making sense of leadership

I sittin' here in my study staring at my bookcase. For the most part, many of the books are about leadership. There's "R E Lee on Leadership", "The Ascent of a Leader", a book by John Maxwell, Coach K, Rudy Guliani, and Truett Cathy and on and on. I think leadership may be the most over explored and under understood topic around. Have U ever wondered why we have some much written and presented on leadership yet it may be the greatest crisis of our time. The upcoming Presidential campaign is largely about leadership, but hardly anybody gets it.

 
see what I mean


Do we really know much about leadership? Can we only recognize it from someone's results. No one thought much about Coach K's leadership until he won a bunch of titles. Was he not a great leader before he was soooo successful? The debate on whether leaders are born or made gets lots of discussion but little resolution. How do you make sense of LEADERSHIP?

He's the skinny on my take of leadership. First of all, leaders at any level do primarily two things: (1) make decisions about how to win (strategy) in a "hostile environment" and (2) influence peeps (followers) to act in accordance with that strategy. Developing strategy is a whole big area I'll leave for later, but I will offer a brief perspective on the second point of leadership.

For any peep that has the responsibility for the behavior of others, he/she has only two options: the behavior of others can be induced or it can be inspired. The choice must be made for each behavior. Thus a leader has to do both and choose which approach to take depending on the behavior in question.

Inducing behavior requires setting up structures of exchange for the behavior. These include things like policies, rules, rewards, job descriptions, and other forms of controls. This approach is based on Social Exchange theory which states that peeps will exchange behavior for extrinsic benefits as long as there remains equilibrium in the exchange. A leader's ability to induce behavior comes from one's positional power over another the follower's desire to maximize pleasure and minimize pain for themself. These types of leadership actions are normally called managing.

Inspiring behavior requires relationships. Here the leader must invade the intrinsics of another so that the follower determines from within that the result of the behavior is meaningful, purposeful, or enjoyable. Inspiration comes from the leader's personal power (referent or expert) over the follower and involves establishing a vision that is shared by the followers, thereby gaining commitment of followers to something beyond themselves.

Let me illustrate. As a professor I have responsibility to influence student behavior. One such behavior is attending class. I decided that I should induce that behavior. Its easier and I have a better likelihood of success. Thus, I set up rewards and punishment for class attendance that are sufficiently salient to get students to come to class (I experience an 85-90% attendance rate). I also desire that the students ATTEND to class when they are there. This is more difficult to induce unless I gave pop quizes every 10 minutes. I find i must inspire students to listen and engage the topics. This is much more difficult, especially since building relationships with 25 - 35 students is not easy. To inspire I "invade" their intrinsics for learning. Make it fun, appeal to its purpose, help them create a vision, and provide regular feedback to each to encourage them and show that i care. I must show them my own passion for the topics, that is contagious. THIS IS WHAT WE NORMALLY CALL LEADERSHIP.  

In summary, both types of actions are required by the one responsible for others' behavior. The trick is knowing which behaviors to induce (and how) and which to inspire (and how). You won't read this approach in any book on leadership but its a condensed conclusion I have come to from both being a leader for many years and studying it's moving parts.

I hope this helps --- it's certainly worth pondering .....

Faith and works OR Faith vs works

Yesterday in small group time time with my buds we were reading in James chapter 4. Most peeps know this for its famous "faith without works is dead". This is not too difficult to reconcile with salvation by grace through faith doctrines of Paul when we grasp Jame's notion that without acting on the faith we have, our faith has no power to life.

The problem I faced with James 4 came in verse 24 where James proclaims that "by works man is justified and not by faith only." Here James is dealing with our justification, not the power or testimony of our faith. This position by James seemed to me to be in direct conflict with Romans 3:24 (ironically, same verse number), "being justified gratuitously by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." The key to understanding this "contradiction" may be found earlier in Romans 3 where Paul says, "by the works of the law no flesh can be justified."

A closer look reveals that Paul is saying that in no way can a peep's human nature (flesh) make him/her in harmony with the heavenlies or right before a Holy God. Our nature is flawed and can never satisfy the behavioral demands of the Law. James is not focusing on our works (actions) as satisfying God's Law. What he seems to be positing is that it's peeps acting out their faith (as opposed to obeying the Law) that makes them right before God. This may be a subtle but it is a profound difference and not a contradiction. In fact, James seems to be saying what Paul says in Romans 14:23 where we find "anything that is not of faith is sin (enmity with God)."

Thus, the standard for justification is not some behavioral code (ethics, morality, law) but faith in God's love and sovereign power. This is a difficult distinction for Christians steeped in legalism. James is completing what Paul says in Romans 3, not contradicting it. Both encourage us to understand that it's acting on what we believe about God, who He is, what He's done though Jesus, etc. that puts us in right stead with Him. In other words, how do we respond to difficult circumstances? what is our reaction to someone who hurts our feelings? How do we act when we win? Being right before God occurs when we trust Him, not act out of our nature. When we deal with evidence not seen vs what we see. Here justification  (being made right with God) is an ongoing reality, not a single transaction, such as salvation.

While Jesus made us right with God through the Cross, its actions we take from a Kingdom mind that actualizes (makes real) this relationship. This is not collaborative destiny (Armenian), but the reality of our life as one who has received the completed work of redemption. Just as our body and our spirit cannot be separated, neither can our faith and acting on our faith be disconnected, otherwise it is NOT faith!!

Just saying .....

Practical vs Principled, a challenge at every turn!!

The recent Colorado movie theatre massacre touched a common chord of horror in all of us. However, random events like this stimulate the human need to attribute causality to such outcomes.  Invariably the need for a causal linkage and the illusion there is one leads to the ultimate debate between practical and principled responses.  The practical approach would be to limit guns that can kill so many so quickly. Yet this approach violates a principle of constitutional liberty where peeps are restricted in bearing arms. The practical approach seems like a reasonable solution to a specific concern but would contradict a broader principle of freedom granted to us by our founding fathers possibly causing harm in other ways to the greater society (same for requirements to provide birth control vs religious freedom). BTW, those advocating tighter control on guns are the same ones who have succeeded in weakening the ability of mental health authorities to commit those that appear as dangerous to protect their civil liberties. That's how confusing this issue is.

The question of practical vs. principled reveals itself quite often in decision-making and has significant consequences. Whether we should opt for a practical solution that conflicts with a broader more complex applied principle sits at the heart of much of our public and private discourse.  Stephen Covey wrote extensively of this is his best seller, “Principled Center Leadership.”

The financial crisis was an example of this tension. Should government bailout private firms who would fail otherwise? The practical response was that without doing so there were significant risks that our economy would collapse in the short term. Yet, in doing so the government interfered with the market economy, picking winners and losers. Practical peeps were for the bailouts. Principled peeps were against them believing that while the short term may be more difficult, the markets would better sort out the issues and return quicker and stronger if left to work without interference. After all, the credit crisis was a result of practical leaders believing that all peeps should own a home, whether they could pay for it or not (principle).

On an individual level, Joe Paterno covered for his long time friend Coach Sandusky in the child abuse crimes. While none of us can read Paterno’s mind, it seemed that he opted for the practical response by protecting his colleague and the university with silence, knowing the actions by his friend were wrong (principled).  Joe Pa’s statue is down and Penn St is paying a big price for the actions of its leaders.

In looking back at “harmful” events, we seek to make sense of them so we can predict and thereby “dodge” any future occurrence. The question for us, however, is what do we do when faced with such choices? While each event has its own specific issues, I contend that opting for the practical is an ethical issue, really short sighted and “arrogant.” The attraction to the practical path is a manifestation of our quest for knowledge and control. The risk is that we don't trust principle and make the longer term or broader context worse. It is arrogant because it assumes we can figure out causality to what simply may be random, and in doing so predict and maneuver around so that we control events in our lives (these are considered "Black Swan" events, see previous blog). Principled choices recognize that if we trust universal truths (“true north” as Covey calls it) that things will ultimately come out as best they can and if we act against what is true, “the hens will come home to roost” (Covey’s expression for ultimately paying the price of our actions).

Is it possible this is behind many of the issues we face personally and collectively today, such as soaring debt? We see it is practical if we can make the payments knowing that debt is bondage and risky. Is practical oriented decision-making anchored in short term gratification and “epistemic arrogance”? Is our world becoming more and more mediocre because peeps (especially leaders) are more and more practical at the expense of principle?

I not smart enough to know but it’s worth some understanding and pondering ….
Just saying!!

"epistemic arrogance"

"it's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."
"the future ain't what it used to be."
                                      Yogi Berra

My reading this summer has been Nassim Taleb's "The Black Swan."  No, this is not the story of a ballerina with an eating disorder. Taleb's focus of Black Swan is based on the phenomenon that while the evidence of observations suggest all swans are white, one day there appeared a black one. So what? Taleb has found that peeps are miserable failures at dealing with the randomness of life for a number of reasons. Primarily, peeps use data to confirm what they already believe (confirmation bias) and that when something totally unexpected happens, they create a narrative to explain why it was predictable. Such is the case with 9/11, the 2008 financial crisis, etc. The three most significant technological advances in our lifetime (computer, internet, and laser) were unplanned, unpredicted, and unappreciated. Taleb posits that our existence is driven more by our instincts (behavioral tendencies) to make sense of events by looking backwards with an illusion of understanding than our choices.

 One of those "instincts" is the way we deal with episteme (Greek word for knowledge). In fact, Taleb suggests, peeps have an arrogance that correlates with knowledge. We become more arrogant as we gain knowledge, overestimating what we know and underestimating uncertainty. The more expert one becomes, the more likely they are to be whacked by what they don't know they don't know. We gain a greater confidence we are in control because we can better explain past events and better predict events in the future. The fact is, research has shown that knowledge gives peeps comfort not capability about the uncertainties of the future. Unpacking this notion takes many pages in Taleb's book and can be quite complex, but the bottom line is that reality is full of randomness and the human condition is designed to diminish the role of it in their lives because uncertainty fuels anxiety and fear and a sense of being out of control.

Now I do not know if Taleb is a Christian or not, he never brings in spiritual insights in his work. However, there are insights in his work that have spiritual implications. What Taleb has described in his books and essays is the flaws in our human condition and he associates it with a form of ARROGANCE. That is, the human is not made to effectively deal with the future and accompanying uncertainties. To support an illusion of control, peeps diminish the possibilities and  consequences of "randomness" with episteme.

The Bible has another perspective. Faith is the assurance of things NOT SEEN. Faith, not knowledge, is our quest. For the Kingdom mind, randomness is simply "God's sovereign hand." Instead of resulting in arrogance, this results in humility. Instead of fearing the future, the Kingdom mind gives us hope. Recognizing that we are under Grace, the future is not filled with Black Swan events and associated   risks, but assurance of being glorified in the Creator and Sustainer of the universe who loves us beyond imagination.

Needless to say, "The Black Swan" is considerable pause for pondering ....

making sense of "our house"

In the past few months we have had a barrage of problems with our house that needed fixing. The microwave and dishwasher died. The pipe under the sink in utility room leaked requiring $1300 to just dry out the hardwood floors. Then there are planned expenses due like major landscaping project and regular maintenance like restaining the deck and power washing a variety of surfaces. The compressor on one heating/cooling unit failed right as warranty expired. Its easy to begin to think of "our house" as an albatross when it consumes so much unplanned expenses.

Then their are those who think of their house as fulfilling their "dream." "Our house" can become an idol. For many the house represents identity or value (much as a job may). Peeps gain status or recognition and can be admired for the size, beauty, or features of their house.

After many, many years of living in this world, I have come to see a house as a facility, it facilitates. Based on Motivation Theory, peeps allocate their resources towards what they value.  So what a house facilitates for a certain peep depends on what the peep see as important. If one values family, a house facilitates a home, a safe place to be together. If one values hospitality, the house provides the opportunity to bless guests. If one values the opinion of others, their house represents the opportunity to gain image by impression management. If one values their personal economics, the house may be a part of their investment portfolio. And so on ....

So, making sense of "our house" starts with the notion of what value the facility provides. What your house facilitates for you is probably worth a little pondering .... Just saying :-)

get vs have

Its typical of peeps to sometimes have more of their focus on the desire to get than the desire to have. In more benign life situations like vacations and buying cars, peeps can find much more enjoyment in the anticipation and pursuit of the target of their desire than they do when they experience its reality. The letdown of actually having something can often be a drag on our well-being as our closet is full of clothes we don't wear and car payments come every month.

However, in some life situations this tendency can create confusion, frustration, and significant disappointment. More often than we'd like to think I observe a young bride or a groom aspiring to get married only to find out being married (having the spouse) is not what they had bargained for. This "mistake" can haunt them for years as their dream to "get" did not consider the "have" of marriage.

Recently my grand daughter found that wanting to get a dog was way more exciting than the reality of having it. It just wasn't fun getting up each morning to take it out, feeding it, making arrangements for it when she's gone, etc. The time and commitment has been difficult to handle and has overwhelmed the earlier pursuit to "get a dog". Unwinding the decision to pay good money for and attach herself to a dog has been traumatic, but a good life lesson.

My wife and I laugh sometimes about her desire to get a garden is much stronger than to have it. She enjoys shopping for and buying new plants and anticipating what her English garden will look like. However, while she likes to look at it, the garden has to be watered, weeds have to be pulled, plants have to be dead-headed, and often at times these demands are not convenient for her. She likes to get a garden but not to garden (or have it).

There are so many examples in life each of us can identify with. Its part of the human condition. So what can we do. It seems that our fascinations for and dreams of things we desire should be better examined. We must focus more on the HAVE than the GET to determine the long term implications of our aspirations.

Maybe most of the time these "mistakes" will be just nuances in our life but some can be sources of discontent, disappointment, guilt from hurting others, and our own pain. I have just seen a blitzkrieg of these recently and felt it was worth pondering ......