This book had some valuable insights for me. Primarily, it helped me have a stronger sense of the way the body can be a reflection of the mind and heart. It is a helpful application of Eastern religious and philosophical ideas to the embodied person as he relates to others in the business and leadership context.
Unfortunately, this benefit is as much in spite of the message of the book as because of it. There are two fundamental flaws in the logic of this book.
First, the author attempts to argue that these ideas are not Eastern, but are rather universal truths reflected both in the Eastern and Western traditions. This simply isn't true. And it creates an awkward situation in which the author is constantly trying to impose Eastern thought on Western figures and concepts. Two examples will give a sense of it:
1) He tries to argue that in Aristotle's "Rhetoric," the concept of ethos is "a type of leadership" (p. 25). Of course we need only look at the title of the book (Rhetoric) and know anything at all about the era in which Aristotle lived to know that he wasn't writing about leadership. He goes on to argue that Aristotle's concept of ethos is "a leadership virtue distinct from rhetoric or persuasive language" (p. 26). Ethos is, according to this author, a "way of being in the world, a presence and comportment" (p. 26). He continues to press the point until he lands at this gem of forcefully twisted nonsense: "Ethos is not simply an intellectual principle of character, but a living body presence." He then proceeds to act like Aristotle thought the way you carried your body—not your self per se, but your body per se—is the fundamental tell of who you are as a person. I'll leave an Eastern scholar to comment on whether this is what Eastern philosophy argues, but I can state quite firmly that this is a violent perversion of Aristotle's ideas.
2) At one point, the author quotes Francis Bacon (inaccurately and uncited) as saying "I know not why but the martial person is given to love" (p. 168). The author argues that Bacon understood that hand-to-hand combat involves a blending of oneself with one's opponent in an understanding, respectful, almost loving way. Of course in reality, Bacon has just said that love is for the weak and immediately follows the quote by comparing being in love to being drunk.
It's hard to imagine how either of these examples could even be good faith mistakes. Interestingly, they both come with examples of plagiarism in the immediate context. So that's the first flaw. He tries to force Eastern ideas to be Western. And in doing so leaves the reader wondering whether he's dishonest or just ignorant.
Second, the author's basic argument is absurd. He argues that "the idea of a self, or mind, that is independent of the body is an error of rationalistic thinking" (p. 86). Never mind that this idea predates rationalism as an ideology by over a thousand years at least. And never mind that nothing could be more profoundly Western than to recognise the self as transcending the body. The statement doesn't even hold up under basic logical or scientific scrutiny. Yet the author builds the whole book on the "fact" that everything we do is mediated through our bodies and can be changed or fixed through changes in our bodies. He walks the reader through many examples of changing psychological/spiritual/mental problems through physical exercises in the "leadership dojo." He usually gives a detailed psychological analysis, but then hangs it loosely on things like posture, muscle tension, "hard eyes," etc. And then after addressing the psychological problem (complete with psychological analysis and therapeutic response) tries to make out that the solution was found in changing the way he stood and his posture and his facial habits. It's thin. Very thin. Which is fine. There's certainly something to his point. And I'm glad he's made it. But I wish he had made it with enough self-awareness and knowledge to not be inaccurate about the ideas he's trying to work with. And without being anti-intellectual. And realising that he's an amateur psychologist experimenting with what I'll call somatic therapies.
My summary: If you want to understand how Eastern thought might relate to your growth as a person, particularly in leadership roles, there's certainly a bit of meat to be picked off these bones. Just don't trust the author too much. He's either not being straight forward or he doesn't even understand the ideas he's interacting with.