Office Fraternizing

I have a very good friend who e-mailed me over the weekend to tell me that either she or her fiance must quit their job. She and her husband-to-be work for the same company. While they are in the same department, their offices are on different floors of the office building and they are typically only in 2-3 meetings a week together.....in other words, they rarely see each other during the work day.

The company has a policy against the employment of both wife and husband.....therefore, one of them must leave the company when they get married next summer. Her boss admitted that their work performance has not suffered since they began dating.....yet they must abide by company policy. I should also add that they both love working for this institution.

What are your thoughts on institutions that have such policies? Should the two getting married try and have the policy changed? Does this policy fit with a company that tries to follow the principles of servant leadership?

A journal entry about the search

I recently read this quote from Robert Greenleaf's journal entry on August 30, 1941. I found it to be quite moving, as well as insightful into who Greenleaf was:

This is my journal.....This, I expect to be the record of a search without end.....So my search shall bear fruit - not in final accomplishments on which I shall rest - but in ever widening horizons. My satisfaction shall derive from the contemplation of these horizons and in the satisfactions that accrue from expanding my powers to explore them. Life then is growth; when growth stops there is atrophy. The object of the quest, then, is the capacity to grow, the strength to bear the burden of the search, and the capacity to live nobly - if not heroically - in the situations that develop.

Creating lasting Rituals

We create and sustain rituals within our organizations in order to build community. However in many institutions these rituals, often framed as 'team-building exercises,' are looked upon by many with disdain. Whether it is 'in-service days' for educators or 'conferences' within other organizations, many would rather have a nail pounded into their head than participate in these events.

What about your organization? Are there rituals that your organization has created that people are excited to be part of? If not, how would go about creating one? Where would you start?

Follow-ups on Humility & Cultic vs. Servant Leadership.

A couple of quick follow-ups on some recent Blogs.

My latest favorite reference, “The Spirituality & Practice Newsletter” , has a great link to “The Challenges of Humility” which makes a good follow-up to Trevor’s recent post on “Power and Humility.” They suggest a number of practices to develop our humility which include:

• Kneel.

• Consciously get out of the way.

• Don't make a fuss over fame or failure.

• Practice "downward mobility."

• Walk lightly upon the earth.

The Catholic News Service recently had an article on a talk given by Father Louis Cameli the receipiant of the National Catholic Education Associations John Paul II Seminary Leadership Award. In his talk Father Cameli critiqued the two forms of leadership in the Catholic priesthood, servant leadership versus cultic leadership. (These issues were also discussed in a previous Blog of mine here). The article indicated “one problem with both those widely used models of priesthood is that they do not address the question of a priest's intellectual engagement”. My experience with servant-leadership is that when practiced correctly it is indeed “intellectually engaging”.

Your comments on any of these topics are appreciated.

A Kurdish Voice on Power and Humility.

Trevor’s post on Power and Humility asks some important questions, “What will it take for us to not associate power with arrogance?” and “How can we advance to a point where we do not need proof of humility in the powerful before presuming the worst?”

Aland Mizell, a Kurdish legal expert with the University of Texas at Dallas school of Social Science has written an interesting essay titled “Nexus between politics and religion: Who is the companion of the poor?” that was published at the KurdishMedia web site. The essay, which addresses the failure of political and religious leadership to address issues of poverty, particularly with the Kurdish people, is worth reading. In the interest of addressing Trevor’s questions, I pasted a section of the essay below.

“Not everyone can become a leader, because it requires a heavy responsibility. It requires justice, not a thirst for power, fame, or position. Leadership is based on trust and focused on integrity, commitment, and compassion; it is an unwritten contract between a leader and his or her followers to ensure the best guidance, protection, and just and equal treatment of these followers. Also, a true leader must make sure he or she behaves in such a way to deserve trust, following the righteous path, keeping promises, and bringing hope to the people. The real servant leader is one who is modest, humble, and aware of the needs of those he leads. Today those two characteristics of modesty and humility are often absent from current leaders. Human beings have a social window through which they can see others, and others can see them. If leaders have a high social window, then they will think of themselves as superior and attempt to make themselves taller through their pride and vanity.

However, if this social window is set down low, then they may exhibit humility and reach out to help others and to let them see their outstretched hand. Leaders are people’s masters, but ironically are the ones who serve the people, not becoming leaders to be served. People can be led only by serving those in need of guidance. That principle emerges from almost all religions including Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

Robert K. Greenleaf describes the role of the servant leader as one who makes a conscious choice first to be a servant, thus one who wants to serve. That choice then causes the individual to aspire to lead and to become a leader. If we do not have servant leaders today, how can we solve the common problems like poverty, illiteracy, illnesses, and religious and ethnic conflict?”

As the rest of Mizell’s essay points out, the true power of actions are measured by Greenleaf’s test of servant leadership, namely “what is the effect on the least privileged in society?”

Power & Humility

Can individuals, institutions, or governments be perceived as both powerful and humble?

When we think of the most powerful individuals and companies in the world, are we likely to make the assumption that they are arrogant?

The United States and its citizens are often charged with being arrogant. During the height of the Cold War we thought of citizens of the Soviet Union as arrogant. Is this perception based solely on reality or because of the great power of the nation?

What will it take for us to not associate power with arrogance? How can we advance to a point where we do not need proof of humility in the powerful before presuming the worst?

Some thoughts on publishing

A couple of things this morning:

1) CONGRATS to Jim Neppl, a student in our program in the Twin Cities, who recently had an article titled 'Electing Servant-Leaders' published in both The St. Cloud Times and The Catholic Spirit. You can see the article here.

2) I am looking for some feedback. I am editing a newly formed monograph series published by our MA in Servant Leadership program. This would be a yearly publication of essays around a particular theme dealing with servant leadership written by faculty, students and alumni. We hope to have our first one published sometime next summer. My question to you: Anyone have a suggestion about the theme for the first monograph?

Is Servant Leadership part of Humanity’s Song and Dance?

I went to my eighth grade daughter’s parent-teacher conference this afternoon and came a way with a Chinese proverb worth remembering. Her art teacher showed me my daughter’s calligraphy project of the proverb “a bird does not sing because it has the answer, it sings because it has a song”. It seems that too often as human beings we have forgotten what our song really is. I like to believe that the practice of servant-leadership is more in line with “singing our song”, then it is about professing an answer.

And on these same lines, I came across some interesting questions from the Wisconsin Public Radio show “To the Best of our Knowledge” yesterday while driving my daughter’s home from doing some service work of their own. The host Jim Flemming was interviewing Ann Gibbons, the author of the book "The First Human: The Race to Discover Our Earliest Ancestors." Her book is about the teams of paleontologists she met in Africa who are studying four to six million year old fossils of human ancestors. At one point she discussed the significance of finding these fossils and the questions the searchers are asking, such as “How did this upright walking evolve, and why? Was it to dance?” I certainly hope that our ability to walk upright and at times dance, has to do with celebrating the creation that surrounds us, and not dominating it, or subduing it and our fellow human beings as our organizations and institutions so often seem to do.

One of my favorite sections from Don Frick’s autobiography of Robert Greenleaf is from the chapter titled “Awe of the Stars”. Don describes how Greenleaf had the opportunity to observe a great nebula through a telescope. Greenleaf exclaimed, “What a sight! I shook with awe and wonder at the majesty of all creation. This primitive unstructured feeling, the powerful sense of awe and wonder, is to me the source of religious feeling at its greatest depth.”

Like the bird that sings, or our first ancestor to dance, I like to believe that Robert Greenleaf came up with his ideas on servant leadership as a natural response to celebrate the joys of the universe that we present day humans are simply a part.

And for more on this I would encourage you to read the attached link that quotes Carl Sagan’s thoughts on the “pale blue dot” that shows up on today’s Astronomy Picture of the Day web-site and is posted above. Can you find the “pale blue dot” of Earth in the background of Saturn?

Where's the Service?

I have been thinking a lot about service lately. In my current occupation (consulting engineer), I work with sales representatives that work for various equipment manufacturers. I have been out of this line of work for about fifteen years and about a year ago returned to it. It seems that the level of service provided by sales reps and the companies they represent is not at the same level that it used to be, at least on a personal level. There could be several reasons for this, one might be that with the evolution of the Internet, much of the information that in the past was delivered in person can now be accessed “on-line”, but I think there is more to it than just new technology.

It seems that the concept of providing “service”, simply for the act of serving has been replaced with the concept of “marketing” as a way to make a sale or a profit. When I think of service, I think of it in terms of the dictionary’s definition as a “contribution to the welfare of others”, which is “useful labor that does not produce a tangible commodity”. Service in this sense is done simply because that is what we are all about, that is our ultimate purpose; service is what gives life (and work) meaning. Perhaps this is why the term also applies to “religious” practices, practices related to our higher calling. Although service work may not produce “a tangible commodity” in the sense of monetary gain, it does much more than that. Service is what helps us to learn, to grow, and to experience real life, from those we are supposedly serving. In the end the question becomes "who is serving whom?"

Unfortunately in our capitalistic driven world, this type of service does not show up on our “balance sheets” and instead seems to be replaced more and more with the idea of marketing, which the dictionary defines as “the act or process of selling or purchasing in a market.” In many ways it is the view that unless there is something in the act of serving for the company (or me, with the something usually monetary gain), then there is no point in performing the service.

It is this failure to value service for what it is, that takes the meaning out of the work we do. This weeks Spirituality and Practice E-Newsletter starts off with a story by Sadhu Sundar Singh that is a good reminder about why doing service not only helps those we serve, it also helps us.

Sadhu Sundar Singh’s story relates an experience he had crossing a Tibetan mountain pass in the early 1900’s with a guide during extreme cold and heavy snows. They came upon a man who had slipped from the path and was lying in the snow. The guide advised him to leave the man as the burden of carrying the man to safety would likely result in all three of them dieing in the cold conditions. Sadhu could not leave the man and so slung him over his shoulder to try to carry him to safety. The guide took off ahead on his own as Sadhu struggled on with the man over his shoulder.

Sadhu concluded the story with the following reminder on why service is important. “How we made it, I do not know. But just as daylight was beginning to fade, the snow cleared and I could see houses a few hundred yards ahead. Near me, on the ground, I saw the frozen body of my guide. Nearly within shouting distance of the village, he had succumbed to the cold and died, while the unfortunate traveler and I made it to safety. The exertion of carrying him and the contact of our bodies had created enough heat to save us both. This is the way of service. No one can live without the help of others, and in helping others, we receive help ourselves.”

So perhaps things have not changed so much in regards to how we regard service, maybe I just need to focus less on the level of service others provide, and focus more on providing a higher level of service myself. This service needs to be done not with the end in mind, but simply with the realization that the act will bring meaning.

Out of town

I will be in South Bend, IN this week working on my dissertation. I hope to be on a couple of times blogging - we'll see how the schedule works out.

Have a great week!

Trevor

Building a team of conceptualizers and operators

Earlier this week I talked a little bit about two different types of leaders we need within our organizations: Operational leaders and Conceptual leaders. The goal is to have both on your team. The operational leader is concerned primarily with "getting it done"; the conceptual leader is primarily concerned with what "ought to be done." They work together as a reinforcing rather than a counteracting team.

So why doesn't this always happen? Why do members of our team sometimes undermine one another? Well, because whereas conceptualizers generally recognize the need for operators, the reverse is often not the case. If the top post in a hierarchical administration (which is, unfortunately, how most teams are run - more on this another day) is filled by an operator who does not fully understand the need for conceptual influence, the institution does not have a bright long-run future.

For example: While I am making some generalizations here about conceptualizers and operators, my experience tells me that operators will often ask questions like: "What exactly does that person do all day?"

The goal within our organizations is to have a council of equals - a primus inter pares (see here and here for more on this concept) - in which both conceptualizers and operators understand, respect, and depend on one another, and in which neither dominates the other. This is how teams should be run. Of course, this also takes a great deal of time and work.

But remember: Our organization's long-term success depends on it!

Eulogy of a Servant.

Although I am not normally prone to read the obituaries for the residents of Peach Tree City, Georgia, I came across one for Walter Floy Farr that was written by Carolyn Cary of "The Citizen" that caught my eye.

The Peach Tree City pioneer was eulogized as having been a “servant-leader”, who died just as he had lived “very quietly and without fanfare”. Mr. Farr was in the banking business and according to one of his former pastors, “The first half of his life was spent in Tyrone, where he loaned money to farmers and people wanting to buy their first home. He helped farmers through the bad years, and rejoiced with them in the good years. When he moved to Peach Tree City, he continued loaning money to the deserving, encouraging those who were not sure what to do next with their life, and helped them to keep on keeping on.”

One of his friends talked about servant leadership in regard to Mr. Farr’s life. He said, “a servant-leader must insist on collaboration rather then competition, can move to the other side, holds accountable, but never blames, lets go of control, and trusts and validates others, puts oneself at risk, with humility and clarity, and uses power to inspire, enroll and organize, never to manipulate or subjugate.”

I could not help but recall George Bailey from the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” while I read about Mr. Farr’s life. In the movie, Jimmy Steward played the servant-leader character who struggled to find meaning in his life. According to another obituary on Mr. Farr, he helped a group of developers find the property for the planned community of Peach Tree City, much like the work George Bailey did in helping the residents of Bedford Falls to build their homes and the community with loans from the Bailey Building and Loan.

Mr. Farr’s life, much like the character George Bailey, reminds us that no matter what our calling that a life led with service is the foundation of all meaningful community.

If you aren't a conceptual leader, what are you?

Yesterday I wrote about being a conceptual leader. This is the person in our organization that is concerned with what "ought to be done." They ask the questions: When? How? At what cost? In what priority? How well?

What are the other type(s) of leaders within our organization? Greenleaf calls them Operational Leaders. He says: The operating talent carries the institution towards its objectives, in the situation, from day to day, and resolves the issues that arise as this movement takes place. This calls for interpersonal skills, sensitivity to the environment, tenacity, experience, judment, ethical soundness, and related attributes and abilities that the day-to-day movement requires.

Greenleaf correctly points out that operating leadership is more administering in contrast to leading. Now that we have seen two types of leaders within organizations, this leads us to the following questions:

Do our organizations have both operational and conceptual leaders? Is there a balance between the two? Does one overshadow the other? And most importantly: Do these two types of leaders understand, respect, never dominate, and depend on one another to carry out the mission of our organization?

What is your experience of operational and conceptual leaders in organizations?

Conceptual Leadership: What is it?

Bob Greenleaf spoke quite often about the importance of having conceptualizers within an organization. I want to spend a little time talking about this, but I first want to start with a definition.

In his essay The Institution as Servant, Greenleaf said that: Conceptual talent sees the whole in the perspective of history - past and future. It states and adjusts goals, analyzes and evaluates operating performance, and foresees contingencies a long way ahead. Long-range strategic planning is embraced here (emphasis mine), as is setting standards and relating all the parts to the whole. Leadership, in the sense of going out ahead to show the way, is more conceptual than operating. Conceptual, as used here, is NOT synonymous with intellectual or theoretical. Conceptualizers at their best are intensely practical. They are also effective persuaders and relationship builders.

Do organizations today have conceptualizers? If so, are they valued by the organization? If not, why are they absent? Answers to these and other questions around the idea of conceptual leadership within an organization as the week goes on.