Rank-Based vs. Peer-Based Assumptions

Going through Nielsen's work, The Myth of Leadership, I find this distinction of assumptions valuable for evaluating my own leadership. So here it is:

Rank-Based Assumptions------ Peer-Based Assumptions
Employees are lazy ------ Employees are productive
Employees are selfish ------ Employees are caring
Leaders are heroic individuals ------ Each individual is unique
Leaders command and control ------ General input and participation
Knowledge at the top ------ Knowledge at all levels
Manipulation ------ Cooperation

So, there you have it. Of course, here is our own particular challenge as human beings. When we see words like "manipulation" or "selfish," we instinctively more often than not rush to denial. The power of self-deception runs high. How often does anyone consciously say, "Let's manipulate the group today?" Not often. Yes, there is this danger of saying, "I know more." How often does the "top" say, "We know better?" Nielsen's distinctions are dangerous for they challenge the very foundation of our own belief system.

Yet, interestingly enough, we have within our own faith tradition, an example of a "peer-based organization:" we call it, "The Trinity."

Until next time...

Transactional vs. Transformational

While working on my doctoral thesis proposal, I've been reading Leighton Ford's, Transforming Leadership. (If you look to the right sidebar, you will see it on my Shelfari Shelf.) Written back in '91, he summarizes the work of renowned scholar, writer, and consultant, Bernard Bass (the father of taking Burns' Transforming Leadership and finding ways of measuring it). His summary serves as a great point of discussion. I quote him below:

• "Transactional leaders work within the situation; transformational leaders change the situation.
• Transactional leaders accept what can be talked about; transformational leaders change what can be talked about.
• Transactional leaders accept the rules and values; transformational leaders change them.
• Transactional leaders talk about payoffs; transformational leaders talk about goals.
• Transactional leaders bargain; transformational leaders symbolize." (22)

Quite an evaluation! While I would like to believe I am transformational, more often than not I find myself transactional. Why just the other day as I was reflecting on the direction of a conversation I was having with someone, I realized I was much more willing to bargain than to symbolize. I know, there are some who will try to blunt the sound of what Ford has summarized as a way of playing it safe. I wonder, though, "Did God play it safe?" Ouch!

His,
John

Race to Ideas

Just read an article from HBR on leading when not the boss. It reminded me of something I observe when speaking with people about situations: Most of us rush to ideas. We all want to make a contribution, an action that makes a difference in our local environment. We see things, hear things, and then we, more often than not, hurry to not only a conclusion but an action, or a suggested action. Notice what the author says:

"Effective leaders, by contrast, learn to think systematically--that is, they gather and lay out the necessary data, analyze the causes of the situation, and propose actions based on this analysis. In a group, leaders help keep participants focused by asking appropriate questions. Do we have the information we need to analyze this situation? Can we focus on figuring out the causes of the problem we're trying to solve?"

One of my improvement areas is finding ways to ask better questions. Honestly, I tend to direct much more than ask. This isn't always the best. In our race to ideas, our race to action to face a situation, sometimes the situation appears to offer little time and thus, viola, we race to an action solution.

So, I'll conclude with the question posed above: "Can we focus on figuring out the causes of the problem we're trying to solve?" Or, will we continue to blow through stop signs and drive dangerously, wondering why blue lights flash behind?

Until next time!

Individual & Community

Won't spend much time on this. Yet, the very issue of the individual vs. the collective is a classic tension retained in all walks of life, including local churches and denominational offices. What happens when the necessities of the individual and the necessities of the community collide? Does it necessarily follow that they do collide? This tension is dynamic to be sure, lurching at times toward one end of the spectrum and then to the other.

If I could characterize scripture for a moment, it would appear the Hebrews scripture center mostly on the community elements of a shared faith while the Christian scriptures tend to move more toward the individual--though there is still a strong communal role. The beauty of this tension is that we are now able to see the church as a system, very much a family system. Edwin Friedman has written much about this. Again, what has been so helpful to my own understanding and practice is to recognize this individual (member) and community (system) way of examining interactions.

Finally, what is scary is the observation by Friedman that more often than not, a local congregation will over time take on the family system of the pastor/priest's family of origin. Now, there's a sobering image as I head off into the weekend! Happy Weekend!

Permanently Suspicious

Those who know me, know one of the most influential writers in my life has been Vaclav Havel. His speech entitled, "The Anatomy of Hate," is one of the best I've ever come across on the subject of the insidiousness of our own self-deception.

I came across this quote by him this week: “Again, being in power makes me permanently suspicious of myself. What is more, I suddenly have a greater understanding of those who are starting to lose their battle with the temptations of power.”

I am constantly reminded of my own self-deception, partly the belief that I am better than I really am. Serving near a graveside today reminded me that we are all headed to the same place, a la Ecclesiastes. The question is, "What path shall I take there?" Will it be the path where I believe I alone stand or will it be the path that claims my own sinfulness and weakness as the opportunity for God's strength and righteousness?

I am reminded of this as I head into a difficult finance committee meeting at our school, recognizing the challenges we face are greater than our own human attempts. I believe part of leadership is the recognition that I am in over my head and moments like gravesides and board rooms remind me of this.

Ciao!

Ideas

As I have begun visiting various "core leadership" in our church, I've discovered there are many with a whole host of good ideas. Ideas are good. We need ideas. What my hope is that over time, we can recreate the context from which those ideas come. IOW, ideas flow from some way of seeing the world, what is commonly referred to as "paradigms." In our particular part of the world, pragmatism appears to be one of the highest values. We rush to ideas. Yet...I wonder....

What if we caught different visions, identified the deep roots of life, those things so basic to the way we live life that we rarely ever stop to ask, "Is this the only way to see?" If the radical story of Jesus concerns itself with a radical difference in the way we relate to this Divine God, then the way we relate to self and others probably will be radically different. "If a grain of seed falls and dies," seems to be the theme.

The life of the church extends from the ongoing and ceaseless activity of a Spirit that penetrates the deep places of every person open to walking the Way. Ideas are great...but what about the corridors of the soul from whence those ideas flow?

Back in the Saddle

Okay. I know, it's been a while. Honestly, my friend asked about my blog and I decided, "Hey, what a good time to get back into the saddle." So, here I go. I am currently editing my thesis proposal, hoping to have something concrete to send for a first inspection to my advisors by the end of the week.

Came across this quote, a really great quote that I believe inspires a dream, a dream for what leadership can be like, for hopefully, I can become. Consultant, professor, and writer Jeffrey Nielsen makes two observations about organizations:

1. Genuine communication occurs only between equals
2. Secrecy frequently breeds corruption and abuse of power

He continues, "In the absence of equality, you'll seldom have honest, open communication. You tell those above you only what you think they want to hear, and you tell those beneath you only what you think they need to know. This creates not only low levels of trust between individuals, but a growing gap between business reality and the world of the top executives." Doesn't this sound like a part of what is going on in our meltdown? He makes the distinction between "Rank-based leadership" and "Peer-based leadership." Let's see how he tracks over the coming weeks together!

Anyways, back in the saddle. Time to keep writing--after all, I have a thesis to complete. TTFN.