Liberator’s Intent- Calling Up vs, Calling Out

In the realm of leadership and interpersonal relationships, the distinction between “calling out” and “calling up” is profound and can significantly influence the dynamics within any group or community. This concept is not just theoretical but is supported by various psychological and management theories that emphasize positive reinforcement and constructive feedback.

Calling Out vs. Calling Up

Calling Out: This approach often involves highlighting a person’s errors or misbehavior, usually in a manner that can be perceived as confrontational, punitive or shaming. It is often reactive, stemming from frustration or disappointment. The impact of this can be seen in workplace studies, such as those discussed in Daniel Goleman’s works on emotional intelligence, where negative feedback can sometimes lead to a hostile work environment and reduced productivity.

Calling Up: In contrast, this method is proactive and focuses on potential rather than failure. It involves guiding individuals towards a better version of themselves by reminding them of their strengths and the positive outcomes they can achieve. This approach aligns with the principles of transformative leadership, which, according to leadership expert James MacGregor Burns, involves engaging with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality.

Practical Example: Educational Settings

In educational settings, the difference between calling out and calling up can be particularly impactful. Educational psychologist Carol Dweck’s research on “growth mindset” underscores the importance of how we address challenges and failures with students. Telling a student, “You can do better because I know your potential,” (calling up) instead of “You failed because you didn’t try hard enough,” (calling out) can encourage a student to engage more deeply and persistently with their learning tasks.

Application in Leadership

For leaders, the intent should always be to elevate and empower. This is vividly illustrated in the leadership style of someone like Nelson Mandela, who, despite numerous personal and communal challenges, consistently chose to uplift rather than condemn. His leadership was not about pointing fingers but about raising a nation to new heights of self-identity and mutual respect.

Conclusion

Thus, the role of a liberator, or any leader aiming for the highest good of their followers, is fundamentally about being “for” the people—supporting, empowering, and inspiring them towards their best selves. This approach not only fosters individual growth and freedom but cultivates a culture of collaboration and positive reinforcement, which are essential for any thriving community or organization.

In essence, whether in personal relationships, educational environments, or leadership roles, the choice to call up rather than call out can define the trajectory of growth and the quality of interactions within any group. This is the heart of transformative leadership and a testament to the power of positive intent and constructive communication.