rwheeler – Page 18 – Dr. Ray Wheeler

September 5, 2011

Cross-Cultural Communication – Check Your Assumptions

Cross-cultural Communication Introduces Unexpected Nuances
“What we need,” the CEO said, “is to find global partners who understand the rule of law.” The statement emerged from a discussion about a new global initiative. “We don’t need to get bogged down in corruption, I want our partners to own our core values” the CEO continued. From the perspective of the CEO these two statements were clear and universal sources of certainty and protection as we entered an unknown world of global trade. This perspective had reduced the risk of expansion, hiring and managing competition in the United States. But the deeper challenge inherent in a global initiative would shake these assumptions to their core. Asserting that one’s core values are universal is a fundamental mistake of leaders who enter the global market for the first time. The assumption that one’s own values are universal and the basis to assess all other values is ethnocentrism.

I do not use of the word ethnocentrism pejoratively rather I mean it descriptive. The greatest single challenge to entering a global market is to move from the assumption that one’s own mental categories are both universal and the correct way of assessing reality. It typically comes as a shock to discover that the rest of the world does not share one’s own cultural assumptions. Engaging cultural differences successfully means arriving at the realization that mental categories are culturally defined and thus are not universal. Over time leaders that remain in a global setting gain an appreciation of cultural diversity that recognizes all worldviews are adequate in their context and inadequate to fully comprehend others who are different.

Business leadership today is a multicultural challenge even if one never travels across a national boundary. In a survey in of executives from 68 countries 90% named cross-cultural leadership as the most significant management challenge for the 21^st century. While Friedman’s idea of a flat world is appealing (and verifiable at a surface level) it cannot be taken as permission to do business as usual wherever one travels. The simple fact of the matter is that cultural differences exist despite the common business language and forms that make it seem like differences are minimal. The reality is that cultural nuances impact common business language and forms.

Consider the CEOs assertion that we needed a business partner who understood the rule of law. This seems adequate however the question that immediately arises is whether every legal system around the globe is same as that which we use in the United States? When working across cultures remember that what is seen and heard in the mind’s eye of people from different cultures may result in widely divergent understanding of the same situation and as a result widely different outcomes.

John C. Tobin notes that, “…even cultures that share the same legal systems may view the formation of legal states, such as a contract, or breach of contract, from fundamentally different viewpoints.”[i] Why is this? The simple answer returns us to the reality that cultural differences exist and these differences mean that situations interpreted from one cultural perspective to another remain dissimilar. The rule of law may be founded on either the adversarial system rooted in the common law developed in Elizabethan England or inquisitorial system rooted in Napoleonic Code.

Adversarial systems work from two pillars (a) that an impartial judge serves with broad discretion as a fact finder sifting through the competing arguments of adversaries represented by advocates and (b) the principle of stare decisis i.e., that the impartial judge applies the text of the law to the controlling facts he or she has determined in a fashion that harmonizes with prior decisions so that the interpretation of the law remains consistent over time. Stare decisis is a Latin phrase that roughly translates to “to stand by that which is decided.”

Inquisitorial systems derive from Napoleonic code in which the judge not the parties involved in a dispute determines the initiation, scope and extent of litigation. As a result each case entering the court is unique and is not dependent upon the precedent of other similar cases. In other words the concept of stare decisis that is so important in an adversarial system does has no part in an inquisitorial system yet both systems represent the rule of law.

The CEO’s apparently simple recommendation becomes complex when applied cross-culturally even if we found only potential business partners who said they understood the rule of law. This complexity only amplifies when one considers working in a non-rule of law country i.e., where the enforcement model is personified in a supreme ruler (religious or state entity) where decision-making is strictly defined by religious, ideological or tribal source of law. Cultural differences and how these cultures define risk aversion, power, orientation toward goal or environmental concerns, or individualism versus collectivism in decision-making must be understood to avoid serious misunderstandings.[ii]

Why is Understanding Cultural Differences So Important?

What is culture? If understanding culture is imperative to working in a global environment then it is good to start with a basic definition. Livermore (2010) defines culture as “…any group of people who have a shared way of seeing and making sense of the world.[iii]

Defining culture this way allows us to consider the impact of organizational as well as national and ethnic cultures (or regional cultures). Possessing the ability to adapt to various ways in which groups of people see and make sense of the world has specific benefits. Livermoore (2010) calls this adaptive ability “Cultural Intelligence” and notes that it is essential to:

Understand customers – emerging markets (overseas markets) are expected to grow by an average of 30 to 50 percent over the next several years.
Manage personnel – recognizing cultural differences and one’s own cultural assumptions enable leaders to achieve the right blend of flexibility and rigidity in managing operations.
Recruit talent – organizations that practice cultural intelligence are more likely to recruit and retain talent that (a) understand the context and (b) interpret organizational values into various cultural contexts and vice verse.
Adapt leadership style – regional, national and organizational cultures influence the kind of leadership that is acceptable and effective within specific cultural settings
Communicate respect – respect or benevolence is critical to building trust and the commitment, contribution, confidence and conviction needed to secure superior employee engagement.

I have noted elsewhere that leaders must master communication. In its simplest form communication is the ability to outline the actions a team or group must take to carry out a task. This sounds simple yet outlining actions also requires that a leader understand and outline their own values, expectations and the reason for the action and communicate this in light of the way values, expectations and reasons for action taken as understood from the cultural perspective of those who are listening. In fact the greater the scope of leadership responsibility and the more diverse the cultural differences the more complex the layers of communication become so that verbal and symbolic multilayered communication is critical for the success of the organization.

How Do I Develop Cultural Intelligence?

Leaders who wish to avoid the trap of ethnocentrism (i.e., “evaluating other people and their culture by the standards of our own cultural preferences”) can start by following four simple steps.[iv]

First, see culture’s role in your own life as well as in other’s lives. It helps to have a basic model of culture from which to assess your own perspectives and the perspectives of others. One way to start is to use Gert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. These dimensions of culture include:

Power distance: the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions accept or expect that power be distributed unequally. The basic problem involved is the degree of human inequality that underlies the function of each particular society.
Uncertainty avoidance: the extent to which a culture programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations. Unstructured situations are novel, unknown, surprising, and different from usual. The basic problem involved is the degree to which a society tries to control the uncontrollable.
Individualism/collectivism: the degree to which people look after themselves or stay integrated into groups, usually around the family. Positioning itself between these poles is a very basic problem all societies face.
Masculinity/femininity: refers to the distribution of emotional roles between the genders, which is another fundamental problem for any society to which a range of solutions are found; it opposes “tough” masculine to “tender” feminine societies.
Long-term/short-term orientation: refers to the extent to which a culture programs its members to accept delayed gratification of their material, social, and emotional needs.

Second, review the basic cultural systems – gain a familiarity with the culture’s economic, marriage and family, political, religious, legal, and artistic systems. Talk with several people who are part of the culture in which you intend to work. Ask why at least five times and of different people. Asking “why” more than once gets past surface level responses to the deeper assumptions of the culture. This assumes that (a) you have done some research or reading about the culture and its worldview and (b) you spend time in the culture. I call this: getting three blocks in. One of my first cross-cultural adventures started at a port in the Middle East. I noticed that things seemed somewhat familiar to me until I walked about three blocks off the water front. It was there that I entered a completely different world and felt altogether disoriented. Embrace that sense of disorientation and loss of control. It is part of gaining cultural intelligence.

Third, learn the core cultural values of the culture in which you intend to work. Be aware of the reality that values defined by a cultural mentor may not correspond with how people actually act. Argyris and Schön define this paradox as the difference between espoused theories and theories in use. Hofstede calls this the distinction between desired behaviors and desirable behaviors. The distinction is important to recognize the difference between actions (the desired that indicates values in action on the basis of the person and the situation) and words (which provides the ideal [desirable] that is held as a standard for determining action. The tension between the desired and the desirable is found in every culture. The point is that to understand culture it is imperative to see both aspects of what leads to action and decision-making.

Fourth, understand the different languages. Ideally working in a cross-cultural capacity leads to learning a second language and becoming proficient in conversation. In many business environments today however business people spend very little time and may cross multiple cultures. Even in this case learning the basics of language in light of the cultural dimensions identified by Hofstede make the difference between being successful in forming business alliances or failing altogether. One need not be a linguist to learn a second language. One of my first international assignments found me working with leaders from Latin America. So, I determined to become at least somewhat functional in conversational Spanish. I told my secretary of this goal. She said, “Are you sure?” “Then I will only use Spanish when I talk with you so that you practice and learn to speak Spanish.” These were the last words she said to me in English.

After a week of frustration and growing agitation on my part she asked me a rhetorical question in English. “Ray, did you arrive from your mother’s womb speaking perfect English? No, you cooed and mimicked and practiced sounds until you began to put together sounds with objects. No one understood you at first and you did not understand them but still you made noise. What makes you think you can learn Spanish as an adult? Become a child again or you will never learn how to think and see in Spanish and so you will never speak it.” Learning requires that one embrace the awkwardness of curiosity. Without the commitment to be curious like a child the odds of developing cultural intelligence greatly diminish.

Conclusion

As we prepare to launch a new global initiative these lessons revolve around in my head. Like others I don’t like feeling less than competent or out of control yet without feeling these emotions I know that I have not yet begun to move from an ethnocentric view to one that grows in cultural intelligence.

Developing cultural intelligence requires a commitment to learning. Anyone can develop cultural intelligence. However, not everyone will. Learning cultural intelligence provides a clear advantage in the global market place and it has the less obvious benefit of gaining an ability to read every cultural (or political) situation with greater insight into how decisions are made. This benefit is significant for emerging leaders as it minimizes the risk of political missteps within one’s own organization and cross-cultural gaffes in the global market place. If you are a leader learning to work in the global market place tells me how these lessons resonate. What have you learned along the way? What faux pas did you stumble into? Don’t keep the wisdom to yourself help all of us by sharing your experience.

[i] John C. Tobin. “The Legal Implications of Cross-cultural Leadership and Trade” in Contemporary Leadership and Intercultural Competence ed. Michael A. Moodian (Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2009), 66.

[ii] Gert Hofstede. Culture’s Consequences in Work Related Values (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1980).

[iii] David Livermore. Leading with Cultural Intelligence: the New Secret to Success (New York, NY: American Management Association, 2010), 13.

[iv] Livermore, 64.

September 3, 2011

Do You Know Where You Are Going?

Leaders See the Road Ahead
Will Mancini of Auxano provides a great summary of what he calls the Vision Frame.[1] It is a quick way to review the work of the church in light of its mission and thus shift the focus of assessment from attendance and money to the outcomes the church is commissioned to generate.

The Vision Frame focuses thinking on values, measures, mission and strategy. The frame is illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1: The Vision Frame

Frame Component	Missional Reorientation	Answers	Irreducible Question of Leadership
Mission	Mandate	Question zero	What are we doing?
Values	Motives	Question hero	Why are we doing it?
Strategy	Map	Question how	How are we doing it?
Measures	Marks	Question now	When are we successful?
Vision Proper	Mountain top + milestones	Question wow	Where is God taking us?

The question asked by Mancini is, “Do you have compelling answer to these five questions?” These questions define the DNA of your congregation so to the degree to which the answers are fuzzy your team will lack focus and experience dissonance between what they hope to carry out and what is actually happening.

Next Steps

Now that you have these questions in hand why not take time with your key leaders and work through each of them. Keep it simple. The task is to bring clarity that inspires action in the same direction. As a leader you serve as a catalyst to this kind of thinking.

Not sure if you are a leader? Consider the definition below. If you find yourself living out these characteristics then you do want to take another look at how you assess your influence.

If you are confident you are a leader then use the definition below to double-check how you are doing.

What is leadership?

Leadership is the capacity, moral authority and skill needed to influence a group’s goal attainment in an ethical, spiritual and socially responsible way. Leadership is a spiritual gift (Romans 12: 3, 8). The Apostle Paul encourages leaders to do act with diligence i.e., earnest thoroughness and attentiveness in accomplishing the task.

Lead well! Have fun!

[1] Will Mancini. “The Vision Frame; The Core Tool for Visionary Church Leaders” available at http://www.willmancini.com/the-vision-frame-the-core-tool-for-visionary-church-leaders; accessed 2 Sep 2011.

August 28, 2011

Did You Promote the Right Person?

Bad Hiring Decisions are Painful

I could hear his voice trailing off on the other end of the phone. He had asked me to assess his company’s job contracts to name the core competencies of each position because his top executive was not performing up to speed. The lack of performance was impacting revenues and morale in negative ways.

“Based on this set of competencies I moved this person up before they were ready…” his insight focused more on his own mistake than the frustration and anger he had earlier expressed at the flagging financial performance and imploding morale. We talked about the next steps he will take to correct a difficult situation. After the conversation I thought about how organizations find and develop the leaders they need. It is not an easy job particularly in small to mid range privately held companies like that of my friend’s. The challenges of finding the right talent to support a successful company are manifold. What needs to be considered?

Don’t Make Me Manager

The first challenge is the fact that some people do not want to lead. Who are the next generation of leaders in your organization? According to the Ranstad World of Work Survey (2009) over half of US workers would say “no thanks” if offered a promotion to a manager’s position.[i] All they see is stress and the discomfort of working with unhappy subordinates. The challenge of this reality is that (a) it disallows the use of knowledge and experience gained by these employees and (b) it may show a problem in how employees perceive the organizational culture.[ii]

According to the Randstad survey, 68% of workers over age 64, 50% of “boomers” (age 45-63), and 47% of “Gen X” (age 30-44) report they’d refuse a job with supervisory status. In the survey the primary reasons given for avoiding management opportunities were:

increased level of stress
handling disgruntled employees
increased paperwork
having to fire or layoff employees

If half a company’s employees feel this way what about the other half? How does a leader or business owner develop a leadership mindset that realistically understands both the challenges and the opportunities of leadership? If the reason leadership is unattractive consists of the realities above the benefits also emerge in the survey. Those who expressed an interest in becoming a supervisor wanted to:

Share their knowledge and experience with others (89%)
Be responsible for the success of an organization (85%)
Be able to influence decisions (85%)
Be responsible for a budget (47%)
Work in a high pressure environment (37%)

The survey authors expressed surprise that the respondents did not point to a desire for increased power, recognition, or even more money. However the issue of power and recognition is inferred in the answers that were given.

Understand Motivation – Not Everyone Makes a Good Leader

Power and other leadership motivations has been the subject of significant research. Thomas (2008) notes that three dominate motivations evidence themselves in the work force: achievement, association and power. He contends that power is the motivation that makes leaders effective and those people who are uncomfortable with power should reconsider accepting leadership roles. Does this negate the findings of the Ranstadt survey? No, but it may explain the deeper motivational issues behind the reasons why employees want to enter management roles. It is important to define each of Thomas’ motivational labels.[iii]

Achievement is concerned with excellence and efficiency. It is a preference for personal work and those motivated by achievement typically exhibit low emotional intelligence (a prerequisite for success as a leader) and moderate risk taking capacity or desire. For those motivated by achievement the focus is on getting things right. People motivated by achievement have the potential to develop deep understanding. However, achievement motivated people also face the pitfall of rejecting ambiguity or forcing facts to a premature synthesis.

Affiliation is characterized in a concern with friendship, wanting to be liked or accepted or to take part in social situations. People motivated by affiliation make great support people however they experience a significant amount of stress in leadership/management situations. They have a high emotional intelligence which is a great leadership characteristic however they also have a low willingness to undertake risks. Their discomfort in leadership roles stems in part from the tendency to see feedback as personal. Those motivated by affiliation have a dynamic ability to involve others and they generate a broad influence. The pitfall faced by a person motivated by affiliation is a strong tendency toward projection and blame shifting.

Power is demonstrated in a concern with influence and influence relationships. A person motivated by power usually possesses high emotional intelligence, willingness to take moderate risks in influence situations, either high or low risks in task situations, verbal facileness, a preference for qualitative feedback and ability to persist in a goal for lengthy periods without feedback or with negative feedback. The focus of those motivated by power is a focus on getting the right things done and recognizing the potential for new action. The pitfall faced by a person motivated by power is isolationism and resistance to internal probing (i.e., they are less willing to challenge their own assumptions).

Does the emphasis on power set the stage for unleashing Machiavellian tyranny on the workforce? Power is not the end that effective leaders pursue, hence the lack of mention in the respondents of the Ranstadt survey. However, it is the means that effective leaders use to achieve the kinds of results the respondents mentioned. Notice that the ends described by the survey respondents include a willingness to accept responsibility (versus skirting responsibility), engage influence (versus manipulation or power-mongering) and serve others (the point of servant leadership research).

Based on research motivation is important to leadership success. Based on Thomas’ work on motivation we know that those motivated by power have a somewhat easier time in adjusting to the demands of leadership/management roles. While this is helpful in coaching potential leaders a prior step should be taken. Before starting a search for leaders identify clear criteria – don’t go on first impressions alone. Use criteria to apply more rigorous evaluation of potential candidates.

Identify Clear Criteria

In considering who may make a good leader/manager or who may not a clear criteria is advisable especially in light of the fact that managers are not only depended upon to propel the mission and profitability of the organization forward but are also called upon to problem solve, drive productivity and innovation and offer opportunities for employees to develop. This is especially true in times of recession when efficiency and managing cost is very much a focus.

“Especially in periods of economic recessions, companies rely on managers to problem solve, drive productivity and innovation, [and] motivate and provide opportunities for workers,” said Eileen Habelow, Randstad Senior Vice President. “It’s not just doom and gloom that managers are focusing on today. Companies must make sure they consistently recognize managers’ valuable contributions, not only to the company, but to the broader workforce.”

When thinking about criteria for identifying effective leaders six characteristics identified by Watkins offer a starting point.[iv]

Competence: Does this person have the technical competence and experience to do the job effectively?
Judgment: Does this person exercise good judgment, especially under pressure or when faced with making sacrifices for the greater good?
Energy: Does this team member bring the right kind of energy to the job, or is he or she burned out or disengaged?
Focus: Is this person capable of setting priorities and sticking to them, or prone to “riding off in all directions”?
Relationships: Does this person get along with others on the team and support collective decision-making, or is he or she difficult to work with?
Trust: Can you trust this person to keep his or her word and follow through on commitments?

The two greatest mistakes I see business owners and other leaders make in promoting new leaders is (a) promoting too quickly for some sense of urgency – as when a business or organization grows quickly and (b) promoting prematurely because they wish to sidestep the rigor of establishing disciplined and efficient business processes (sometimes called the premature success syndrome and seen primarily in small business owners who equate steady cash flow with success without assessing their organization’s true financial health).

So now that you have an idea of the candidate’s motivation, a good assessment of whether your potential candidates meet you criteria it is now a good idea to create a checklist to guide your implementation.

Create a Check List

Use a check list to think through the process you need in your own organization. Notice that the suggested checklist uses more than one set of eyes to check the candidate’s capacity and ability to work effectively in a new leadership role.

The candidate has performed their current duties in a satisfactory way.
The candidate possesses the minimum education and/or industry knowledge and experience needed to succeed at the new role.
The candidate’s current supervisor recommends the candidate to the new role.
We have created a clear transition strategy to help the candidate and their new direct reports and their new supervisor adjust to the new role.
The human resources department agrees to the promotion to the new role.

Conclusion

Recruiting and employing the right leaders/managers in your business, organization or department is critical to building a consistently effective operation. By using rigor in your selection process you avoid the most common mistakes. This is not a comprehensive paper on identifying leaders but it gives a start. What other factors should be considered? What is the situational context of your organization? Is it a start-up, a turn around, a success that needs to be sustained? What are your short-term and long-term goals? Use criteria and a good process to focus your search on the right talent. Is there one other piece of advice? Yes, don’t use financial restrictions as your first criteria. I have had clients tell me they could not afford to hire the right talent. This is rarely true. Why? The right talent is typically motivated by more than money. The reality is that the right talent will pay for themselves.

[i] Source: http://pihra.lawroom.com/Story.aspx?&STID=2076; accessed 8 Sep. 2009.

[ii] Happiness at work is a measurable aspect of employee commitment, contribution, conviction, culture and confidence and a concept that quantifies the impact of an organization’s culture on employee performance. The significance of happiness cannot be understated. For more information see: http://www.leadership-praxis.com/leverage-self-awareness/ and the article, “Are you Happy at Work – Does it Matter” – available at http://raywheeler.wordpress.com/2011/05/01/are-you-happy-at-work-does-it-matter/).

[iii] Robert Thomas. Crucibles of Leadership: How to Learn from Experience to Become a Great Leader (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing, 2008), 101-02.

[iv] Michael Watkins. The First 90 Days: Critical Success Strategies for New Leaders at all Levels(Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press, 2003), 163.

August 9, 2011

Growing or Stuck: how to turn experience into wisdom

What separates leaders who learn from leaders who seem stuck? Leaders who learn share three critical characteristics in my experience.
First they seek out new models (frames) from which to interpret their situation. Effective leaders understand that in a rapidly changing environment their own frame of reference cannot sufficiently interpret the full complexity of the situations they face. So, they not only gather others who have a different expertise from their own, they also find new ways of evaluating data and experiment with these taxonomies by rethinking their conclusions.

Second, they practice critical reflection every day. That is they assess the actions and the reactions/results those actions generated with a consistently disciplined approach of asking two questions. What was good about what I saw today? What was bad about what I saw today? This practice of asking dialectical questions gives them an ability to anticipate unexpected consequences a little sooner than those who don’t practice this discipline.

Third, they are always listening. I am a little surprise by how much effective leaders “hear.” The ability to be fully engaged in a situation or conversation leads effective leaders to hear verbal and observe non-verbal communication. These leaders literally listen with their eyes as well as their ears and pick up subtle distinctions in expression, posture or tone that leads them to ask new questions. In fact this ability to ask penetrating questions seems like a deep intuition but it seems to me as I see these leaders that it is not so much intuition but the ability to stay engaged in a conversation that gives them the clues they need to work with.

It is not possible to fully function as a leader without these three traits. I am often surprised by those inexperienced managers who believe leadership is the same thing as barking commands. Most highly effective leaders I see ask far more questions than they do make statements. It is this ability to interrogate reality that opens the door to deeper understanding.

How well to you listen? Do you reflect on your days using a dialectic approach or do you simply rewind your opinion, fears, belligerence thus failing to see how your own actions may be a significant part of the problem your team faces? Try these three skills – they will help you grow your leadership capacity and insight.

July 3, 2011

Servant Leadership and the Pursuit of Excellence

Being a Servant or Whole-sale Self-Preservation
Sometimes the best way to understand a concept is by looking at it in the stark contrast of its opposite. This is certainly true for the concept of servant leadership. Besides sounding a bit like an oxymoron to some the phrase, “servant leadership” seems too ambiguous to put into action. What does servant leadership look like in the daily grind and more importantly does it make a difference?

I am indebted to Tim Rutten of the Los Angeles Times for his op-ed piece on the plight of the Los Angeles Dodgers. Rutten’s article about owner Frank McCourt’s chapter 11 bankruptcy filing provides the perfect contrast to the concept of servant leadership. So, the following is a definition of the opposite of servant leadership:

His latest maneuver – a desperate flight into chapter 11 bankruptcy protection – essentially makes one of Los Angeles’ civic treasures, the Dodgers, a hostage. It’s always a sad spectacle when mediocrity and cunning are mobilized by an instinct for self-preservation so all-consuming that it would countenance the ruin of everyone involved.[1]

What caught my attention is not the extraordinary degree of transparency that accompanies celebrity crises – I have no wish to take potshots at the trauma the McCourt’s share in their divorce and very public business failings. I cannot avoid the fact that every leader walks in full view of others – including those who show a pattern of self-preservation. The pattern of self-preservation identified in Rutten’s article is the opposite of what one expects to find in a servant leader.

What seems to escape some of the leaders I work with is that their employees actually know what is going on and see their leaders arrogantly marching through the business like the king in his new clothes. The only person who is unaware of the naked reality of the leader’s behavior is the leader.

Behavior is an Amazingly Transparent Judge of Intention

If employees are so observant then why don’t they say something to the leaders to stave the ultimate collapse of the organization or business generated by a leader’s “spectacle of mediocrity”? They do. I recently worked with a functional team in a manufacturing plant who watched their manager go down in flames financially, morally, ethically over a sexual liaison with one of his direct reports. The rest of the team saw the shenanigans of the manager clearly for what they were – while the manager apparently felt confident he had successfully covered his very exposed backside. If you lead others (have any position in which others report to you) then understand that your reports see you for what you are because they see your behavior. Why is it that we think what we say can actually cover up what we really do?

The employees watching the self-destructive machinations of their manager alerted the chain of command. Another six months passed before senior management acted on what the employees told them. The senior management understandably wanted to collect evidence of the violation but there was more to it than that. Leaders don’t hear or see their employees as clearly as their employees see the leader’s behavior for the simple reason that some leaders see others through a distorted lens as mere objects to be used or manipulated to achieve their personal goals. As people we are loath to admit this yet…seeing ourselves as others see us can be startling. The distortion of how we see others is not an either/or reality. It is a perspective on a scale of intensity. Yet, to the degree it exists at all it still has a negative impact.

In their book, Leadership and Self-Deception: Getting Out of the Box, the Arbinger Institute tell a story that raises some simple questions that serve quite effectively as mirrors to how we view those around us.[2] These questions test not only one’s perspective of others but demonstrate the degree servant leadership exists in behavior. Test yourself for a moment, are you a servant leader?

Do you remember when you had the chance to fill the care with gas before your spouse took it, did you decide he/she could fill it up just as easily as you, so you took the car home empty?
Do you remember the time you promised the kids a trip to the ballpark but backed out at the last minute, on some feeble excuse because something more appealing had come up?
Do you remember the time you took the kids to the ball game anyway but made them feel guilty for it?
Do you remember the time you parked in the Handicapped Only parking zone and then faced a limp so people wouldn’t think you were a total jerk?
Do you remember the time, when reading to your toddler, you cheated him by turning more than one page at a time because you were impatient and “he wouldn’t notice anyway?”
Do you sometimes demean others?
Are you sometimes punishing and disdainful toward people around you, scornful of their laziness and incompetence?
Do you more often try to do the acceptable thing? Do you indulge the people who report to you with kindness and all the other “soft stuff” you can think of to get them to do what you want – even though you still feel scornful toward them?

Here is the point – people see behavior for what it is. Don’t rush past this sentence. Stop – if you see these behaviors/attitudes in you then admit them. Self awareness, being aware of the impact of your behavior on others, is critical to effective leadership and it is the essence of servant leadership.

So what is the business point? Behaviors such as those implicit in the questions above cause employees to disengage, reduce their commitment, max their sick time, engage in work slowdowns and switch to new jobs at rates far higher than their counterparts who work for bosses who understand their attitudes are transparent in their behaviors. This understanding generates either continued denial or deep change. When deep change occurs then the pursuit of excellence also emerges – excellence that seeks to raise the capabilities and capacity of everyone on the team. Excellence is not achievement or power or affiliation. Excellence requires a participation entire networks which makes strong and healthy personal relationships absolutely essential.

Servant Leadership

The pursuit of excellence, that quality of product and service that differentiates one group from all others, is not a simply rhetorical device of business schools trying to increase their tuition cash flow by garnering desperate students trying to survive the global economy. The pursuit of excellence is the best pathway toward profitability in a market crowded with hawkers. It is my thesis that the exercise of servant leadership is one of the fastest ways to reinforce the commitment, contribution, confidence, conviction and cultural alignment of employees around the values of a company (assuming those values seek the greater good). So what is servant leadership?

The servant-leader is servant first . . . It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions. For such it will be a later choice to serve—after leadership is established. The leader- first and the servant- first are two extreme types. Between them there are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature. . . The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant- first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served.[3]

Servant leadership is an orientation to leadership that owns a transparent moral imperative, exercises personal awareness for the impact of behaviors, recognizes the contribution potential of employees and builds a culture characterized by modeling, mentoring, development, discipline and fun. Servant leadership engages the essential activities of vision, structure, profitability and benevolence in an accessible way to employees, board members, stakeholders and stockholders.

When Ken Melrose (former CEO of Toro) stepped into his role at Toro the company was losing money with sales plummeting from $400 million annually to $200 million annually. The perspective Melrose took to the assignment was one of servant leadership. Melrose believed in people. He states, “You have to grow good people to be even better people. It’s like growing fine turf. You need to feed (train) them, pull them up in time of need (nurture and motivate them), and basically give them room to grow (empower them). Toro has great people, which makes for a good work environment.”

The changes Melrose initiated at Toro started with a significant reduction of force and a reduction in perks (servant leadership does not mean avoiding difficult realities – conversely it means facing them squarely). Everyone shared the burden of the circumstance including the executive suite. Melrose intentionally exercised servant leadership and created a company culture in which employees know they work for the customers and everyone is empowered to serve the customers. Did servant leadership work? Near the end of his service sales at Toro hit $1.4 billion!

Conclusion

Clearly the future of Dodger baseball in Los Angeles now seems to depend on the removal of its narcissistic owner – what does the future of your organization need? In his pursuit of greatness Frank McCourt only demonstrated that the essence of greatness i.e., character and service, was not part of the equation of his pursuit. Leaders whose quest is to appear great, who demand respect or loyalty from the cowering masses, who stomp in angry tirades about all their enemies show the world by their behavior that they neither understand greatness/achievement nor have what it takes to get there.

Conversely leaders who see their power, privilege and position as a platform for serving others understand how to be attentive, inquisitive, transparent and focused. Their pursuit of goals does not find a stumbling block or barrier in the presence of others. Instead they inspire others to the same nobility of cause and commitment of action. Servant leadership creates a culture of service that doesn’t have to consistently harangue their employees on customer care, the dismantling of silos, or reduction of waste. Servant leadership creates a culture of care, collaboration and concern that consistently addresses the money generating values of the business with the passion of ownership and pride. Why not focus on being a servant leader?

What does your organization need to thrive in the future? If you have followed the career path of the Dodgers’ present owner then your organization needs to remove and replace you. If you follow the other path, the path of servant leadership then the question isn’t focused on you, it is focused on how your company/organization serves its market creatively – and the question is not an emotional drain but an adventure energized by the engagement of employees who know their value, see their contribution is recognized and can’t stop talking about how great their company is.

[1] Tim Rutten, “The McCourt’s Foul Ball,” The Los Angeles Times, 29 June 2011, A19.

[2] The Arbinger Institute, Leadership and Self-Deception: Getting Out of the Box (San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2002), 7-9.

[3] Robert K. Greenleaf, The Servant as Leader (Indianapolis: Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership, 1970, 1991), 7.

June 16, 2011

Bikers, Church Chairs, Community and Diversity

The unmistakable rumble of three dozen Harley Davidson choppers rolling into the church parking lot sent a shiver down my spine and resonated over the church chairs in the sanctuary – it had only been three weeks since the leader of an outlaw gang had threatened to show up on a Sunday morning and kill me because his girl friend had accepted Christ. I was still the new guy in town and new to my first congregational assignment.
My pastoral experience up to that point consisted of four years in campus ministry. In those four years working with youth and their parents I had framed a clear view of what I thought a congregation could become. I envisioned a cross-generational, cross-cultural community that expressed contagious love for their neighbor because of the deep transformation they experienced by engaging Christ. I assumed that transformation would lead to a contagious love and growth in the character and numbers of people who would connect to Christ and to one another. However, the realities of stepping into leadership of a congregation forty years past its prime were jolting.

I may as well have used Greek in my sermons – as much as I tried to explain my vision I felt I was making zero progress. I asked the congregation one Sunday to kneel and pray together for the community only to discover in the lukewarm response and angry visitors that marched through my office the following week that such “radical” expressions of religion were unappreciated and cause for the congregation to reconsider acceptance of my appointment as their pastor! It did not take long for me to understand that what I assumed was normal Christianity was a radical divergence from the pattern of my congregation’s nearly fifty year existence. The gap between my vision and reality felt like the distance from wall to wall of the Grand Canyon.

So what lead up to the day I watched three dozen choppers pull into the church parking lot causing me to calculate escape routes to the nearest phone if things became uncomfortable? It was discouragement with the status quo I could not break in the early months of being the new guy. So one day I left the church office to walk around the downtown area of our small western Washington city. I had noticed a Harley Davidson motorcycle shop downtown and decided that I would browse around as an escape from the discouragement of the church office.

Shorty, the proprietor of the shop offered a lukewarm greeting (apparently my khaki slacks, golf shirt and flip-flops failed to exude the right look for a Harley Davidson shop). I told Shorty I had seen the sign on the shop and was curious about motor cycles. When Shorty found out I was a local pastor the conversation turned surly. I wasn’t put off, four years in campus ministry on high school and college campuses had given me plenty of experience conversing with surly people who had both suspicions of religion and open hostilities toward any one associated with religion. I still love to converse with people suspicious of religion. I too tend to be suspicious of religion. I would rather spend time talking about knowing Jesus Christ at a deep personal level.

Shorty and I became friends and my wife and I ended up meeting many of Shorty’s friends. That series of introductions and time spent together is how the girlfriend of the club leader ended up receiving Christ. About that same time we discovered that the bike shop was a suspected cover for an outlaw gang – the club was actually an outlaw gang and conduit of illegal drugs into the state. So, we had been in the community by this point for several years. I had succeeded in offending the congregation resulting in an exodus of a dozen families, leading a few people to Christ and ticking off one of the most notorious outlaw leaders in the state. The usher team was not thrilled with the prospect of having to deal with a mad outlaw on a Sunday morning.

But this was a Tuesday morning and no one was around. My part-time secretary did not work on Tuesdays. Most the neighbors around the church property had gone to work for the day. I stood face to face with three dozen gnarly looking Harley Davidson riders and I was still dressed in khakis, a golf shirt and flip-flops. I decided I had a better chance in the open than in the building if things became uncivil. I walked out the front door of the church office.

“Hey man, we are looking for pastor Ray is he here?” The spokesman for the group in front of me threw out the query with a voice that boomed with intimidating firmness.

“Why do you ask?” I answered still calculating the nearest escape route.

“We heard he had a ministry to bikers and was working with the outlaw gang in this area, we came to help him.”

“I am pastor Ray” I said nearly giddy with relief. I was jubilant to have Christians in front of me and not outlaws.

The next exclamation surprised me and taught me a deep lesson about ministry.

“You can’t have a ministry to bikers man…look at you…you don’t even look like a biker.” The warmth I initially felt for this man cooled a bit. My jubilation melted to astonishment and humor.

After convincing the group that there was no other pastor Ray in the area we talked about what God was doing in them and through them in the biker community and how I had become involved in that community. They decided to visit that Sunday. When I looked out on the church chairs that weekend I saw more diversity than I had ever seen in that congregation – uncomfortable diversity yet undeniable unity in the Holy Spirit. We had two significant breakthroughs that day.

The first was that I realized that being a leader and a catalyst to a church movement could only happen if I was simply and authentically myself knowing God through Jesus Christ. I still don’t look like a biker. I could never pull off trying to look like a biker – I am too…well I leave the descriptors to others who know me. But, the relief of knowing that all I had to be was myself…that was huge. God called and summoned me to be myself not a farce. God asked me to follow God with my own warts and all. That is why and when ministry is more fun than wearying. I still don’t look like all the people I reach, but there is something about being authentic and a learner that works to bridge differences.

The second was that the congregation saw what I had tried to describe. It made more sense to them to see the gospel in action than to hear me describe the action. No wonder Jesus first asked people to follow then explained what was happening. Explanations of God’s love and power doesn’t make much sense until people experience God’s love and power in their context. For example; when the 6 foot 2 inch 280 pound leather clad bearded spokesman for bike club walked over to the chairman of the board and smothered him in a bear hug that lifted him right out of his church chair and expressed deep appreciation for what the congregation was doing to minister to bikers in the area – the chairman began to grasp what transformation felt and looked like. He changed after that and became as “radical” as he accused me of being.

It has been almost thirty years since those three dozen Harley Davidson motorcycles rumbled into the church parking lot. But the lessons for me are just as poignant today as they were then. When I hear Thom Rainer talk about the diversity represented in the Millennials, when I look at the changing demographics of my community, when I meet customs and languages I don’t comprehend at the local neighborhood gas-mart I take comfort in the fact that authentic love that engages people in the context in which they live still reduces suspicion and hostility. Authenticity still opens the door to see God do powerful things in the lives of others. I am still learning. To hear some people I am still radical. I still wear flip-flops although the rest of my wardrobe has morphed. I still go exploring when I am discouraged…only now there is an expectation in the wandering. I expect God to bring people across my path who will deepen my understanding of grace like Shorty and the outlaws did by their own encounter with the grace of God.

The expectation makes me wonder – what is the next great rumble I will hear resonate across the church chairs in the sanctuary? I can’t wait to find out.

June 11, 2011

When Leadership Requires the Power of Forgiveness

I recently experienced a painful betrayal. It reminded me of this article I wrote some time back. Reviewing it was cathartic to me. I hope it is to you as well.

Painful betrayal whether it occurs at work or in a leader’s personal life has the potential of distorting personal interactions and the leader’s interpretation of events. Because a leader’s primary work is with people and because a leader depends on others to execute critical components of strategy the potential of distance and distortion in interpersonal relationships compounds with the scope of responsibility a leader carries. It behooves a leader to keep relationships as well as tactics and strategies current.

Place a leader’s scope of interpersonal relationships into a global corporation and add the challenges of cross-cultural communication and multinational socio-political realities and possibility of experiencing evil grows exponentially. For example my friend who lost a trusted manager to terrorist activity faced evil. The CEO, whose daughter is kidnapped, tortured and killed under the auspices of terrorist activity faces evil. The manager who is held until a bribe is paid faces evil. The director whose trusted friend engages in a Machiavellian manipulation of political allies to oust him or her from their position faces evil.

There are times every leader find themselves in the middle of difficult conversations filled with accusations and counter accusations, angry words, hurt feelings and painful betrayals. Leaders who face distorted interpersonal relationships and evil face tangible offenses and real pain. It is not a matter of being tough enough to anticipate betrayal, loss, or risk – this all comes with the territory of leadership. It is a matter of how a leader or person facing the aftermath of evil recovers from their experience in a way that strengthens rather than destroys them.

Facing Conflict with Piercing Honesty

I was lecturing on leadership ethics to graduate students in Kenya the year following their disputed presidential election. As part of these lectures I include a section on the research on forgiveness as a means of combating evil and bridging across distorted relationships. As the lecture unfolded painful stories of loss emerged from the class (made up by the way of the two primary parties in the dispute). These leaders had lost family in the turmoil that ensued following the election. They sat in the same room with those who by association were responsible for their loss. There are times when the need to vent pain requires a place in which leaders can be vulnerable enough to describe their pain and find both a safe place to unload and a strategy to replace the reaction of revenge. Knowing how to work through conflict is not a common skill. Two inadequate alternatives often manifest themselves when I talk with leaders.

On the one hand the motivation and skill needed to have a tumultuous conversation is often lost in the morass of pain and anger. Somehow a mis-belief enters common thinking that to be civil (or in the church world to be Christian) is to be nice in a Pollyanna sense rather than in the true definition of the word. Civility (good character and reputation; sensitive discernment) must include the skill to engage tumultuous conversations that refuse to avoid the issues or behaviors that minimize or damage the common good. The fact is that without the commitment to the civility that presses for the common good one may fall to the entrapment of evil’s banality. The term banality of evil was framed by Hannah Arendt whose analysis of Adolf Eichmann trial in 1961 showed that while a dozen psychiatrists had certified Eichmann as “normal” only showed that the source of evil may be commonplace. Eichmann had sent millions of Jews to concentration camps during World War II.

On the other hand it is easier in our mobile society to simply disengage the source of discomfort or pain and simply move on. The question I ponder is how does a person engage in a bifurcation of moral judgment so as to assume that the attitudes and behaviors that person exhibits in one context escape moral scrutiny in another? The fact is that unresolved conflict and pain follows us to every new context and creates a lens or bias in how we view the actions of others. Soon even the new context exhibits the failings of the original experience. Does this mean that deep violations in relationships are always reconcilable? No. I could not engage a class on ethical decision making without also facing my own potential to engage in the kinds of behaviors my students decried as victims – there were victims on both sides.

The challenges of evil; ordinary evil, dreadful pleasure of hurting others, deception, bureaucracy or sanctioned destruction is not simply a problem elsewhere it is a potential of human behavior that every leader must consider.

Let’s Talk about Accountability for a Moment

Wherever people are involved the choice to do good or evil exists. People do not always choose the good. I have experienced the pain of betrayal by leaders, I have comforted those who experienced the trauma of sexual abuse, I have sat in the hospital with women beaten by their boyfriends or spouses, I have cried with children whose father killed their mother, I have wept with spouses betrayed by the sexual affairs of their partner and I have stood in the grief and pain of my students in Africa whose entire families were massacred in political rivalry. I have experienced the betrayal of insecurity and banal evil myself as a leader. There are victims of evil. There are victims of poor choices.

So, what does accountability look like? What does the quest for justice look like? Does it look like a quest for admission of guilt? Does it look like a quest for apology? I affirm all of these as desirable. But each of these quests for justice or righteousness or an admission of guilt will not occur when one is silent or simply slinks away. The strongest confrontation of evil or poor behavior is to call it for what it is. The Apostle Paul’s encouragement to the Romans is instructive;

¹⁴ I myself am convinced, my brothers and sisters, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with knowledge and competent to instruct one another. (Romans 15:14, NIV)

So who is accountable to make the first move toward change? Paul simply leaves it in the second person, “you” and lets the reader feel the full force of responsibility to act differently. Regardless of whether you are the victim or the perpetrator, you are responsible to make the first move toward actions that identify injustice and pursue justice.

I understand the pain I hear when talking to leaders who have suffered evil. I was once caught in the court case and needed to secure my own attorney to protect myself from a third party and my own organization. These parties were engaged in legal action over an insurance claim on property damage. I had initiated the original claim as an act of stewardship for the property. When my organization refused to pay the full insurance claim I was told by my boss to secure my own attorney. I found myself in a defensive position against an organization I had helped build. My rage and sense of betrayal festered into bitterness. I figured that if a fight was what was desired that I would oblige and adopt a scorched earth policy toward the organization’s other leadership.

I met with an attorney who listened to my story of betrayal and mismanaged insurance funds. She agreed that I had been horribly aggrieved then said she would take my case if I could answer one question. It was nice to be affirmed in my pain and my sense of revenge was encouraged by her expressed willingness to take up my cause. “What is the question?” I asked.

“What is God doing in this situation?”

The attorney may as well have hit me between the eyes with a bat – the response would have been the same. I was stunned. I sat there in silence. I was a spiritual leader of a national program, a professor of leadership, a trusted friend and mentor of other leaders and all I could think in that moment was how I wanted revenge. Since I had no answer the attorney suggested we meet again when I could answer the question and then we would map out a legal strategy together.

I was still reeling from the meeting with the attorney when I met with one of my graduate school mentors. I repeated the painful details of my experience and Bobby listened attentively. He interrupted before I could complete the saga and said, “I have seen this before Ray. Leaders work in imperfect organizations. That is why we need effective and godly (morally aware) leaders. You have a choice as a leader – you are at a boundary time. You can choose to grow or to plateau in your potential and capacity development. If you are going to grow you must choose to identify the boundary and then forgive those who have injured you.”

“I need to forgive? They need to provide restitution for my lost wages and legal defense!” I respected Bobby but I was a little miffed at his suggestion that my response to others actions was the critical key to identifying what God was doing. Bobby didn’t flinch at my intensity.

“I am not suggesting you forget or ignore the pain of what has occurred Ray.”

“Well what are you suggesting?” I asked.

“I am suggesting that in your present state you won’t see how this event can positively shape your future and your effectiveness as a leader until you choose to forgive and begin to see things from God’s perspective.”

As we talked I discovered that I did not understand either the process of forgiveness or its power.

What Forgiveness Is Not and What it Is

Craig Johnson, professor of leadership studies at George Fox University notes that forgiveness is not:

Forgetting past wrongs to move on
Excusing or condoning bad, damaging behavior
Reconciliation or coming together again (forgiveness opens the way to reconciliation, but the other person much change or desire to reconcile)
Reducing the severity of the offenses
Offering legal pardon
Pretending to forgive in order to wield power over another person
Ignoring the offender
Dropping our anger and becoming emotionally neutral

I wrestled with these misconceptions about forgiveness and I see others wrestle with them as well. Johnson quotes Robert Enright of the University of Wisconsin to define forgiveness as;

…a willingness to abandon one’s resentment, negative judgment, and indifferent behavior toward one who unjustly injured us, while fostering the undeserved qualities of compassion, generosity, and even love toward him or her.[1]

The definition carries all the biblical aspects of forgiveness I was familiar with in a theological sense. Forgiveness includes the recognition that the victim has suffered a real injustice; that forgiveness is a choice that involves emotions, thoughts and behaviors and that forgiveness can be offered regardless of the offender’s response. The fact is that forgiveness is a process that identifies a real problem. Forgiveness recognizes the high price of carrying resentment and bitterness, works to understand (not condone) the actions of the offender in order to break the cycle of evil rather than pass it on. Finally forgiveness renders the outcome of seeing a deeper meaning in the events that have occurred and the realization on the part of the victim of their own need for forgiveness in life. Knowing this as a detached concept and living it as a leader in the middle of the fight is not the same thing.

Working at a Crossroad

Leaders work at the crossroad of moral decision daily. We listen, we empathize and we try to point those in our organizations in the direction of legal, ethical and moral justice. How powerful would it be if more and more leaders caught in the painful throes of interpersonal conflict and the experience of evil would exercise the power of forgiveness? How revolutionary could a company or organization become in today’s global environment if we lay hold of the dynamic of staying in tumultuous conversations rather than running from them?

Walking through the pain of my own forgiveness journey and walking with other leaders through their journey encourages me about the powerful potential for deep personal and social change forgiveness can bring. So how does forgiveness break the retaliatory cycle of evil? Enright, Freedman and Rique (1998) suggest that forgiveness unfolds in four phases.

Uncovering Phase

The attorney with whom I talked skillfully led me through an evaluation of my own psychological defenses evident in my desire for revenge. I was so enraged that I could barely articulate the reasons why. I had to confront my anger and release rather than harbor my rage. I was ashamed at my apparent helplessness in the face of the organization’s concerted attempt to railroad my position in an effort to save a few bucks (odd that the cost of the legal fees eventually exceeded by 4 times the amount of the original insurance claim). The confrontation I engaged with the attorney and my mentor helped me see that I was living in a rehearsal of my pain rather than engaging my own future as a leader. While the event permanently altered the course of my career the reality was that forgiveness alone could open my eyes to the potential opportunities the irrevocable change would in fact provide.

Decision Phase

Bobby challenged me to look at my situation with different eyes (a different perspective). In his taxonomy of leadership development my situation was a common means of expanding capacity in leaders who exercised forgiveness. The same was true for my students in Kenya. As they moved from a quest for revenge to an admission of their loss and a query about their future they experienced the same change of heart I had that day in Bobby’s office. They became willing to consider forgiveness as an option and determined to forgive the offenders of the atrocity they had experienced. Remember this is not the same as excusing or condoning the behavior of the offender.

Work Phase

That day in the classroom we worked to reframe the experience of those leaders who had faced such horrendous loss – many of them were exposed to the other side of the political rivalry and the losses incurred by enemies in the conflict for the very first time. They began to see the wrongdoer (i.e., each other) in a new light. They saw each other from the perspective of their unique context. For the first time they experienced a twinge of compassion for the offenders (i.e., each other).

I remember encountering a regional vice president from my organization during my own work phase in the act of forgiveness. We saw each other for the first time since the initiation of court action months after I had left the organization. We embraced in a bear hug – each having seen the pain faced by the other. It was one of the most startling and moving experiences I have ever had. We talked about mistakes both sides had made, the injuries those mistakes and intentional posturing had inflicted and then we offered forgiveness to one another.

The work phase is a process of acceptance and absorption of the pain. It is significant because up to this point pain is fought against or denied and suppressed so that it sneaks out in unconscious actions of revenge and retaliation. Without forgiveness the experience of evil typically reproduces itself so that the victim becomes a perpetrator.

Deepening Phase

The question of the attorney (what is God doing) was not an attempt to sidestep real issues in the guise of religious pompousness – it was a catalytic question that forced me to find meaning in what I had suffered and in the process of forgiveness I was then willing to engage. This is the essence of a deepen phase it is the final step in leaving a boundary time with a clear idea of a new future.

As I described the process of forgiveness for my students that week in Africa they realized that they were not alone in their suffering. This realization is part of the deepening phase and it set the stage for their own transition from a primarily negative affect to the realization of a new purpose in life because of the injury they faced as leaders.

Conclusion

The social-scientific study of forgiveness is a relatively new field. But so far it shows great promise in helping leaders absorb and diffuse evil. Global leaders in today’s highly interdependent economies have ample opportunity to experience evil. The reality is that all of us face the choice daily in our operations to be people who act as perpetrators of evil (either by our practiced distance from the sources of evil we see but do not address or by the pain we inflict on those we consider enemies). If our organizations are really going to thrive, if they have impact for the common good then forgiveness is a skill and discipline every leader must engage as part of achieving their full potential.

[1] Craig E. Johnson. Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership: Casting Light or Shadow, 3^rd ed. (Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publishing, 2009), 116.

May 20, 2011

Get Spiritual – Releasing Leaders Depends on It

Insight from Research into Spirituality in Leadership
A group of researchers working with the United States Army determined that spiritual leadership is critical to developing organizational commitment and performance. Their research demonstrated that organizational performance is directly related to the ideas of calling/meaning and membership typically associated with spirituality.[1] The researchers point out that;

… the tenets of hope/faith, altruistic love, and vision within spiritual leadership comprises the values, attitudes, and behaviors required to intrinsically motivate oneself and others to have a sense of calling and membership – spiritual well-being.[2]

Pastors I know who look into the eyes of those sitting in church chairs every Sunday morning have also observed the quest for meaning and a sense of belonging/membership is nearly palpable in the people sitting there. Pastoral leaders know that the degree to which spirituality impacts how people understand their sense of calling/meaning and membership in the church is a critical factor in the quality of the congregation’s overall health.

But talk about spirituality needs to make a distinction between religion and spirituality. Religion is concerned with formalized practices and ideas that depend on a theological system of beliefs, ritual prayers, rites and ceremonies. Religion is not necessary for spirituality but spirituality is necessary for religion. The challenge is that religion as an expression of human spirituality is reducible to empty and dogmatic forms that actually suppress spirituality.

Spirituality is concerned with those qualities associated with the human spirit (or the Imago Dei as a theologian may prefer to call it) that include such characteristics as love, compassion, patience, tolerance, forgiveness, contentment, personal responsibility and a sense of harmony with one’s context or environment. Spirituality shares the characteristics associated with positive psychology and many of the outcomes associated with happiness at work.

Spirituality is the pursuit of a vision of service to others; through humility as having the capacity to regard oneself as an individual equal but not greater in value to others individuals; through charity, or altruistic love; and through veracity, which goes beyond basic truth-telling to engage one’s capacity for seeing things exactly as they are, thus limiting subjective distortions.[3]

Jesus makes a similar distinction that is important because it reshapes what we think about leadership. For example Jesus challenged the religious leaders of the day to see past the formal practices, rituals, rites and ceremonies of religious expression to get at the core issues of justice, mercy and faithfulness to God. (Matthew 23:23-39) Without a distinction between spirituality and religion definitions of leadership in religion typically trend toward a narrow and exceptional set of qualifications that the average person does not meet. If the starting point is spirituality as Jesus suggested then the emergence of leadership from within a group is a natural course of the activism that occurs as true spirituality responds to issues of justice, mercy and faithfulness.

The researchers use the phrase leadership and not leader in their project to differentiate that they are not looking at the specific qualities of an individual but at the complex and multilevel dynamics of how leadership emerges in a group of people. Their definition is important because it recognizes that the act of leadership is not only complex but that it emerges when needed from a variety of individuals rather than from an exclusive few. The move to understanding leadership as a complex multilevel dynamic is significant for two reasons.

First, research is getting closer to the reality described in the Bible i.e., that leadership is a functional outcome of all the parts of the body being aligned in mission. (I Cor. 12: 14-31) That leadership is a focus does not downplay the role of individuals as they lead but rather raises the importance of the interconnectedness of the parts of the body while minimizing a hero/messiah complex on the part of leaders. I think Greenleaf got it right when he noted why leadership is a more preferable concept than simply looking at individual leaders;

Finally the prevalence of the lone chief placed a burden on the whole society because it gives control priority over leadership. It sets before the young the spectacle of an unwholesome struggle to get to the top. It nourishes the notion among able people that one must be boss to be effective. And it sanctions, in a conspicuous way, a pernicious and petty status striving that corrupts everyone.[4]

Second, research quantitatively defines the dynamics behind one of the most interesting leadership emergence stories in the Bible e.g., the identification and release of the six deacons. (Acts 6:1-8) I do not mean that the Bible needs to be quantitatively affirmed. Instead quantitative research illustrates the reason why the pattern visible in Acts 6 is reproducible and desirable. In fact it is my thesis that the events around the selection of the seven deacons is the model of how the church should face the challenges of complex/multilevel dynamics it faces as a congregation grows and attempts to address the rapidly changing social/demographic fabric faced by many congregations in today’s global cities.

Leadership development is a hot topic of discussion in church publications and seminary research projects. So this research on spirituality has an important contribution to make. Does the research explain what occurred in Acts 6? If so what insights does it provide to help pastors reproduce leaders? I see three lessons.

Lesson 1: Succeeding in a Complex Multilevel Environment Requires Disruption of Existing Patterns

I would like to simply stipulate that operating in a church today is a more complex proposition than it was fifty years ago. That said leading a congregation effectively in today’s world looks nothing like it did fifty years ago…even ten years ago.

Changing social context like the one faced by churches today is not unheard of historically. Consider the situation in Acts 6. The influx of new cultural groups responding to the gospel after Pentecost resulted in the types of conflicts those of us in Intercultural studies predict – some people were invisible. Look at the text:

¹ In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. (Acts 6:1, NIV)

The complaint brought to the apostles resulted in two significant actions. First, the apostles leveraged the disruption of existing behavioral patterns to challenge incongruous cultural norms (i.e., the way we do things around here). Cultural norms are not in themselves bad but where cultural norms impede the expansion of the church they result in behavior by the church that contradicts the message of the church. This is an important change insight.

Second, the apostles did not ask the pre-existing social network to answer the need they asked the new group to identify their own leaders and answer their own needs. This avoided three unhelpful dynamics. It avoided the creation of a dependency on the part of the new group. It avoided over taxing the change resiliency of the pre-existing group. It avoided marginalization of the new group by offering them equal status i.e., they were able to self govern even as the pre-existing group was. Too often new or minority groups encounter an attitude in the pre-existing or majority group that treats them as children rather than fully functional adults. Decisions made on behalf of others in an intercultural context fail to fully understand cultural implications. The result is that decisions make little or no sense in practice.

Disruption of existing patterns of behavior is unavoidable in the face of new growth especially where that growth reflects the growing globalization seen in many cities and churches around the United States and the world. Is there a common ground from which to work in the face of cultural diversity? Spirituality may offer a common starting point.

Lesson Two: Identifying Leaders in a Complex Multilevel Environment Requires a Focus on Spirituality

That the Apostles used the criteria of spirituality to encourage novelty and embrace ambiguity of an inter-cultural challenge is a powerful lesson in leadership selection. Facing the ambiguity of unpredictable results often feels unbearable or off-balance. The risk was in how the new cultural group (Hellenized Jews) defined good leadership. The definitions of leadership change from culture to culture. Would the new group fit with the existing group if they defined things on their own? If the apostles had defined the characteristics of a good leader in any other terms than the three criteria inherent in spirituality they would have failed to effectively allow the new/minority group to act as equals. The important leadership observation here is that the apostles did not abandon the process or simply abdicate their responsibility in a misguided attempt at pluralism or relativism. They assigned a task designed to encourage leadership emergence i.e.

Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them…. (Acts 6:3, NIV)

The Apostles risked giving the assignment that allowed the characteristics of spirituality (i.e., good reputation, filled with the Holy Spirit and filled with wisdom) to be interpreted and applied by the new/minority group. They exercised an implicit confidence in the work of the Holy Spirit. (John 14:26) It is important to see that implicit confidence in the Holy Spirit’s role is not an abdication of responsibility in leadership but a necessity in the exercise of leadership. Because the Apostles identified key values already at work in the majority group they provided a foundation from which the minority group could defend their choices and make choices that align to the scriptures. Interestingly the Apostles’ criteria paralleled the definition of spirituality the researchers provided and with the same results seen in leadership i.e., both groups shared a sense of calling and membership in a larger group (the body of Christ not just the Judaic or Hellenized group).

Lesson Three: Leadership in a Complex Multilevel Environment is that of Sense Maker not Director

The apostles did not answer the need. They did not work harder and longer. They did not chastise. They did not belittle. They did not take on the role of the over burdened leader. The Apostles interpreted the events the people brought to them by refocusing attention on the significance of the challenge. The Apostles’ response “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables” (Acts 6:2, NIV) was not a pejorative on serving but a refocusing on the significance of Pentecost and their assignment. In other words the focus of the situation could not be the complaint itself but the cause of the complaint i.e., the church was expanding to Jerusalem, Judea,Samaria and the outlying areas.

By keeping the focus implicitly on the expansion of the church and the reproduction of spirit empowered ministry rather than the complaint the Apostles created a sense of expectation within the congregation (Acts 6:5). Not only did the Apostles empower the congregation by moving responsibility for answering the new need to the people rather than the Apostles themselves they also refocused attention on the larger mission of the Church.

Conclusion

Did the Apostolic strategy work? According to the text one of the seven went on to do great wonders and miracles among the people. The strategy did work. In fact it worked well enough that Luke’s record of the early church’s expansion focused exclusively on Stephen (one of the seven) for the next chapter and a half. This is pretty impressive since only four people are really highlighted in Acts (Peter, Stephen, Philip and Paul or if you add supporting characters then include Barnabas and James). Said another way, a new guy (Stephen) made it into the history of the Acts movement in its first 10 years of existence. It seems to take at least a generation or more for new guys (those from another culture) to make it into the history of many modern church movements.

Is the Apostolic strategy reproducible? Let’s go back to the significance of the research…YES. Where there is a deliberate emphasis on spirituality as a leadership qualification and where existing leaders push problems back to people to resolve, providing guidance based on spirituality and avoiding the urge to override decisions based on more familiar methods or rituals, then similar results are predictable. The risk is that a leader may lose control of a group. However, loss of control is hardly an issue to anything other than ego. What is really at stake is not so much the loss of control (all cultures frame boundaries so that they can function effectively). The issue really is where the locus of control will rest. One cannot be a classic micro manager and expect either numerical or qualitative growth. The emphasis on spirituality in leadership is important because it is the closest thing to a universal standard that we possess in leadership development.

What does the research affirm? Growing leaders is a disruptive event to business as usual and disruption to business as usual is fertile soil for leadership development. A focus on developing spirituality is critical to effective multiplication of leadership – it provides the control point and flexibility needed for leadership emergence. The most important thing leaders can do when facing changing and confusing times is to help others by making sense of the times. Biblically informed leaders have a leg up in this regard in possessing both a history and a future surrounded by the promise and working of the living God.

How will you apply the insights from this research to your own leadership behaviors? In what ways does the research affirm your present activities? In what ways does it challenge your present activities? Let me know what you think!

[1] Louis W. Fry, Sean T. Hanna, Michael Noel and Fred O. Walumbwa (2011). “Impact of Spiritual Leadership on Unit Performance” in The Leadership Quarterly 22, 259-70.

[2] Ibid 260

[3] Ibid 260

[4] Robert Greenleaf. Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1991), 65.

May 1, 2011

Are You Happy at Work – Does it Matter?

An Agitating Question – Investigating Hope
Are you happy at work? The question burned in my mind in fact I found it quite agitating. The agitation did not stem from feeling like I was unhappy it was the opposite. I am happy in the work I do. What became agitating is that my work in developing leaders in business or through the classroom or through consulting and coaching work lead me to conclude that how people felt about work is critical to how they perform. But, I did not have a way to turn this observation into a reliable method of measuring hope or initiating change designed around the generation of hope in the organizations I worked in or with.

So I started to investigate the connection between happiness and work to the extent I left work long enough to complete doctoral studies while I immersed myself in the question. My research focused on the role of hope in leadership emergence patterns in complex organizations. What I found was that people who had hope were not only more optimistic in their perspective or mindset they also had a much more realistic grasp of their situation whether positive or negative that seemed to lead them to make much better decisions than those who did not have hope. People who possessed hope worked proactively to alter the way things were done to improve processes and the work environment so that others felt recognized, challenged to do their best work and discovered a sense of deeper purpose or meaning in their work. People who possessed hope never remained victims even when they endured significant loss. They possessed a resilience that got up and went forward again.

Hope in its essence is “…a combination of clearly articulating goals, believing that one can meet these goals, charting a course of action or a path, and arriving at the goal while experiencing a sense of well-being as a result of the process.”[1] Psychologists have determined that hope and other positive emotions impact one’s openness or cognitive flexibility, problem-solving abilities, empathy, willingness to engage diversity/variety and resilience (persistence).

In my research I found that (1) the presence of hope predicts a framework that shapes leadership values and motives toward new outcomes and possibilities. (2) Hope engenders inquiries about reality that expose and subvert dysfunctional tendencies that suppress or reject emerging leaders and suppress or reject new possibilities. (3) Hope synthesizes the attributes and transactional characteristics of the church and other organizational entities in a way that accelerates the construction of a dynamic and organic leadership development pipeline. Writing from a theological perspective I was particularly excited to discover that the field of positive psychology had done much work in understanding the impact of positive emotions and hope that I mirrored in my research.

Hope serves as both a trait and a mindset. In the words of Jessica Pryce-Jones it serves as “…a kicker to action and it is clearly associated with higher job performance and happiness. In fact some psychologists call it a ‘Velcro’ concept as it seems to enable you to stick to your commitments regardless of your other attributes.”[2]

Hope – Happiness Connection

I had perceived happiness as an outcome of hope. So, my focus was on discovering why people had or did not have hope and where hope came from for those that did. I saw that hope stemmed from a belief or mindset specifically rooted in the promises of God. People who believed the promise of a different future tended to live in a “future perfect” way i.e., their anticipation of the future altered how they approached the present and affected what they would or would not tolerate as acceptable. In leaders this meant that those who had hope acted as contagious change agents.

However, my research included organizations that were not church related and I noticed the same type of leaders in those organizations i.e., men and women filled with hope that acted as visionaries and change agents.[3] It was not that these people were more charismatic that others it was that they had a deep sense or mindset through which they interpreted the realities around them. They saw opportunities others missed. They saw a preferred future as possible when others saw only drudgery or failure. The research by Pryce-Jones and her team introduced the idea of happiness and set it up as a precondition of hope. So, I was intrigued.

So what is happiness? “Happiness at work is a mindset which allows you to maximize performance and achieve your potential. You do this by being mindful of the highs and the lows when working alone or with others.”[4]

Happiness at work allows people to leverage their experiences regardless of whether they are positive or negative (high or low) to meet their full potential at work. The theory behind the idea of happiness is rooted in positive psychology that builds on four ideas:

You are responsible for your own level of happiness
You have more room to maneuver than you think
You always have a choice
Self-awareness is the first step

Five Critical Factors of Happiness

I needed to know more about the research done by Pryce-Jones and her team. They began to research happiness at work because Pryce-Jones observed the connection between her own productivity and her happiness at work. She formed a team that through the process of data collection began to see data cluster around five different themes. As these themes became clear they designed an assessment reliably measure these themes in people. Their work resulted in an assessment that measures five factors that define happiness.

These factors include items typically included in human capital studies (employee engagement or job satisfaction). However the data collected via the research by Pryce-Jones and her team indicates that such things as employee engagement relates to 10 percent fewer items than happiness does. The bottom line is that people who are happy at work are 108% more engaged than their unhappy colleagues, love their job 79% more and achieve their goals 30% more often. Happy people cut the costs of turnover, sick days, work slowdowns and absenteeism by as much as 50%.

The five factors that define happiness are:

Contribution: the effort an employee makes and their perception of this effort.

Conviction: the motivation employees have whatever their circumstance.

Culture: how well employees feel they fit at work.

Commitment: the extent to which employees are engaged with their work.

Confidence: the sense of belief employees have in themselves and their job.

Factors Thrive in a Healthy Corporate Culture Indicated by Pride, Trust and Recognition

Pryce-Jones and her team also found that these factors are supported by pride, trust and recognition which serve as proxies for the existence of the five factors. In other words if one has pride in their work and feel they are safe in taking risks at work without the fear of a hidden agenda and where work recognizes their efforts the stage is set for employees to arise to new levels of productivity, creativity and effort. People recognized for their achievements at work (in ways that are meaningful to them) their energy level and engagement skyrocketed. Finally where people trust their organizations risk taking rises, they are more committed and relationships operate with greater transparency. Conversely when these critical cultural components are missing productivity and engagement plummets – in fact the absence of these three factors often indicate that people are already engaged in looking for new jobs.

So What?

Clearly the impact that happiness has at work is unavoidably significant at least if one takes the research seriously. If happy people are more engaged, if they make their goals more often if they take measurably less sick days or engage in measurable fewer work slowdowns then calculating a return on investment on happy employees is certainly possible.

But how are these employees identified? Pryce-Jones and her team’s assessment offer a means of reliably measuring happiness at work for both individuals and teams. Because they measure specific characteristics in the factors they also create a diagnostic that illustrates the relationship between personal happiness and organizational culture. Their assessment makes it possible to effectively measure current conditions, design and ROI and engage in a pointed strategy to alter the work culture to achieve a greater level of employee happiness at work. The net effect is higher productivity and lower costs of doing business. What is not to like?

It is now possible to name the factors that contribute to hope, contribute to higher output and contribute to lower costs. Not only does this help organizations respond to the emerging leaders working toward a new future in their organizations, it also helps create strategies to remove the barriers to the emergence of these leaders.

I adopted the assessment developed by Pryce-Jones and her team. The results the assessment has generated in defining the psychological and social capital that determines the effectiveness of an organization’s human capital impress me. The reality is that “financial value is reduced or increased as a direct consequence of the relationships that individuals have with themselves and with others at work.”[5] Pryce-Jones’ iOpener Assessment is a reliable and valid tool that turns the concept of happiness at work into a concrete means of achieving significant change and higher levels of performance in those organizations ready to rigorously embrace the facts behind their financial performance.

Are you happy at work? The question is not just an inquiry into how one feels it is a diagnostic that predicts how well your organization is going to do. As it turns out it does matter. For more information write me at ray@leadership-praxis.com, I would love to discuss the application of this instrument in your organization.

One last question came to me from my own research. What would happen if I asked people, “Are you happy at church?” Are the factors of commitment, contribution, conviction, confidence and culture effective in measuring who is about to leave a congregation and who is really engaged in the mission of a local congregation? I think so. Now, I need to find a way to test this hypothesis. Any takers?

[1][1] C. R. Snyder. “The Past and Possible Futures of Hope” in Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 19, no. 1 (2000):11-28.

[2] Jessica Pryce-Jones. Happiness at Work Maximizing your Psychological Capital for Success (West Sussex, UK: Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2010), 125.

[3] This is not to infer that the presence or absence of faith made no difference in how leaders approached their situations or their lives. Without turning this into a theological treatise what I concluded was that those leaders who had hope without referencing faith were also those leaders most open to discussing the impact of faith and the promise inherent in what Christian theological work calls the gospel. In other words these individuals were not opposed to God, they possessed a respect for God even though they expressed varying degrees of understanding about the message of Christianity. All of them found my theological approach to business/organizational research fascinating.

[4] Pryce-Jones, 4.

[5] Pryce-Jones, 7.

April 29, 2011

Feedback – or Lessons on Hearing Past my Biases

It wasn’t what we expected. Have you ever asked for feedback and ended up being surprised by what you found out? This happened recently to us and it opened up a great lesson on leadership. We started a product development cycle to answer a problem that occurs over time in some of one of our products. We designed three new prototypes based on feedback we had received from our customers. Once we completed building the prototypes we showed them around the factory and reached a consensus about which one our customers would like best.
Then, we schedule some focus groups with customers to decide whether we had the right idea. We asked the participants in our focus group to rate the prototype designs and tell us which one they would most like buy and why.

Then the surprises started. The participants all gravitated to the one choice we thought was the most boring. When we calculated the results the product design team challenged the outcome. Did we ask the right questions? Did we tabulate the results accurately? Why did this prototype seem better to the participants than the two factory favorites?

Feedback is always important in product development. Our customers often give us the best ideas! But our corporate reaction to this feedback got me thinking about feedback I receive as a leader. How important do I consider this to be? What did our experience with the focus groups teach me about leadership generally? As I thought about it I came up with three feedback pitfalls that I have experienced and seen leaders commit when it comes to either giving or receiving feedback.

Pitfall 1: Championing a Premature Solution (Regardless of the Feedback)

The focus group experience illustrates this pitfall in seeking feedback. We set up the focus group as a way to affirm a predisposition not explore possibilities. This was not a conscious act – we did not see the bias we were working out of until we faced the contrast of unexpected response. Leaders must be aware of their biases. When leaders ask for feedback and that feedback does not give the anticipated results its time to stop and check the biases i.e., the assumptions. Obviously we wanted to know what would sell best but we had inadvertently committed ourselves in the wrong direction – we committed to a particular solution rather than a measurable outcome. What is the difference and why is it important to remember not just in product development but also in leadership?

Presumably the ask for feedback assumes that the solution has not yet been identified. The mistake we made was that we assumed we knew the real problem and had the only commercially viable solution. The mistake was that we owned a solution before we really defined the problem from the customer’s point of view. I see leaders making the same mistake i.e., rushing to a solution before they really hear the problem. As a result time and energy is spent on actions that have either no impact or the opposite impact the action intended.

The lesson for leaders is to change the focus of attention. Rather than enter conversations seeking to own (define, promote or insist on) a solution leaders should spend more time helping define the problem and the preferred outcome. When others engage in helping define the problem then it is possible that several great solutions present themselves.

Pitfall 2: Reactive Response

The internal tension I felt during the focus group was just that – internal. I faced a decision to either be defensive about which option I felt was best or to spend time asking questions to understand why I received the feedback I was getting. This ability to stop in mid-emotion and think about what I wanted to really do has been a hard-earned skill. There have been times that I projected my own embarrassment at being caught flat-footed on what others were thinking and became reactive. The result was never pretty – typically I reacted to things no one else perceived. I have often seen leaders react defensively or punitively when they felt like questions were a sign of disrespect and not engagement in a process of change or understanding.

The lesson for leaders is to embrace the reality that emotionally awkward situations may show one’s insecurity more accurately than the disrespect or challenge to one’s authority. When that twinge of embarrassment lurks below the surface ask what internal assumption just got challenged. Then embrace the emotion and ask for more clarification. Lead the process of discovery rather than blow it up with reactive emotions.

Pitfall 3: Working on Assumptions not Facts

Feedback is simply information that helps to decide whether actions are moving closer to an objective or farther away. Somewhere deep in the Judeo-Christian ethic an awareness exists that feedback is a constant companion. Jesus said it this way,

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. (John 14:26)

Notice the verbs; teach and remind. These verbs certainly show that providing feedback both in the sense of a moral compass and commentary on behavior is a normative experience. Somewhere this gets lost. However, effective leaders embrace feedback and create a culture that encourages feedback to engage actions that grow in consistency between their impact and their intention. In other words feedback helps close the gap between behavior and the vision of the organization. So what is it that causes feedback to go awry?

The leadership lesson is that all of us have past experiences, relationships, beliefs and assumptions that serve as filters to what we hear. Chris Argyris calls this the ladder of inference and he describes it in seven steps:

All observable data and experience
I select “data” from what I observe
I add meanings
I make assumptions
I draw conclusions
I adopt beliefs
I take action based on beliefs

It is important for individuals and leaders to be aware of this process of inference. When providing feedback it is important to listen for the beliefs behind the responses. When listening to feedback it is just as important to consider whether one’s own beliefs are they supported by the data or do they distort the data?

The focus group process helped us land on the right product design. But the greater win may be that we learned something about how we respond to feedback that will make us more effective leaders and better friends in the days ahead. How are you using feedback? What experience have you had with either positive or negative feedback?