Buzz(word)-Kill: Resilience and Leadership

Leadership and resilience are complex, yet definable, concepts

By Dr. Gamaliel D. Baer

My last article, Leadership: More Than a Buzzword, examined leadership as a noun and verb. It also compared and contrasted leadership with the concept of management, and shared the objective definition for leadership from my book, which uses a set of necessary and sufficient components to define leadership as a verb. 

One of the main distinguishing factors of leadership compared to management is that leadership has to involve humans, whereas management can involve humans, processes, or things. You can’t “lead” processes or things because they can’t “follow.” With that as a foundation, it begs the question: What exactly is a “leader” supposed to do with humans? The answer to this question requires an examination of another buzzword – resilience.  

What’s Resilience?

Resilience has also become a buzzword, just like leadership. you’ll hear it being used in relation to critical infrastructure, cybersecurity, response readiness, and also about individuals or organizations. 

Besides the fact resilience is used for people, processes, and things, it also seems to have multiple meanings when used in the English language. Merriam-Webster has two main definitions of resilience. The first is “the capability of a strained body to recover its size and shape …” The second is “an ability to recover from or adjust easily to misfortune or change.” 

If you research the word resilience in the literature, you’ll find three main themes. The first theme includes the words “bounce back” as a way to describe resilience. This concept aligns with the first definition, and parts of the second in Merriam-Webster, and can apply to objects, as well as humans. 

A second theme is the concept of having “reserves” or “more in the tank.” This concept is connected to the idea of bouncing back, especially for humans, but it also applies to systems. If there’s nothing left over in the human after some sort of misfortune or change, then they won’t be able to bounce back. 

There’s a saying that goes, “Resilience is getting knocked down seven times and getting up eight.” However, there’s another saying that goes, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result.” If you’re “bouncing back” in life only to be defeated by the same misfortune, then maybe we shouldn’t be praising that as resilience, but instead calling it insanity. 

There’s a third theme, which is resilience is about overcoming a challenge. That concept aligns with a part of the second definition in Merriam-Webster, which is the part about “adjusting easily to misfortune or change.” 

The Human Triad

Yes, we need to be able to bounce back in order to be resilient. And, in order to bounce back, we need to have reserves. But, having reserves in order to bounce back should ultimately serve us in overcoming a challenge; otherwise, we’re just going in circles until we die. This then begs the following question: What’s involved in building resilience in a human? In order to answer that question, you have to first define “human.” 

Merriam-Webster defines human as a bipedal primate. That isn’t helpful in this examination. However, Merriam-Webster defines health as, “being sound in body, mind, and spirit.”

The body, mind, soul is the same as the bio, psycho, social, is the same as the hand, head, and heart. It doesn’t really matter what you choose to call it. The point is, humans have three distinct dimensions, and all three have the ability to become more resilient. The following figure is from my book Operational Intelligence for Health, Wellness, and Leadership by Baer and Schary.

The following is true regardless of which dimension you’re interested in becoming more resilient: In order to build human reserves so you can bounce back and overcome challenges, you need to get out of your comfort zone.

Even though each human dimension is distinct, they operate the same way. There may be a theoretical limit to how much challenge someone can face and overcome to their body, mind, or soul, but ultimately, at some point you risk being injured in that dimension if you don’t have enough resilience. For the body dimension, that could look like a torn muscle from sports. For the mind dimension, that could look like PSTD from running a bad call. For the soul dimension, that could look like heartache from betrayal. The only way to reduce the risk of injury in a dimension is to push yourself out of your normal range. 

Each human dimension has particular domains that can be the focus of resilience. In the figure above, some examples include activity and nutrition domains for the body dimension, learning and motivation for the mind dimension, and love and forgiveness for the soul dimension. 

In the figure, the numbered boxes represent subdomains that are particular aspects of the domain. This can continue, and it depicts the idea of moving from a general concept to a more specialized concept.  For instance, sprinting might be a subdomain of physical activity where you can become more resilient.

The main argument I have offered is resilience is not just about bouncing back. Having reserves and bouncing back is only helpful if it results in overcoming a challenge. If the argumentation until now is true, then it means we can offer a theoretical equation for resilience. Your resilience is equal to the amount of challenge your body, mind, and soul can overcome, as shown in the figure below. 

Resilience and Leadership

Leadership is human-centric, because processes and things simply do what you tell them to do, whereas humans can choose to freely follow another human or not. Leadership is about the human for the sake of them as a person. Management is about ensuring an organizational mission is accomplished, but that doesn’t inherently require humans. It only requires humans to the extent that advanced robotics and computers are not capable. Management treats humans as a means to an end – a way to accomplish an organizational goal – as opposed to treating humans as ends in themselves. 

Leadership is about the outcome of the human for the sake of that person’s fulfillment of their best self and always without force, coercion, influence and other psychological levers of management science. Leadership may help an individual or group become more prepared to contribute to an organizational goal like the fire service, but it’s not accountable to the fire service. In other words, a manager can be fired for not doing his job because he has a responsibility to the organization. A leader has a responsibility to his follower(s), not any particular organization. Yes, one person can do both. 

Based on the definition from Operational Intelligence for Health, Wellness, and Leadership, leadership does need to be goal-oriented. But it’s not about an organizational mission. The goal is to support the evolution of the individual or group to be more resilient in their body, mind, or soul so they can overcome more challenges. In the figure above, a theoretical equation for leadership asserts it’s equal to how much growth you helped others achieve, from baseline, in their body, mind, or soul over time. The time component demonstrates the individual or group has adopted the behavior. 

Final Thoughts

Leadership and resilience are sexy words. They sound great when you’re using them to try to motivate people and sound important. But they’re complex concepts that are definable. And as Operational Intelligence for Health, Wellness, and Leadership asserts, the two concepts are directly connected. You become more resilient by learning how to grow your body, mind, and soul from others who are helping you be a better version of yourself. Management science can achieve human evolution, but it uses psychological levers like force, coercion, and influence. Leadership is purely voluntary. 

We need good management because organizations are accountable to stakeholders. For the fire service, we’re accountable to the county or city we serve. The stakeholders and their representatives ensure the organization is fulfilling its mission within an acceptable tolerance of deviation. Too much deviation from the policies or guidelines and force, coercion, influence, or carrot-and-stick methods will be deployed to keep organizational members in line. You don’t have to fully agree with an organizational mission, but if you don’t abide by the policies, you’ll be met with management science. 

As covered in my previous article, leadership as a noun is virtually no different from management as a noun. It just refers to people in charge of others. However, leadership as a verb is about action. It doesn’t require membership in an organization. Leadership is about helping others become more resilient so they can overcome more challenges.    

Dr. Gamaliel D. Baer is a firefighter/EMT/special operator with Howard County Fire and Rescue (Maryland). He is a reserve officer for the U.S. Coast Guard, and is a faculty member at Johns Hopkins University, where he teaches Leading and Managing Change for the Master of Science in Organizational Leadership. He lives in Howard County, Maryland, with his wife and four kids.