So what do we do with this?

This week I've been writing (see here and here) about Greenleaf's concern with the role of both trustees and the chief executive/internal leadership within organizations.

Regarding trustees the problem lies: in a board that is often formed merely to satisfy legal requirements; and in a board that is not asked to actually lead and question the assumptions that administrators make, but only intervene when necessary. One needs to look no further than yesterday's post about American University to see what happens when a board is not taking on the responsibility of leading and serving the institution.

So what, then, does Greenleaf propose? Well, to start, institutions need to have a board that does not include the administrators of the institution. Second, boards need to initiate and shape the character of the institution and be willing to examine the wisdom and decisions of the administration. Third, trustees need a new view of people in their institutional roles. The view is simply "No person is complete; no one is to be entrusted with all. Completeness is to be found only in the complementary talents of several who relate as equals."

An ideal organizational structure for Greenleaf would look like this: A board of trustees that operates with a primus; and an administrative team that operates with a primus. (See here and here for an explanation of primus inter pares). More to come about this set-up in future weeks.

This just in.....

I just added two very interesting developments to yesterday's post regarding the happenings at American University. Click here and check them out at the bottom of the post.

You just can't make this stuff up!

One of the attractions that many have to Greenleaf's work, and the reason I have been trying to provide more quotes and insight from his work lately, is that it is so relevant to today's need for leadership within organizations. What is encouraging about investing one's energy in the principles of servant-leadership is his seminal work, the essay The Servant as Leader, was written over 30 years ago; and it makes just as much sense, if not more, in today's world. His writings are truly prophetic.

Yesterday I was quoting Greenleaf's concern about the interaction between the trustees/board and a single chief executive. Well, this morning when I woke up I found this article about the final deal made between Benjamin Ladner of American University and the Board of Trustees. I have mentioned this issue here before; Dr. Ladner, who was president of the University, was investigated for some of his very elaborate spending with university monies. The university released him from his duties, but not before providing him with a $3.75 million settlement, $20,000 for moving expenses, 90 days grace to vacate the university-owned house he used, other monies to settle his taxable income issues with the IRS, and no requirement to pay back his questionable spending. Not surprisingly, a total of three board members have resigned in protest, not to mention the protests of the deans, faculty, and students of the university. The board members resigned because the trustees were "putting Ben Ladner before American University."

Not only did the trustees put too much faith and trust in one chief operator, but now that there has been questionable behavior by this individual they are still willing to pay him to settle his improper dealings with the IRS!

Friday Update: Here are a couple of articles from this morning's papers about the Severance deal at American University. If you are unable to access them and need/want access to either of these articles in full, send me an e-mail:

1) The NY Times reports that student leaders have begun encouraging students to call on Congress to replace the board. The message he sent to students: "Don't let American University set a precedent for Enron-style corporate crime within higher education." Evidently Congress chartered the university in 1893 and retains certain oversight responsibilities. A very creative move on behalf of the student body; we'll see if it works.

2) The Chronicle of Higher Ed reports that two members of the board have issued an apology. The board has acknowledged that they lacked a "clear understanding" of Mr. Ladner's contract and various forms of compensation. Wait a minute....isn't the board the one who hired the guy in the first place? And they don't know anything about his contract? HMMMM....
They write: "The board has resolved to do better, much better, in the future --- to be a board fully worthy of the fine institution to whom its care is entrusted." For the sake of the university, its employees, and students, I sure hope so!

A flaw with organizational structure

Yesterday I spoke of Greenleaf's views on the role of trustees within an organization. Yet Greenleaf realized that most organizations weren't set up to allow organizations to serve with distinction:

Part of the failure of our institutions to serve with distinction may be the interaction between two reinforcing elements: low levels of trusteeship and the concept of the single chief executive. Once established, there is a lock-step between trustees, who minimize their obligation by delegating operating responsibility to one person, and the chief executive who wants to keep the trustees from interfering. Only to the extent that trustees give support when it is needed does the chief executive want a strong board. Others who have a special interest in the organization - share owners in a business, the various constituencies of a university, members of a church - have expectations that reinforce these relationships. They want a strong board to select and support a strong executive and to make certain checks on the operation, especially financial ones, and they want the board to intervene if the executive - or pastor - fails. But they do not expect the board to lead.

What do you do when caught in the middle?

I read this article yesterday about a professor applying for a job as department chair at a university. He tells of meeting the Dean who made it quite clear that there were a lot of problems with the department and he wanted someone to come in who was willing to "shake up the place and get rid of some of the deadwood." He then met with the faculty, some of whom were among the ones the Dean wanted to see cut loose, who were looking for someone to come in who would "be on the their side" against the administration.

This job applicant realized immediately that the person to whom he would be responsible if hired had opposite expectations from those immediately empowered to hire him. What did he choose to do? He returned home and withdrew his application!

For some people it isn't that easy; they are already in the position of trying to please two groups with competing interests. In fact, I'm sure that it is quite common in today's organizations. What is the right thing to do in these situations? As an aspiring servant-leader, how does one move forward?

Book Review: Six Disciplines for Excellence

Some of the folks at Six Disciplines recently contacted me and asked if I'd be willing to share some comments about their most recent book, Six Disciplines for Excellence, with the blog's readers. Here are some of my thoughts on it:

The book is written for small business owners to provide them with a systematic business-building methodology in order to help them consistently improve all facets of the business. The author, Gary Harpst, a former CEO, has identified six key steps for a small business to focus on: Decide what's important; Set goals that lead; Align systems; Work the plan; Innovate purposefully; and Step back.

What makes this book unique, not to mention worthwhile? The book is filled with concrete examples, processes and checklists that will help a business owner in creating a successful business. Anyone who is in need of ways to move an organization forward will find a treasure chest of ideas in its pages.

Do I have any reservations about the book? Yes. The biggest concern I have is the timing of engaging the entire team (all team members) in the development of the organization’s mission, values and vision of the company. In small business, bringing everyone into the conversation after the key company documents have been written and all the goals are set will not develop an environment of trust and consensus; rather it will be about persuading and cajoling employees to get on board. Despite my reservations, there is a lot of quality content in this book.

Interestingly, I found out that the book is just the tip of the Six Disciplines "iceberg." Behind the book is Six Disciplines Corporation, which has invested over $10 million dollars developing practical Internet-based technologies that make the Six Disciplines Methodology practical.

One aspect of the Six Disciplines approach to business-building that will be of interest to our readership: Six Disciplines Leadership Centers are being launched nationwide, using a business coaching component that employs many servant-leadership principles, helping small business team members to use the Six Disciplines Methodology – to keep on track, and work toward achieving excellence that lasts.

Any small business owner with 100 employees or less will find a great deal of practical insight from reading “Six Disciplines for Excellence” that will be very helpful in an attempt to build a successful business.

Trustees as Leaders

Last week I posted (see here and here; also see Don Frick's excellent post here) about traditional organizational structure and some of its limitations. This week I'd like to spend some time on another of Robert Greenleaf's passions: trustees.

What exactly is the basic role of the trustee within an organization? In his essay The Institution as Servant, Greenleaf says this:

Part of the problem of moving our institutions along is that persons outside the institution either do not know enough to make a pertinent criticism, or the institution has its guard up and the external critics cannot penetrate it. Those inside who might be critics are sometimes suppressed by an arbitrary discipline or encumbered by loyalty and do not appreciate the importance of criticism to the health of the institution. Sometimes they do not know how to make their criticism effective. It is a major trustee role to build legitimacy by being sensitive to critical thinking from all quarters and helping to interpret the meaning of it to the internal leadership and administration. Thus the trustees should exploit their inside-outside objective position to become instruments of understanding.

Do you work in an institution that has a board of trustees? How well do they function? Are they listened to by the administration/leadership?

An uphill battle before us

Today I read this story about Donald Trump's recent one-hour talk in which he received a paltry $1.5 million. His advice: "When somebody challenges you, fight back." And this one is my favorite: "Get the best people and don't trust them." <Sigh>

Why people would pay up to $500 to hear this, I haven't a clue. Actually, I think I have a good idea, but I'm curious: What do you think? Would you pay money to hear Mr. Trump give a talk such as this?

A day of mourning

Today was a sad day for our department. Sister Laurian Pieterek, Franciscan Sister of Perpetual Adoration, died rather suddenly this past weekend. Sister Laurian was chair of our department from 1973 until 1993. Although she earned Professor Emeritus status in 2001, she continued teaching an occasional course as needed.

Sr. Laurian will be missed; may she rest in eternal peace.

Some technical issues today

After hearing from several of you today, I realized that the comments section was not working on the blog. I apologize for the problem; I use Haloscan for both comments and trackback and understand that they were having some issues today. It seems to be resolved now, so comment away!

First Among Equals

I applaud Trevor for bringing up the issue of organizational structures and their link to servant leadership. I have read letters from some of Greenleaf's best friends in the business community who loved his first essay about individual servant-leaders but were horrified when he wrote about the implications of primus inter pares in The Institution as Servant. "The world doesn't work that way!" they protested to Bob.

Actually, it can work that way but it takes high maturity on the part of the change agent(s).

Last year I was honored to write a short story about a remarkable friend who implemented primus inter pares in his workplace. I'd like to quote from it and wish to give proper reference to the book: Positively M.A.D.: Making A Difference in Your Organizations, Communities & the World, (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler).

To set the scene, George SanFacon was weary of the lack of community in the workplace and always hoped he'd be in a position to change things...

"Now he was director of Housing Facilities at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, a department with several hundred employees, and he felt even more isolated. His people did their jobs well but were reluctant to connect, be authentic and admit to faults. During a three-day silent retreat, George realized that his traditional management role of holding power over others created a climate of fear.

'Then I asked myself what love would look like in the workplace,' remembers George. 'What would I do if my mother reported to me, or my sons? I knew that I would want them to be true partners with me in the enterprise. That’s what love would look like. Then I realized that the people reporting to me were mothers and sons from other families. And so I decided to change the framework.' It was time for George to step out and live the change he sought to create, even though he did not yet know what form it would take."

After many trust-building meetings with his team and discovering the "first among equals" idea in Greenleaf's writings, George decided to give up unlateral control for a system of shared governance. We pick up the story again...

"Today, no one person alone can hire, fire, promote or evaluate an employee. It is done by group process and consensus. By the time of George’s retirement in the spring of 2004, the commitment to a consensus structure was embedded in the hearts and minds of many partners. George reminds us that 'creating better workplaces is not different than creating better selves and a better world.'

George SanFacon on building a consensus workplace:

1. 'Be willing to look at yourself first and your need for power. We are all broken but are more than our brokenness. This model won't work unless you come from a deep place.'

2. 'You don’t have to know the answers; you only need to steward a process of dialogue and consensus decision making. People will support what they help to create.'

3. 'Go for the long haul. This work takes time.'"

Anyone interested in the Housing Facilities governance structure can go here to read an article about it and find a link to download the Facilities Housing Department's Council Handbook.

Go here to download George SanFacon's free online book Awake at Work: Concepts and Principles for Creating Better Workplaces and a Better World which provides a conceptual base for George's journey.

Don Frick

The Limitations of the Hierarchical Structure: An Example

After just posting about some of the ways in which the traditional structure of an organization can cause problems, I read this article about an academic administrator at a university in the Northeast.

The author resigned his position, knowing full well it would end his academic career, because of what he refers to as 'The Divide'. What is The Divide? He refers to it as "that almost unbridgeable, us-verses-them gulf between faculty members and those who would lead them."

He goes on to say: As a faculty member, I earned a reputation as a hard-working idealist and a person of intelligence and integrity. As soon as I assumed an administrative position, however, my reputation crumbled. I was simply one of Them.

This is a great must-read article, with some humorous and poignant stories, which demonstrates very well what Greenleaf is concerned about when he writes about the problems in the traditional pyramidal structure.

Greenleaf on the flaws of 'one-person-in-control'

Yesterday I spoke of Greenleaf's views on the tradition behind how organizations are shaped. As we head into the weekend I thought I would leave you with five (among many that Greenleaf mentions) of the limitations of the hierarchical structure that Greenleaf wrote about in his essay The Institution as Servant, which can be found in this book:

1) To be a lone chief atop a pyramid is abnormal and corrupting. None of us is perfect by ourselves and all of us need the help and correcting influence of close colleagues. When someone is moved atop a pyramid, that person no longer has colleagues, only subordinates.

2) Those persons who are atop the pyramids often suffer from a very real loneliness. They cannot be sure enough of the motives of those with whom they must deal, and they are not on the "grapvine." Most of what they know is what other people choose to tell them. They often do not know what everybody else knows, informally.

3) The typical chief who rests uneasily atop the pyramid of any large institution is grossly overburdened. The job destroys too many of them - which is reason enough to abandon the idea. But for the institution there is also damage. For in too many cases the demands of the office destroy these persons' creativity long before they leave the office.

4) Being in the top position prevents leadership by persuasion because the single chief holds too much power. Chiefs often cannot say persuasively what they would like to say because it will be taken as an order. No one else can effectively speak for the chief because the listeners rightly want to know what the chief thinks.

5) Finally, the prevalence of the lone chief places 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.

What do you think of Greenleaf's views on the topic? Have you seen any of these at work in the organizations with whom you are associated?

Greenleaf on organizational traditions

Greenleaf spent a great deal of time writing about the flaws of traditional organizational structure. He believed that the typical hierarchical structure, most widely used by organizations even today, cannot carry the institution to the distinguished performance that it must attain. Unfortunately, too few people are convinced of the limitations this structure provides.

Even as people begin to see the limitations, tradition often gets in the way of permitting organizations from beginning anew. But where do these traditions come from? What are the models available in shaping the structure of an organization? Greenleaf provides two traditions from which we form our organizations:

The first of these organization traditions, and the most widely accepted, comes down from Moses. It is the hierarchical principle that places one person in charge as the lone chief atop a pyramidal structure. Nearly all institutions we know about - businesses, governments, armies, churches, universities - have been organized this way so long that it is rare for anyone to question the assumptions that underlie the model. We see no other course than to hold one person responsible. And so the natural reaction to a call for stronger leadership is to try to strengthen the control of the one person at the top. This reaction, in most cases, exacerbates rather than alleviates the problem.

The second tradition, of much more limited use, comes down from Roman times. It is the form where the principal leader is primus inter pares - first among equals. There is still a "first," a leader, but that leader is not the chief. The difference may appear to be subtle, but it is important that the primus constantly test and prove that leadership among a group of able peers. This principle is more difficult to find in practice, but it does exist in important places - with conspicuous success.

Large corporations embracing Servant-Leadership

I read this post about a speech given by Al Carey, president of Pepsico sales, at a recent executive forum. He spoke of Pepsico's commitment to a servant-leadership model that means "focusing on the person on the front lines as the most important person in the company."

First, I laud Pepsico's desire to embrace servant-leadership. It is exciting to see that larger, publicly held, institutions are taking a sincere interest. My best guess would say that Southwest Airline's commitment to, and success with, servant-leadership has provided proof that it can and does work in larger corporations.

I certainly have some reservations about Mr. Carey's quote. It is an incomplete, if not potentially disastrous, view of how servant-leadership plays a role within an organization. But considering this is the only sentence that a reporter picked up from what I presume was a rather lengthy talk, I'm willing to give Mr. Carey and Pespsico the benefit of the doubt that there is an honest effort within the organization to learn and practice servant-leadership. And on that note, let's hope that more large organizations here and abroad continue to develop a servant-leadership culture.

A Site Upgrade

I am very excited to announce that Don Frick, author of Robert K. Greenleaf: A Life of Servant-Leadership, and co-editor of the book On Becoming a Servant-Leader has joined our blogging team. For those of you who have been following the blog for awhile, you know that Don was our keynote speaker at our 1st Annual Conversation on Servant-Leadership.

Don will obviously bring a great deal of insight about servant-leadership, as well as adding credibility, to the blog. He will be posting when his schedule allows and as the spirit moves him. You can find his first post here.

Welcome Don!

The Wisdom of the Hyphen

In reading the critique of servant leadership and Brendon's excellent response, I was reminded of Greenleaf's use of a hyphen in the phrase "servant-leader." Bob was very precise about his language and worked hard on perfecting each sentence. Whitehead taught him that language should encourage an imaginative leap in the reader, and that's exactly what the phrase servant-leader does. The hyphen does not allow us to interpret the words in their normal sense as the author of the critique tried to do.

In the Introduction to Greenleaf's biography I tried to address this issue because it is at the heart of a lot of misunderstanding—and enormous power—of servant leadership:

"Servant and leader are two nouns that usually describe two quite different roles. The hyphen holds them together in paradox, creating a Zen-like koan that stops the reader as he or she considers how two such dissimilar words could go together. Greenleaf was fully aware of this effect and wanted the reader to complete the meaning.

He wrote that he was comfortable with paradox in his own life and even welcomed it—'I believe that I live with as much serenity as do my contemporaries who venture into controversy as freely as I do but whose natural bent is to tie up the essentials of life in neat bundles of logic and consistency.'

The phrase 'servant-leader' points to a whole that is greater than the sum of the two parts. The joining evokes the presence of a third force, one that is as ancient as Buddha, Lao-Tsu, and Jesus, and as fresh as the latest book on organizational behavior—the transformative power of serving. Although Greenleaf never wrote about it, he may have omitted the hyphen in the phrase 'servant leadership' because that phrase describes a philosophy of leadership, one among several possible, and refers more to the strategic actions taken by a servant-leader."

Don Frick

Anyone up for trip to London?

I read this morning that Dr. Margaret Wheatley will be tackling why good leadership has become more difficult to sustain in the 21st century at a one-day seminar hosted by i-coach academy in London on December 10th 2005.

Dr. Wheatley has written a few good books that should be on the shelf of everyone interested in leadership: Turning to One Another, Simple Conversations to Restore Hope to the Future; Finding our Way, Leadership for an Uncertain Time; Leadership and the New Science, Discovering Order in a Chaotic World. She has also produced a video called It's a Wonderful Life: Leading through Service, where she connects the principles of Servant-Leadership with the character of George Bailey in the movie It's a Wonderful Life.

I doubt that I'll be able to make it as that is Finals Week here at Viterbo. However, perhaps some of our readers in England might be able to attend and report back?!?

Responding to the Critique

On Monday I wrote about a critique of servant-leadership. Brendon at Slacker Manager does an outstanding job in this post of responding to the issues the critic puts forth. He even cites Ken Blanchard's excellent article in Insights on Leadership, a book we use in our introductory graduate course on Servant-Leadership.

Tom over at HR for the Leader in You also picked up on Brendon's post and adds his own comments here.

Please take the time to read both of their posts.

Thank you, gentlemen, for taking the time & energy to respond! It's always exciting to read the thoughts of others who are passionate about servant-leadership and the positive effects it can bring to organizations.

Greenleaf on Regenerating our Institutions & Moving toward Distinction

How do we build serving institutions? How do we make things happen? This is a topic that Greenleaf spent a lot of time pondering. He begins this way:

If more serving institutions are to be built, individuals who want to serve must, on their own, become insitution builders where they are. Much zeal to build a better society is wasted because too many well-intentioned peiople flail away in all directions and insist on chemical illusions of instant perfection. If utopia cannot be delivered now, they lose interest. The heat this generates may stir the air a bit, but not much will change until the builders within institutions, those who have competence and strength, begin to move.

Who are these builders within the institutions? In what direction should they begin to move? These builders, according to Greenleaf, are the governing boards, or trustees, that are responsible for moving the institution toward distinction:

Large universities, businesses, and churches (especially Protestant churches) have in common governing boards with enough autonomy to become originators of new regenerative forces. Occasionally an institution might move to distinction without the influence of its board, but it is not predictable. However, if a strong board sets distinction as its goal, invests the time and energy, organizes itself for the task, and stays with it, distinction is practically assured. The place to start is with an unequivocal trustee obligation to deliver a new, more serving institution.

Servant-Leadership links

Here are some links that may be of interest:

1) This article, from Orenda Coaching and Consulting, argues that there are five leadership qualities that increase the potential for leadership success: engagement, self-awareness, values, empathy and adaptive capacity. Can you think of others?

2) George in South Africa has this post on servant-leadership. He discusses the distinction between the what and the how of leadership.

3) Last, there is a new blog out there talking about servant-leadership, among other things. John has just started his blog, which contains this post about servant-leadership and church. Best of luck John.

Critiquing Servant-Leadership

One of my favorite activities in the classroom is to present an argument that goes against the beliefs held by a majority of the classroom. In order to fully believe in something, we must be able to defend it.

With that in mind, I ran across this article that I wanted to pass along. According to the author, servant-leadership is no more than a clever gimmick. He argues that a servant must do precisely what his/her master requests, whether or not it is good for them. And he then asks "Is this a useful metaphor for a leader?"

So friends, how would you respond? How would you articulate a vision of servant-leadership that would be helpful for the author?

Creating an Authentic Community of Work

Any organization worthy of its name must create an authentic community of work that allows it to see the whole of its organizational life. It is more than managing the competing interest of diverse parties within the organization; it means going beyond balancing the dynamic of contending interests to integrating the various parts of the organization into a community of work where those who are connected to that workplace flourish. Like our own personal fragmentation, this is never completely done, nor is it easy, but it is an important signature to the vocation of the servant-leader in organizations.

Greeleaf spoke a great deal on this very topic. As the week draws to a close, I'll leave you with one of my favorite Greenleaf quotes:

Caring for persons, the more able and the less able serving each other, is the rock upon which a good society is built. Whereas, until recently, caring was largely person to person, now most of it is mediated through institutions - often large, complex, powerful, impersonal; not always competent; sometimes corrupt. If a better society is to be built, one that is more just and more loving, one that provides greater creative opportunity for its people, then the most open course is to raise both the capacity to serve and the very performance as servant of existing major institutions by new regenerative forces operating within them.

A Special Thanks

On Wednesday evening I was doing some tweaking to the website. I thought I had it running well, but when I woke up on Thursday morning I found an e-mail from a regular reader from overseas that said "I think something is wrong with your blog." I checked the site and it seemed just fine. And then another e-mail came saying the same thing. Uh-oh, I thought. Since I use Firefox, I checked out the blog on IE and, sure enough, there were problems.

When I got to work I e-mailed Scott at Bernadot Studios. Scott did the design work on the site. Well, seems I removed some tags that I shouldn't have and, of course, did not save my work before making adjustments. (Trust me, I've learned my lesson!)

It took Scott a little while to get it fixed just right, but he did manage to fix my mess. I'm still not sure why the site worked just fine in Firefox and not IE, but that is why I'm a theology practitioner and not a web designer! Scott is not only great at what he does, he also embodies many of the qualities of a great servant-leader. He has always put my needs and wants as a blogger before his personal views on site design. And he was very empathetic to the mess I had created. If you are ever in need of some site design, or a makeover of your blog, please contact Scott. They don't make "web guys" any better!

How CEOs are listening to their employees

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal indicates that an "open inbox" policy is becoming quite common in many organizations. CEOs are making a commitment to read each and every e-mail that they receive from employees.

This is a great way to not only boost morale among employees, but also make a connection that was missing in a traditional top-down organizational structure. It is a great way as well to model the importance of listening to mid-level leaders in the organization.

Can anybody see a downfall with this? Actually, the article points it out nicely: The CEO of Cinergy says that he keeps his blackberry right next to his bed. Before going to sleep, he says, "you don't say your prayers. You check your e-mail."

OK, so making the commitment to read, and perhaps respond to, each e-mail is taking over some CEOs lives and skewing priorities. There are probably some who handle it quite nicely as well. But the willingness for CEOs to listen to anyone in the organization (a la Max Depree) is certainly a reflection of servant-leadership principles in action; and a bit of positive leadership news coming out of business that is much needed.

More features added to help you navigate the site

On Monday I mentioned adding the GVisit feature to the blog. It clearly misses well over half of the visitors to the site for some unknown reason, but it has been interesting visibly seeing the cities from which the readers visit.

I have added two new features that will hopefully prove helpful in your reading experience:

1) More RSS aggregators to chose from, as well as an e-mail feature. I personally use Newsgator, which is very user-friendly. (Drop me an e-mail if you ever want help in utilizing an RSS aggregator, which will bring news stories, blog posts, and much more right to one location!)

I have also added the ability to sign up to received posts via e-mail. Simply enter your e-mail and submit. You will then receive an e-mail that will contain a link to confirm your subscription. Click on that link and you are subscribed! The e-mail will be delivered to your inbox shortly after midnight each evening.

2) I have also added a search feature to the site. It is located on the right side under 'Archives'. If you ever are looking for an old post of mine, simply use this feature.

I hope these help your experience of the site. I am continually looking for more ways to improve the site, as well as the content. And remember that I am always open to suggestions!

Scandals: From business to higher education

A few years ago the scandals were coming fast and furious from the business world: Enron, MCI, et. al. Now scandals and a lack of leadership are coming from our colleges and universities:

Adams State College in Colorado has fired (subscription required) its president, Richard A. Wueste, for alleged financial mismanagement and failure to follow the board's directives. Mr. Wueste faced accusations of making unbudgeted expenditures of $558,000, of adding positions and signing contracts that the board had not approved, and of failing to submit a balanced budget for the 2005-6 academic year.

At Texas A&M at Kingsville, the president has suspended (subscription required) the campus's 34-member Faculty Senate, a year after the senate voted no confidence in him. The senate noted in their no-confidence vote that the president, Mr. Juarez, decided in May 2003 "to deny promotion to a large number of university faculty, most of whose applications for promotion had been approved by departmental, college, and university committees," as well as by the provost, showing "a callous disregard for the combined wisdom of these subordinate bodies and administrators."

American University trustees announced Monday night that Benjamin Ladner will not return as president after a months-long investigation into his spending. Auditors had questioned spending by Ladner that included French wine, expensive restaurants both here and abroad and chauffeurs who ran personal errands.

It should be noted that media stories such as these do not always present both sides of the story. I certainly am not here to add to what some may perceive as bashing of these individuals. That said, what we have at best is a lack of communication and leadership with the parties involved; and at worst, some very severe ethical issues.

It seems that there has been a large number of no-confidence votes occuring on campuses recently. The art of dialogue, and a lack of commitment to work for the common good, appears to be fading fast at many universities. It seems that the principles of servant-leadership could find themselves plenty useful in higher education.

Final comments from Don Frick

As some of you may have noticed, Don was nice enough to stop by the blog and leave some comments about my observations from his talk at our Conversation on Servant-Leadership. Since there are many of you who subscribe via feed who don't often make it by the blog, I thought I would post Don's comments here:

Thank you for your kind comments about my presentation at the First Annual Wisconsin Conversation on Servant Leadership. I wish there had been time to emphasize two additional points I learned from researching Greenleaf's life.

1. Bob Greenleaf was a math major, an amateur astronomer, and a crackerjack, world-class researcher. Along with the hundreds of management and personnel studies he personally oversaw at AT&T, he also valued pure science and applied technology. He learned from the best, including the original Hawthorne Experiment researchers and the Nobel Prize-winning scientists he hung out with at Bell Labs. This guy was not a soft and mushy Luddite. He knew all about benchmarks and evaluations but, like Kurt Lewin, sought to measure attitudes and behaviors that were typically ignored in the research. You can find some of those in Greenleaf's "Best Test" for a servant-leader.

2. In his own life, Greenleaf learned that two things were critical for a servant-leader to be effective.

a) He or she should fearlessly explore personal shadows so they are not projected out onto others, and

b) a servant-leader must first lead him/herself. That means reading passionately, seeking out experiences of art and culture, making friends with thought leaders, exploring interior and exterior challenges beyond the bounds of comfort, creating and playing joyfully, and setting and meeting personal goals, all the while remaining open to the promptings of spirit.

As Greenleaf said, "It all begins 'in here,' not 'out there.'

Servant-Leadership in Government

One of the questions I am occasionally asked is: 'Do you think the President of the United States can be a Servant-Leader?' What a great question! As for an answer....I'll let all of you ponder the question for awhile first.

In the meantime, the Pratt, KS Chamber of Commerce executive director wrote this very nice article about the City Manager and the city's administration for their willingness to embrace a servant-leadership model of governance. Not only does Jeanette, the exec. director, give high marks to the city's administrators, she really seems to grasp what servant-leadership is all about.

Are you still waiting for me to answer the question? Well, I'll answer with another question (the teacher in me is coming thru a bit this morning): If servant-leadership works in city government, why would it not work for the federal government in leading the nation?

Hermann Hesse, Robert Greenleaf & Servant-Leadership

R