Friday, April 17, 2009

Solomon the Little Child

Solomon's Request: A Humble Posture for Biblical Leaders


God appears to Solomon in a dream and says He will give Solomon whatever he asks for (1 Kings 3:7-9). Solomon's request, perhaps unusual in a young man having just assumed a king's crown, provides a snapshot of a fundamental truth of Biblical leadership: humility and human weakness seeking God's wisdom and presence.

“Now, O Lord my God, you have made me king instead of my father, David, but I am like a little child who doesn’t know his way around. And here I am in the midst of your own chosen people, a nation so great and numerous they cannot be counted! Give me an understanding heart so that I can govern your people well and know the difference between right and wrong. For who by himself is able to govern this great people of yours" (1 Kings 3:7-9) ?


In Solomon's request of God, we see

  • confession of weaknesses and inadequacy;
  • uncertainty and lack of knowledge;
  • a recognition of the magnitude of the task;
  • the desire for wisdom and discernment; and
  • the acknowledgement that he cannot govern alone.

Biblical Leadership moves from a posture of humility, weakness, and finite ability and understanding to a complete trust in God's wisdom, strength, and divine presence. Biblical Leaders do not lead out of their own wisdom, ability, or strength, but are conduits for God's divine leadership.


Monday, March 30, 2009

Obama & The Socialist States of America

If there was any doubt that authoritarian socialism was former Senator (and community organizer) Obama's end game, his move to take over the reigns of GM should end them.

Read about it here


http://apnews.excite.com/article/20090330/D978JKVO1.html


or here


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/30/obama-auto/


-----------------------


Trivia question: Name one major social problem the Federal government has actually solved without requiring massive and perpetual goverenmental structures to keep their "solution" going.


Now, name one (or more) that the government has made worse.


Redemptive Leadership: Jesus as Servant, Jesus as Ransom

The following was in response to a web discussion on the leadership of Jesus:


The 'Jesus-as-servant' motif of leadership undeniably takes us beyond a secular, humanistic perspective on relationships and social structure.

We have to go further still. I can't think of any "Christian model" or view of leadership that gives serious attention to the REST of the passage about Jesus coming to serve rather than be served.

"AND to give his life as a ransom for all" (Mark 10:45b).

His orienation was not merely service, but redemption. He wasn't merely a servant who used humble posturing and lowly demeanor to get people to do what he wanted, he was the sacrifice that would ultimately set people free.


It is time for contemporary Christian leadership to rediscover a theological rigor that interprets Jesus in light of his redemptive and atoning work, the incarnation and the image of God, and the re-creating of that image through the Holy Spirit. It seems to be a fascination with Jesus as servant without these other core facets leaves us lopsided and in danger of making Jesus as a servant in our own image.


To paraphrase Iranaeus, he came to be one of us in order to make us one with him.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Leadership: Is it a 'thing'?

Comps are now over. My last written question fascinated me: is it possible to have a unified or general theory of leadership? Einstein's (and others) great quest in physics, if you recall, was for a general theory of relativity describes how gravity interacts with space and time. The general theory unified a vast array of other ideas and theoretical pieces and radically changed the scientific world.

Is such an understanding of leadership possible? That got me to thinking back through all the different "leadership theories" that are floating around. There is a different concept or definition of leadership for every leadership expert, scholar, or practitioner. Here's just a few off the top of my head. Perhaps I'll expand the list as the days go by.

Heroic (Great Man) Theory
Trait theories
Situational theories
Behavioral theories
Contingency theories
Economic versus Social Leadership
Bureaucratic leadership
Transactional leadership
Autocratic/Dictatorial Leadership
Command-and-Control
Leadership by Example
Charismatic leadership
Servant leadership
Spiritual leadership
Shepherd Leadership
Authentic leadership
Social Exchange/LMX theory
Participative leadership
Shared Leadership
Managing versus Leading
Motivational Theories of Leading/Managing
Moral leadership
Kenotic/Mimetic leadership

And the list is just getting started...

Thursday, November 06, 2008

Take that, GOP!

This interesting piece from AP. To wit:


Plenty of Republicans from the conservative to the liberal wings of the party agree the GOP is in shambles as the Bush presidency comes to a close, leaving the party without a titular leader when the president's term ends in January...RNC Chairman Duncan said it would be wrong to view the election results as "the death rattle of American conservatism," pointing to a roster of GOP rising stars that includes [Alaska Gov. Sarah] Palin, [Lousiana Gov. Bobby] Jindal, [Virginia Rep. Eric] Cantor and Sen. John Thune of South Dakota.


Republicans, Duncan said, "are going to take a deep breath and listen to the American people." The party is creating a new online forum that will allow people to explain "how we let them down" and "what we can do to restore confidence in our party," he said.


A new online forum? Is he serious? Duncan's statement is one more sign of just how far removed from their conservative base Congressional Republicans seem to have drifted. The thing the GOP can do to "restore confidence" in the party is to start being conservative Republicans again! Republicans in Washington seem to suffer from chronic short-term memory, forgetting why it was conservative Reagan Republicans sent them there to begin with. This chronic malady seems to have as it most common symptom a desire to imitate moderate Democrats. Simply put, the Republicans on the hill are suffering an identity crisis. The flailings and solemn soul searching taking place among the GOP leadership on Obama-in-Charge Day 1 indicate as much.


Duncan rightly observed that the election was not "the death rattle of American conservatism." It ought to be, however, the death rattle of Republicans acting as Democrats. It ought to signal the demise of Republican leaders who want to define themselves by how acceptable they are to moderate and liberal Democrats. And, frankly, my dear, most of us will be glad to see them go.


So what are grass-roots Republicans going to be looking for in these rising young stars of a rebuilt Republican party? How about this: Morally, socially, and economically conservative Republicans who aren't ashamed to say as much, who are willing to debate the questions and press the issues, and who are driven by the inner conviction that conservative values and principles offer real opportunity, real hope, and real prosperity to American society. Conservatism, at it's base, is driven by a fundamental belief in people and communities to work together to thrive and be productive. Conservatism also believes (with good reason) that no matter how much money it sucks up or how many programs it initiates, the federal government can never be as effective at creating positive social change as free enterprise. As a whole, government's primary motivation is power and its greatest flaw is a lack of viable accountability.


An organization's identity is largely a matter of its culture, those commonly shared values, beliefs, and assumptions to which the members are collectively committed. So, just in case some members of the GOP have been away too long, here's a brief list of what can be done to restore confidence in Republicans:


1) Morality matters. Call us fundamentalists, call us the religious-right, whatever. The simple fact is common Americans have not forgotten--in spite of the efforts of Hollywood and the media to the contrary-- that society and culture at its core must be morally grounded or little else matters. We want congressional representatives who act like that's true. If you don't want to fight for that, go home.


2) Small government. Nearly 70 years of sociological and organizational research tell us that centralized, hierarchical organizations are terribly ineffective at dealing with complex and rapidly changing problems. Government is simply not ever going to be good at managing all the things we keep wanting it to manage. They knew it in the 1770s. We know it now, but somehow it doesn't seem to sink in...


3) Low taxes, free markets, and limited government regulation. Contrary to the claims of Democrats during Fannie Mae disaster, a free-market run amok is not even remotely a problem in the American economy. The free market is so encumbered with government regulation and interference that calling it "free" is almost laughable. Free-market systems with limited (rather than none at all) government guidance that serves to even the playing field are quite adept at self-regulating. Free market systems operate largely on the basis of mutual trust (we'll each keep our word), profitability (we'll each win in this), and accountability (we'll each pay a price if we fail to do our part). A true free market system reacts quickly to correct deviations, even those caused by ethical misconduct, poor judgment, or outright illegality. Government is inherently unaccountable, so the greater the intervention in the free-market process between producer and consumer, the less accountability either party has to the other.


Simply put, wealth in the hands of private citizens who take risks, create new businesses, and seek to create better opportunities for themselves and those around them are the only real means of producing more wealth. Government can only ever be a consumer of wealth, not a producer. So the more government takes away from its citizens in an attempt to spread it around, the less wealth can be produced, and everybody suffers. Government plays a role, albeit broad and limited, in creating an open and safe environment for the production of wealth, but good government leaves resources, goods, and money where they are the most likely to grow: in the hands of the people.


So, new Republicans, you want to reclaim the greatness of the GOP? You want to know how to get our confidence back? Decide who you're going to be, embrace the core values that have always defined conservatism, and take the fight to the halls of Congress.


Just, please, we beg of you, stand up and have the backbone to act like conservatives.


So, there, take that, GOP!

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

So now what?

Okay, some of my off-the-cuff musings about the election yesterday...


President-elect Obama has promised showers of blessings and a veritable cornucopia of well-being to an unthinking American public, and we bought it. Charisma, charm, and the perception of "appearing Presidential on TV" carried the day. 52% of Americans reacted out of fear and a sense of despair manufactured by the main-stream media. The real underlying behavior at work is "attribution": people have implicit ideas about how they think leaders should behave or how they want them to behave. They then project these ideas onto a leader--usually somebody with a high degree of charisma -- and then point to that person as the kind of leader they are seeking. In this sense, charismatic leaders like Obama are as much, if not more so, a product of social perception as they are their own abilities and traits.


So, the country got the man we think we wanted. Is he the man we think he is? Or was this a case of he told us what we thought we wanted to hear? Time will tell...


Speaking of the media elite: To their credit, they have finally taken their masks off. Now that the Dems own the hill, who will be the new whipping boys of MSNBC and the NY Times? No more blaming Bush and the evil Republicans! Liberals, it's your chance to ride in the rescue armed with your spread-the-wealth and share-the-pie policies and save the nation! (Anybody hear echoes of Marx?) My only question to the left is this: If the your policies worked like you claim, you'd work yourselves out of a job. How many liberals are willing to have that happen?


Dick Morris writes the following:

Now that Barack Obama has won the election, one thing is certain... he will preside over the largest expansion of the government's role in the economy since the 1930s -- with enormous consequences for your investments.

This "New New Deal," as some Democrats are already calling it, may well have the same result as the original one: to turn a sharp, painful recession into a long Depression.

Will that set the stage for a GOP president in 2012 -- the way '70s stagflation under Jimmy Carter set the stage for Ronald Reagan? I doubt it. More likely, Obama will be able to parlay the hard economic times into a second term.

How? The same way FDR did… by blaming everything that happens on his watch on his predecessors. The worse things get, the more the Obamacrats will blame it on "eight years of Republican deregulation, tax cuts and greed," calling for even more government intervention as the solution.

And the media, of course, will back them up. (excerpt from Human Events e-newsletter, Nov. 5, 2008)


"Can he now deliver?" is the (right) question pundits are asking (where were they 2 months ago??). Morris may well be right about the "blame-game" strategy -- the liberals masterfully played the old cup-and-ball trick right under the nose of the American public with the subprime mortgage and Fannie Mae scandal. Here's hoping, though, that the American public will prove to be smarter.


Was Obama's election a "mandate for liberal socialism" or simply a understandable but juvenile reaction to a tough economy? The success of amendments in Florida and California that strengthed a morally conservative position on marriage suggests that the country may not be as hyped on the libs' secular humanistic socialism as it seems. The President-elect will need to be as masterful at interpreting his own success as he was at posturing the American public.


On the other hand, the United States CAN elect a black man to the highest office, and we ought to be proud of that. Race alone is not a good reason to vote for anyone, and I have significant disagreement with Obama's politics, but his accomplishment is significant. That much, at least, is worth acknowledging.



Monday, November 03, 2008

In Leadership, Character Matters

http://www.youtube.com/v/VIdbYjmbFzo&hl=en&fs=1'

Somebody emailed me this YouTube link. As shown in some of the comments, many are outraged as to the claims and presentation of the video's subject.

Contrary to many of these claims, both the video and its claims are true. The lady's name is Jill Stanek (www.jillstanek.com) and she was a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, IL. Read her bio here. On her web site, you can see first-hand documentation of Barack Obama's comments and actions in the Illinois State Senate opposing the passage of the Induced Infant Liability Act, a measure that would outlaw partial birth abortion, and it's infanticidal relative, live birth abortion. Live birth abortion is prematurely inducing labor and delivery and then leaving the infant to die on its own.

To quote the November 2, 2008, Washington Times editorial:

Despite all the details Mrs. Stanek provided in her testimony, Mr. Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act in the Illinois legislature in 2002 - a bill that would give legal protection and medical assistance to a baby born from a botched abortion. Mr. Obama stated that he feared the bill could undermine Roe v. Wade. When a similar bill was put to Congress, other lawmakers had better sense and bigger hearts: The Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed the Senate with a vote of 98-0. It was signed into law by President Bush on Aug. 5, 2002. Infants born alive are now recognized as legal persons with full rights.

Anyone who claims a moral interest or concern in this presidential election should pay very serious attention to the sections from Obama and others relating to the notion that a child born after a failed abortion attempt should not be constitutionally protected as a "person" because an abortion had been attempted. The president is the most powerful leader of the free world and, whether Obama or McCain, their moral philosophy of who and what a person is has far more serious consequences for the welfare of the United States than their economic or diplomatic acuity.

Don't think Obama's view are radically humanistic and in direct opposition to a Judeo-Christian view of life? Consider what Dr. Tom McCall, professor of theology at Trinitity Evangelical Divinity School writes:

Obama, for the other side, knew we could not consider such an infant worthy of protection while maintaining current abortion laws. Here’s how he put it on March 30, 2001:

If we consider a fetus intended for abortion “as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements of the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protection that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination essentially, if it were accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.

So, Obama answers the metaphysical question – a fetus is only a person if it is intended for birth. But, not so fast – the metaphysical question is still dead. Some take the question much further with alarming conclusions.


Professor Peter Singer of Princeton caused a stir when he advocated the parental or societal right to terminate a living child for a variety of reasons, the point being that the child’s human personhood is not complete until recognized as such by the parents or some other societal guardian of such things. [Read more...]

Obama skillfully conceals his real comittments behind the parsing of words and supposed concern for legislative integrity, but his fundamental belief about the most integral part of human society--a person--is unmistakeable.

"In leadership, character matters," say well-known leadership scholars Bernard Bass and Paul Steidlmeir. They explain further:

This is not to deny that evil people can bring about good things or that good people can lead the way to moral ruin. Rather, leadership provides a moral compass and, over the long term, both personal development and the common good are best served by a moral compass that reads true [emphasis added].

The greatest danger threatening American society is the substitution of economic and socio-political utility for a true moral compass. Something has gone terribly wrong when a significant segment of the Christian population conciously or otherwise discard the radical ethical difference between economics and moral issues such as abortion and the defintion of a person. History offers some important lessons about the consequences, good or bad, of how cultures view these two sets of values.

If character in leadership matters, then maybe any election ultimately is a one-issue decision: moral virtue versus economic utility.

Given all the other complex factors, when it comes time to pull the proverbial handle, which one matters most to you? That's your one issue. The difference is critical.

--------

Citation from Bass and Steidlmeier taken from "Ethics, Moral Character and Authentic Transformational Leadership" (1998) accessed electronically at http://cls.binghamton.edu/BassSteid.html.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

More Thoughts on Followership

OBEDIENCE | For the sake of conversation, I share this concept of followership as obedience or submission. This captures both the leadership and the followership of Jesus. Jesus said that the core of his mission was "to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work" (John 4:34, NIV). In his priestly prayer, Jesus acknowledged that "I have brought you glory on earth by doing the work you gave me to do" (John 17:4). Jesus' authority and leadership rest on his obedience to the Father1 and his significance as a leader comes from this relationship to God2. If Jesus' leadership arises from this significance of his being a follower, then divine obedience is the core of significant followership and a crucial component of the leadership process. Notably, Paul speaks of submission to others as a means of advancing the gospel in multiple contexts: political authorities (Romans 13:1,5; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 2:13), fellow workers (1 Cor. 16:16), spouses (Eph. 5:21-24; Col. 3:18-19), to masters (as slaves; 1 Peter 2:18; ), to those who are older (1 Peter 5:5), and to God (Heb 12:9; James 4:7).

On a contemporary note, such submission (followership) is essential to the kind of fruitful and godly relationships that are the heart and soul of complex, adaptive organizations3. The picture of the church in Acts 2 is that of such an organization.

For more on obedience and leadership, read this past post I wrote.

BAD FOLLOWERS | Bad followers lead to bad leaders. Followers are complicit in the rise of bad leadership4. When followers abdicate their responsibility and mindlessly obey, they uncritically accept poor and often wrong behavior from leaders who are thus allowed to abuse their power5. Character flaws such as "apathy, passivity, cynicism, and habits of spectator-like involvement"6 further compound the collective dysfunction of organizations thus enabling still more bad leadership. Perhaps, as suggested by the stories of the public scandals of recent years, bad leadership emerges when followers seek self-preservation, personal security and comfort, or certainty and safety at the expense of justice, opportunity, or moral character.

These two thoughts above link together in a vitally pragmatic way. Followers who actively walk in full obedience to God are able to a) be exemplary and effective followers who fully support and hold leaders accountable, and b) be themselves used as effective leaders of others.
------------------------------
1 Allen, D. (1998). Jesus as Lord, Jesus as servant. The Christian Century, 115(9), 295.
2 Shaw, P. (2006). Vulnerable authority: A theological approach to leadership and teamwork. Christian Education Journal: Series 3, 3(1).
3 Cilliers, P. (2000). What can we learn from a theory of complexity? Emergence, 2(1), 23-33.
4 Allio, R. (2007). Bad leaders: how they get that way and what to do about them. Strategy & Leadership, 35(3), 12-17.
5 Lundin, S. & Lancaster, L. (1990). Beyond leadership…The importance of followership. The Futurist, May-June, 18-22.
6 Lundin & Lancaster, p. 21.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Who (Really) are Followers?

Who and what are followers and how are they really different from leaders?

Successful leaders and successful followers share the same basic characteristics: visionary, decisive, communicative, energetic, committed, and responsible. Effective followers possess integrity, have a sense of ownership in the organization, demonstrate versatility and flexibility, and take responsibility for their own involvement1 . However, aren't these same exact things to be said of effective leaders? Are followers simply those who are not leaders? If so, where does the "leader" end and the "follower" begin? Are leaders simply those who are "in charge"? This view simply reduces the concept of leadership to titular authority, which is not really leadership2.

One possible answer is that external expectations for performance, access to resources, and responsibility for outcome delineate leaders from followers3. This view suggests that it is largely position that separates followers from leaders. Most traditional concepts of leadership come primarily from this positional view4, yet this perspective ignores the crucial element of interdependency between leaders and followers. Recent theories such as shared leadership, leadership substitutes, and leaderless teams undercut position as a coherent basis for defining leaders and, by extension, followers. This is an important point for followership, since we are clearly defining followers (role or persons) in light of what we think leaders are.

So the question remains: What distinguishes followers from leaders? One the one hand, we might fall into the ditch of seeing leaders simply as great heroes. Heroic leadership revolves around the idea there is some trait (personality, charisma, competency, gifting, vision, servanthood, authenticity) that distinguishes the leader from others around them. Or we could fall into the other ditch of positional leadership in which case a leader’s behavior or personal attributes are of no real use in defining leaders or followers.

Another popular answer is influence. Some see that the essence of leadership is influence. Yet, influence is a two-way street. Effective followers, what Kelley calls exemplary followers, influence leaders through providing information, honest feedback, alternate perspectives, and affirmation of direction and motivation. Other writers point out the problematic tendency toward manipulation contained in leveraging influence, leading to the possible conclusion that leaders are simply those able to wield greater power than others around them. Such a survival-of-the-fittest perspective is simply untenable. In reality, leaders are often at the mercy of those they lead. Followers vest leaders with the opportunity, freedom, permission, or context for leading.

If we use behavior to define leaders and followers, then it is logical to suppose followers become leaders at the point at which they exhibit those same behaviors5. In that view, followers are just simply those who can't lead. This conclusion is neither helpful nor realistic, since followers lead in all kinds of ways it different times. If we take the view that leadership is positional (due to one's role or office), then leaders are simply the ones in charge. That conclusion doesn't help us understand what a follower is, either, since the best we can say is that a follower is somebody who isn't in charge. In this case, we are not talking about what it is that effective followers actually do, so we're no further ahead in our understanding of what a follower really is.

In truth, the dichotomy between leaders and followers may be rather artificial, and one that is fading away in the face of the complex needs of contemporary organizations6. In today’s complex, challenging world of organizational life, there is a growing trend toward and demand for self-leadership and shared leadership. A richer, more meaningful perspective views leadership as a mutual, interactive process of exchange and reciprocity involving a multiplicity of people. The fluid, interactive, interdependent nature of multiplicity suggests that people move in and out of both leader and followers roles at different times and different contexts7. Paradoxically, these roles might constitute both following and leading at the same time.

Ironically, this complicates rather than clarifies the question. If the essence of an organization is in the interactions of its people, and leadership is sometimes provided by followers, and leaders becomes followers, it may suggests that it is really the followers who are the leaders. It also highlights the need for more consideration being given to understanding leaders and followers in terms of relational roles that are fluid, rather than in terms of the attributes and behaviors of the people that fill them, temporarily or otherwise.

Or perhaps the importance of leaders is exaggerated while the role of non-leaders is minimized when in reality what happens in the organization emerges from the interaction of all involved. This possibility led one writer to conclude that "followership is of such importance that often it is not clear who is leading and who is following."8

Such new perspectives see leadership as a "reciprocal, recursive influence”9 relationship between multiple people in a group. It is an interactive phenomenon of mutual consent, trust, respect, and a shared sense of collective accomplishment between those called “leaders” and those called “followers”. Leadership can be enacted in various roles—such as legitimate (authority), social, or task—which any or every member of the group could potentially occupy at one point or another. The legitimate, or official, leader is the one usually held publicly accountable for how the group or organization performs. In this definition, followers are those not publicly accountable for performance, but an essential internal part of the process which involves different informal roles of leadership10.
---------------------
1 Lundin, S. & Lancaster, L. (1990). Beyond leadership…The importance of followership. The Futurist, May-June, 18-22.
2 Washbush, J. (2005). There is no such thing as leadership, revisited. Management Decision, 43(7/8), 1078.
3 Yukl, C.A. (1998), Leadership in Organisations, 4th ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ,.
4 Rosenau, J. (2004). Followership and discretion: Assessing the dynamics of modern leadership. Harvard International Review, Fall, 14-17.
5 Lundin & Lancaseter (1990).
6 Pearce, C., & Manz, C. (2005). The new silver bullet of leadership: The importance of self- and shared leadership in knowledge work. Organizational Dynamics, 34(2), 130-140.
7 Stacey, R. (2003). Learning as an activity of interdependent people. The Learning Organization, 10(6).
8 Rosenau.
9 Yukl.
10 Sheard, A.G., Kakabadse, A.P. (2002), Key roles of the leadership landscape, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 17 No.2, pp.129-44.