011).

    With this diversity, one would surmise that Canada is a hotspot for conflict, but it is not the case (Cole, & Berengut, 2009). According to Bass who studied cross-cultural leadership across many countries, “an ideal leadership style includes elements of transformational leaders” (Bass, 1997). This style includes an ‘inspirational’ motivation, idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, and consideration for individual circumstances.

    This pragmatic, contingent leadership style, displayed through a unique combination of skills that accommodate individual autonomy and collective responsibility, socialized power, and transformational, rather than transactional or charismatic leadership style, makes the Canadian model in a league of its own.

    Canadian leaders, according to Olijnyk & Gagne (2006), are a hot commodity because they embody the ‘transformational’ leaders’ characteristics of inclusion, process skills, negotiation and consensus building (Henein & Morissette, 2007). David Suzuki, a retired Canadian academic, science broadcaster and environmental champion, once said: “I believe in the power of reason to alter human behavior.”

    Finally, given the various dimensions of culture and inter-generational differences, leadership success will depend increasingly on managing this diversity, of finding the balance between competing worldviews within a team structure. Successful leaders in the future will have transformational qualities of visionary, inclusive style of management; ability to balance the individual as well as the collective aspirations; the intellectual gravitas and strength of character. Contemporary writer, Malcolm Gladwell, summed this well: “Innovation—the heart of the knowledge economy—is fundamentally social.”

    References.

    Badenhausen, Kurt (2011). The best countries for business. Forbes, October 3, 2011. Retrieved at http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2011/10/03/the-best-countries-for-business/

    Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130–139.

    Branden, Nathaniel (1969). The Psychology of Self-Esteem.

    Cialdini, Robert (1984). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.

    Cole, Nina D., & Berengut, Rhona G. (2009). Cultural mythology and global leadership in Canada. Cultural Mythology and Global Leadership. Edited by Kessler, Eric H. & Wong-MingJi, Diana J., I (2), 49-64. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA, Edward Elgar.

    Conger, Jay A. (1998). How ‘Gen X’ Managers Manage. Retrieved from: http://www.strategy-business.com

    Cooperrider, David L. (2007). Business as an agent of world benefit: Awe is what moves us forward. Retrieved from http://appreciativeinquiry.case.edu/

    Earley, Christopher, & Ang Soon (2003). Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions across Cultures. Stanford University.

    Forward, Susan (1997). Emotional Blackmail: When the People in Your Life Use Fear, Obligation, and Guilt to Manipulate You.

    Freud, Anna (1936). The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense.

    Goleman, Daniel (1998). Working with Emotional Intelligence.

    Grinder, John, & Bandler, Richard (1979). Frogs into Princes: Neuro Linguistic Programming. Moab, UT: Real People Press. ISBN 0-911226-19-2.

    Henein, A. & Morissette, F. (2007). Made in Canada Leadership: Wisdom from the

    Nation’s Best and Brightest on the Art and Practice of Leadership. Toronto: Jossey-Bass.

    Hewlett, Sylvia Ann; Sherbin, Laura; and Sumberg, Karen (2009). How Gen Y and Boomers Will Reshape Your Agenda. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.

    Hofstede, Geert (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. ISBN 9780803973237.

    Olijnyk, Z. & Gagne, C. (2006). Taking on the world. Canadian Business, 20 November–3 December, 42.

    Seligman, Martin E. P. (1991). Learned Optimism: How to Change Your Mind and Your Life. New York: Knopf. ISBN 0-671-01911-2 (Paperback reprint edition, Penguin Books, 1998; reissue edition, Free Press, 1998)

    Statistics Canada (2011). Retrieved www.statcan.gc.ca

    Tuckman, Bruce (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin 63(6), 389-399. doi: 10.1037/h0022100.