Becoming an Invitational Leader. William W Purkey

      Most researchers agree that a person’s self-concept has a generally stable quality that is characterized by internal orderliness and harmony. It is not simply a hodgepodge of cognitions and feelings. The self-concept is orchestrated and balanced, centered on the “I” that represents immediate awareness of existence. In addition to the “I,” the self-concept contains smaller units. These can be thought of as “sub-selves” and represent the self-as-object. These are the varied multitude of “me’s” that are the objects of our self-perceptions. Each of the “me” sub-selves contains its own balance and voice, and each influences, and is in turn influenced by the global self-concept.

      During most of the previous century, self-concept was viewed as a unitary, monolithic entity, usually centered on self-esteem. In contrast, more contemporary thinking sees self-concept as a multifaceted, dynamic, and many-layered construct of amazing complexity. As W. Somerset Maugham noted in his 1940s novel, The Razor’s Edge, many individuals live within us, often in uneasy companionship with one another.

      Each person maintains countless perceptions regarding his or her personal existence, and each perception is internally orchestrated with all the others. This is what gives consistency to the human personality. The organized quality of self-concept has corollaries:

       Self-concept requires stability and tends to resist change. If the self-concept changed readily, the individual would lack a consistent and dependable personality.

       At the heart of self-concept is the self-as-doer, the “I” which is distinct from the self-as-object, the various “me’s.” This allows the person to reflect on past events, analyze present perceptions, and shape future experiences.

       The more central a particular belief is within one’s self-concept (the closer the “me” to the “I”) the more resistant the person is to changing that belief.

      To picture the global self-concept with its internal symmetry, imagine that a large spiral represents the organized unity of one’s self-concept. The numerous “me” sub-selves can be roughly divided into attributes (strong, tall, loyal, short, bright, young, bashful, friendly, faithful, trustworthy, responsible, loyal, helpful, sexy, etc.) and categories (student, leader, husband, mother, atheist, athlete, spouse, Muslim, Jew, Christian, homosexual, veteran, American, etc.). These perceived attributes and categories are often linked (bright student, loyal American, faithful spouse, responsible administrator, etc.) and are internally positioned in a hierarchical order. This order is critical, for it gives meaning and stability to the self.

      Each person’s self-concept contains countless me’s, but not all are equally significant. Some are highly important and are close to the center of the self-concept. Other me’s are less central and are located toward the periphery. The me’s closest to the “I” have the most influence on and authority over daily functioning. In other words, they “have the king’s ear.”

      It may also be helpful to think of the self-concept as a stabilizing lake. This lake is constantly fed by a river of experience that flows into the lake at one end and exits at the other. The river of me’s can flow into the self-concept lake rapidly or slowly, depending on life experiences, and can provide much or little fresh water. In the healthy personality, the river dependably provides the lake with a manageable number of fresh me’s, whereas outmoded me’s are flushed out of the lake and down the river. When this life-long process of renewal and development is interrupted, and little water is allowed to enter or leave, the lake becomes stagnant. Conversely, if too much water enters or leaves the lake, it becomes flooded or drained, unpredictable, and provides too little protection against the vagaries of life. When too many me’s strive for attention, the leader can lose self-direction and integrity. Where there are too few me’s, the individual begins to lose his or her identity and even his or her perceived existence.

      Development of Self

      No one is born with a self-concept. The development and structure of self-awareness is a lifelong research project. It is a continuous process of learning. By experiencing the world through countless inviting and disinviting interactions, we gradually develop a theory of personal existence. Thanks to the plethora of interactions our world provides, a self-concept is forged, complete with a complex hierarchy of attributes and categories.

      These repeated experiences, positive or negative, have a profound effect on the self. Referencing W. Somerset Maugham once again, this gradual process is expressed beautifully in The Razor’s Edge:

      For men and women are not only themselves; they are also the region in which they were born, the city apartment or the farm in which they learned to walk, the games they played as children, the old wives’ tale they overheard, the food they ate, the schools they attended, the sports they followed, the poems they read, and the God they believed in.

      Everything that happens to us happens forever. Although it is impossible to change the past, it is possible to change our perceptions of past experiences, control our present activities, and imagine and act on future possibilities.

      Self-Concept as Guidance System

      As we’ve seen, self-concept is a complex, continuously active system of subjective and learned beliefs regarding our personal experience. It serves as a reference point for behavior and enables us to assume particular roles in life — we act in accordance with the ways we have learned to see ourselves. From a lifetime of studying our own actions and those of others, we acquire expectations about that which seems to agree with our self-concept already in place. As mentioned earlier, if a new perception is consistent with past experiences already incorporated into our self-concept, we easily accept and assimilate the new perception. If the new experience contradicts those already incorporated, we will probably reject it.

      The nature of self-concept is a continuously active system that dependably points toward the “true north” of a person’s perceived existence. This guidance system not only shapes the ways a person views him- or herself, others, and the world, but it also serves to direct action and enables each person to take a consistent “stance” in life. This consistency is perhaps most important in relation to internal dialogue — the ways we bolster our self-concept through conversations with the “whispering self.”

      The Whispering Self

      A third, vital cornerstone for Invitational Leadership is a particular thought process which we have named the “whispering self.” This inner voice is the internal monologue or dialogue that sounds off in our heads the moment we think about something. It is this internally audible voice that we listen to in our heads, which in turn influences what we do as leaders.

      According to A.N. Sokolov, expert in the study of the power of internal dialogue, in all instances, people think, remember, and imagine through the use of private conversation: “Inner speech is nothing but speech to oneself, or concealed verbalization, which is instrumental in the logical processing of sensory data, in their realization and comprehension within a definite system of concepts and judgments.” Leaders who are aware that they talk to themselves are in a much better position to monitor and alter their inner voices. Those who are unaware of the whispering self have lost control of it. It is vital to be aware of our internal dialogue and to know where these voices lead.

      The whispering self is the narrator who at every waking moment of our lives tells us who we are and what we should be about. In attempting to solve problems, make decisions, select a course of action, or understand a situation, we enter into internal dialogue with ourselves. During these inner conversations we look at options, consider their results, and then select what appears to be the best and safest course of action based on our internal constructions. Sometimes these constructions can be counter-productive. The following story was provided by our friend Bill Stafford:

      A young man was driving his girlfriend