Learn more about coaching: https://youtu.be/yHHrsK5ck3w
“There are times that I wonder how to balance the needs of the organization with compassion.” My client sat pondering the issue for a moment then continued, “But then that is the responsibility of the CEO.” Jayne (not her real name) was right. There are few positions that juxtapose organizational and people needs like that of the CEO. Everything hinges on the CEO’s ability to support the dynamic tension between the needs of the organization and the needs of all the stake holders – in this case a key employee.
Jayne runs a 30 million dollar operation in senior life care with 300 employees. She follows a CEO whose style can best be described as laissez-faire. The outgoing CEO neither had the emotional intelligence nor the drive to pull together a workable executive team. He focused on his own strengths and interpersonal forcefulness to build himself a legacy and push things through the system. Effective? Yes, it got the things done that were important to his legacy. Healthy? No. As a result Jayne is working through her executive team replacing toxic people with healthy ones and literally resetting the organization from the chaos left in the absence of the kingpin to a healthy team that knows what the organization needs and has the values and skills to get it there. One of Jayne’s executive team (a VP) is struggling.
“She told me the other day that I intimidate her, I am not sure I feel bad about that,” Jayne said.
“Apparently your VP wanted you to feel bad about it?” I queried.
“Yes, that was the clear message – in her words I have ruined her life by demanding performance proper to her level of employment.” Jayne paused. “The VP said, ‘I can’t even get dressed in the morning without wondering if Jayne will approve of my wardrobe – I am not sure I will ever win your approval.” Jayne locked eyes with me for a moment and said, “I have never said I disapprove of her wardrobe or of her as a person. She said I was killing her personality. She is right on one hand I do disapprove of her lack of performance.” Jayne’s tone changed as she turned to face me.
“I understand holding people to a change in performance.” Jane began. “But how do I hold them accountable for their personality?”
I could tell the question troubled her. I suggested, “Perhaps it is your choice of vocabulary that has you stymied. Your VP can’t change her personality and in fact that is not the issue. The issue is behavior and she can change behavior.”
“Oh, that helps,” Jayne said.
The VP, like many challenging employees, sought to blame something external to herself (the CEO) for the consequences of her own behaviors. The fact is concern on the part of the VP about her job is right. She should consider whether she wants to grow her capacity by modifying her behavior or look for job with less responsibility somewhere elsewhere.
On writing on the leadership of George Washington, Richard Brookhiser observed, “Problems, and a leader’s solutions to them, consist of ideas, forces, and facts of life. But they are always accompanied by, or incarnated in, people. Judging people accurately and managing them well can make the difference between success and failure.”
When leaders avoid the discomfort associated with addressing problems the result is that they only transfer conflict (the evidence of problems) to larger groups of people in the organization they serve. This transfer has a cascading effect that disrupts large segments of the organization’s performance. This contributes to employee angst and job misery more than anything else in organizational life.
How do you work through conflict in the organization you lead? Judging people accurately includes the awareness of their uniqueness and their stress points. Any leader’s job not only includes helping others work at their peak skills but also of performing in their most constructive behaviors. Hold people, and yourself, accountable for both performance and behavior and watch your people become the high performing team you always wanted to see.
 Richard Brookhiser. George Washington on Leadership. (New York, NY: MJF Books, 2008), 83.
A friend of mine recently wrote me to ask, “A local friend who is a professional consultant for non-profits and church ministry (organizational leadership) went through a divorce this past year (after 20 years of marriage and 5 kids). We meet together last week. I sought him out to for purely relational follow-up – we had been out of touch for just short of 3 years. He took advantage of my invitation to share with me all that had transpired. In our discussion I asked if he had any sort of “restoration” or “rehabilitation” to leadership in place for himself. (As this may be important for future clients to know.) Nothing official as such. He has sought individual services and support, but nothing that is outside of his own initiative. Hence, he invited me to present a plan or concept – to which he would be most grateful. I thought I’d ask you if – you had any quick thoughts on this or reference points handy.”
I wrote him the following response.
“You need to get out of the office for a while, you’re stressed out,” my wife’s voice sounded with empathy and emphasis. I was in the middle of conflict. The organization I led was growing and I keenly felt new performance pressures on my own skills, disappointments from those around me, and open challenges to my leadership role (some people wanted me gone).
I agreed to meet my family at the fair and drove my body there at the appointed time. My mind however was still engaged in determining my next strategic and tactical moves. Neither my wife’s welcoming kiss nor the smell of deep-fried fair food was strong enough to disengage my thoughts. I wandered around the fair like zombie-dad – physically there but mentally unreachable by my children and my wife.
We turned a corner in time to see a Karate demonstration about to begin. Violence – now that sounded interesting to me at that point. The narrator explained he would play the part of a victim while his partner acted as an assailant. The assailant had a big pole which he maneuvered with the confidence of a tested warrior. I felt a bit sorry for the narrator and awaited his ultimate demise – with a certain gleefulness. I wanted someone else to hurt like I was hurting.
In the blink of an eye the attack was over. I stood wide-eyed and open-mouthed as the assailant lay spread eagle on the ground with the victim standing over him. The victim stood with a foot on the assailant’ throat and the assailant’s weapon in his hand. I wasn’t sure what I had just saw.
The victim helped the assailant up and still narrating said, “Now, let’s slow things down so you can see what just happened.”
“Geese,” I thought, “this ought to be awesome.”
The players reset, the assailant with the pole and the victim with nothing but his hands. “Begin the attack,” the victim narrated.
“Notice how the assailant is swinging the pole at me,” the victim began. “The natural tendency is to move away from the pole – but the power of the swing is at the end of the pole. Moving away can result in a serious injury or death. I move into the assailant.” He paused just a moment to let that fact sink in and the action continued.
“As I move toward the assailant I turn with his momentum,” the victim continued. “The natural tendency here is to attempt to overpower the assailant but in most cases the assailant has the advantage of momentum which means I do not have the leverage I need to mount a counter force. I intend to move with his momentum to lower the potential for injury.”
The victim had turned with the assailant’s momentum and continued, “Now I am in a place to act as a fulcrum. The assailant has committed his energy to swinging the pole and all I have to do is use his momentum against him,” the victim had not knocked the assailant off-balance and was taking away his pole as he fell to the ground.
Boom, victim became the victor! I ruminated on the stages of the attack and the response of the victim as I compared it to my own situation.
In what seemed an eternal moment of pause, I felt as though God’s own voice was reaffirming the leadership lesson I had just saw.
Move toward the assailant. I had tried to avoid the controversy swirling around the changes I had made in the organization. It seemed the harder I tried to extricate myself the deeper I fell into critical assessments. I smarted under the power of my assailant’s swing as I tried to escape. I did not understand their motive or their concerns and had made the mistake of thinking I could avoid having to spend the time to know them.
Do not attempt to overpower their momentum. I had failed here as well as I was marshaling my resources for a display of power – if my critics wanted conflict I would give them a mega-dose. Going down fighting seemed like the only alternative I had – however, being new meant that I was playing the role of the martyr. It was foolish to attempt a head to head contest against people who had been in the organization longer. I thought, “What are my critics saying that I can agree with and thereby join not resist the momentum of their attack?” I knew I had to understand their core concerns and discern their motive.
Use their momentum to knock them off-balance and remove their weapon. I wondered what the tipping point would be as I got to know my opposition. How could I disarm them and help us both win? Or, how could I defang them in such a way that I survived their push to oust me?
The next several weeks saw a significant change in my demeanor and my activities. I acted much less like a zombie-dad and more like a human engaged in life and relationship. I moved in close to those people who opposed the changes that I made in the organization. I listened to their concerns. I spent time working to understand their motivations and needs. I did not pull back from the conflict and in so doing I was not hurt to the degree I would have been. Surprisingly to me, the one person driving the tumult exposed in his own toxic behavior. When I was finally able to define and address the differences in perspective this man’s behavior called to question his credibility and ability as a leader. Ultimately I had to let the tumultuous person go – I fired him. People grieved the lack of reconciliation between us but understood that I had finally done everything I could to turn the situation around.
The organization became healthier and our people more engaged. They realized that I would not hide from conflict nor would I arrogantly insist that I had all the right answers. I have never been as happy to attend a county fair as I was that year. The lesson I learned at the fair have stayed with me all this time.
Christian Universities and Colleges face the challenge of educating future business entrepreneurs, pastors, healthcare practitioners, managers, church staff, technicians, and executives in a way that integrates faith and learning. The depth of the challenge is described by Robert Dubin:
We live in a highly secular world. The morality of the Judeo-Christian tradition is no longer the consensual boundary within which practical decisions are taken in the operation and management of work organizations. Secular man, even though he is an executive and decision maker, is very much in need of moral guidelines within which to make his decisions…. Today’s rational organizational decision-makers avidly see moral justification for their actions and are only too ready to see the new morals in the scientific theories of the applied behavioral scientists.
Dubin wrote to lament the adoption of simple philosophical ideals of organization that failed to validate themselves with the rigor of true scientific theory. His lament however, equally applies to the position Christian Colleges and Universities find themselves today. The loss of what David Dockery calls a Christian worldview from learning and teaching has developed a bifurcated and disconnected approach to education that experiences a loss of faith in specialized disciplines and a reduction to personal pietism at best and fundamentalism at worst in those disciplines. The problem did not arise ex nihilio. The history of theological education in the United States is deeply impacted by its social context and controversies. For example, the Modernist-Fundamentalist controversies of the early twentieth century contributed to the divorce of faith from teaching and scholarship. The inadequacy of alternative perspectives such as the separatist pietism of American fundamentalism, the pragmatic pietism of William James, the common faith civil religion of John Dewey, or the ahistorical experiential religion of Harry Emerson Fosdick is evident in the irrelevance many place on faith.
The bifurcation of faith and learning is clear in the pastoral students I see in the classroom over the last decade who, for example, often deny the need for critical thinking in learning and look askance at the suggestion that their participation in missio Dei is not confined to the walls of their congregational sanctuary. The bifurcation of faith and learning is not limited to pastoral studies students. CEOs I coach in private practice are often at as great a loss to understand how to integrate faith and business as pastoral studies students are in integrating faith and learning. In the complexities and personally traumatic decisions CEOs make I am often queried on how they can apply or integrate their faith to their decisions.
Perhaps more troubling is that scholars such as Phil Zuckerman can so handily undo the claims of evangelical fundamentalism with a simple sociological study of secular society.
…I argue that society without God is not only possible, but can be quite civil and pleasant. This admittedly polemical aspect of my book is aimed primarily at countering the claims of certain outspoken, conservative Christians who regularly argue that a society without God would be hell on earth: rampant with immorality, full of evil, and teeming with depravity. Well, it isn’t. Denmark and Sweden are remarkably strong, safe, healthy, moral, and prosperous societies.
Zuckerman addresses and rather convincingly defeats the argument he cites. The problem is that the argument he addresses is poorly framed and theologically deficient – a product of the very lack of integration between faith and learning that this paper seeks to discuss. Zuckerman’s functional definitions of immorality, evil, and depravity are soteriologically (and narcissistically) not cosmologically grounded. Zuckerman seems argue against spiritualized Gnosticism masquerading as Christian thought. This is not to fault Zuckerman’s argument but to lament that the only objection he has faced from his students to secularism is a self-absorbed soteriological view.
I am drawn to Dockery’s argument (citing Abraham Kuyper) that the dominating principle of Christian truth is cosmological not soteriological. Moving from a soteriological to a cosmological ground is the inherent challenge of moving today’s Christian education toward a true integration of faith and learning. A cosmological ground respects the sovereignty of the triune God over all spheres visible and invisible and thus avoids the error of spiritualized Gnosticism or the equally deficient perspective of pure materialism. Framing the argument for the integration of faith and learning on a cosmological foundation does not reduce the universality of the claim that salvation is only found in Christ, it amplifies it raising it above the popular formulations of pluralism (that consistently minimize divergent cosmological and epistemological perspectives to find common ground) to engage an exploration of truth that, “… recognizes that all scholarship, all invention, all discovery, all exploration – which is truth – is God’s truth.”
Learning is an Integrative Process
Christian education that builds learning or builds discipleship delivers facts to students while simultaneously providing them with a way to structure knowledge so that it becomes transferable rather generating information that remains siloed in curriculum specializations and personal pietism. At its essence learning is a developmental exercise that results in changes in behavior and perception. Science defines learning as a development through ascending levels of abstraction including description, explanation, and theory. A learning centered environment in the Christian University must present meaningful structures in knowledge that allow the student to: recognize problems using underlying principles and relevant concepts; efficiently use information to decide a goal oriented outcome; stay flexible in their self monitoring through the process; and present a principled and coherent explanation.
The ability to present a coherent explanation as a result of learning includes an ability to integrate faith and reason in Christian education. That is students should be capable of identifying their assumptions, values, and frame and to critique the conclusions of others from the perspective of a Christian cosmology. It has been argued that the differentiation between Christian education and education generally speaking is the cosmological foundation from which Christian education works. Peter said it this way, “…but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.” There is no discipline that does not wrestle with the reality of God’s sovereignty. Either directly through deliberate theological reflection or indirectly through an active rejection of the reality of God – the cosmological foundation of Christian education has, and should exert, a voice in the discussion.
What I hope to make clear is that faith integration is helped by possessing a definition of learning that moves beyond the memorization of facts. This definition is elaborated by Bransford, Brown and Cocking:
The new science of learning does not deny that facts are important for thinking and problem solving…. However, the research also shows clearly that “usable knowledge” is not the same as a mere list of disconnected facts. Experts’ knowledge is connected and organized around important concepts (e.g., Newton’s second law of motion); it is “conditionalized” to specify the contexts in which it is applicable; it supports understanding and transfer (to other contexts) rather than only the ability to remember.
What is especially important to leaning that occurs in Christian education is the fact that connected knowledge includes truth that is revealed as well as discovered and that this insight also organizes around important theological concepts such as Luther’s priesthood of all believers as well as Newton’s second law of motion. Connecting knowledge is a function of faith integration that starts with open dialogue between curriculums and ongoing dialogue between professors and programs that advance understanding of the applicability, complementarities, and contradictions between organizing theories and principles in the knowledge base of each specialization or program. The pursuit of knowledge and truth is never complete – this includes the pursuit of theological or revealed truth. The epistemological position of the Scriptures is not naïve – it affirms the incompleteness of knowing. Incompleteness of knowing does not equate to unknowable. Scripture acknowledges that reality outside the human capacity to define and symbolically represent that reality exists and is knowable and discoverable however partial knowing may be. Consider Paul’s summation:
For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away….For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known. But now abide faith, hope and love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
Possessing a cosmological commitment does not negate critical inquiry or learning. Instead it engages a critical epistemology that is aware of the concrete claim that truth is cosmological that avoids the extremes of spiritualized Gnosticism and materialistic metaphysic. This premise forms the foundation for our claim that all truth is God’s truth regardless of truths revealed or discovered source.
Faith integration addresses the challenge every classroom faces, regardless of the subject i.e., how to strike the proper balance between automaticity of skills and promoting understanding. Automaticity in skills renders technicians who master formulas in the closed environment of the classroom (e.g., church growth principles, business analytics, theological concepts, accounting methods, marketing principles, etc.) but who fail to transfer their knowledge to life settings. As a result for example, pastors hide behind pronouncements and are seemingly incapable of the critical thinking needed to do theology in context. Or in another example, business students face competitive pressures and ethical decisions like deer standing in the headlights of a truck – apparently incapable of ethical thinking that renders decisions that advance missio Dei.
Finding a Common Ground in Curriculum – Ethics
In addition to holding and exploring a commitment to a cosmological foundation in Christian Education, there are curricular intersections that offer a direct opportunity for students to explore what it means to live out this cosmological conviction. Every leader faces ethical challenges and while it seems that the study of ethics has fallen from favor in some Christian Universities it certainly has not lost its significance. It is evident in church management, business management, the social sector, entertainment and others that an ethical crisis faces society and by extrapolation also faces Christian education. Johnson describes the crisis in equally universal terms:
The modern landscape is littered with fallen leaders. Wherever we turn – business, military, politics, medicine, education, and religion – we find leaders toppled by ethical scandals. Nearly all have sacrificed their positions of leadership and their reputations. Many face civil lawsuits, criminal charges, and jail time. The costs can be even greater for followers.
Framing ethical thinking as a point of faith integration represents a movement from cultural imperialism to cultural intelligence in international business and a movement from Greek dualism to a kingdom theology in the church that is capable of avoiding the trap of secular/sacred distinctions so ingrained in the culture of the West.
Ethical thinking requires that leaders make explicit the assumptions on which they operate to define the way their moral norms interact with the particular judgments, rules, principles, and convictions that make up their ethical decisions. These layers of ethical reasoning depend on a way of defining the world in which decisions are made. Business works on assumptions about capitalism and mission (assuming a Christian is engaged in commerce) that both need to be clarified to offer definition of faith integration.
The business models used in western enterprises depend on capitalism as an economic framework. Capitalism may be defined in various ways. One definition that aligns with the objective of faith integration describes capitalism as that mechanism by which new solutions to human problems occurs. Capitalism provides, “…incentives for millions of problem-solving experiments to occur every day, provides competition to select the best solutions, and provides incentives and mechanisms for scaling up and making the best solutions available. Meanwhile, it scales down or eliminates less successful ones.” This view of capitalism defines business as the process of “…transforming ideas into products and services that solve problems.”
In contrast business may also be defined in a limited sense as the maximization of shareholder value. In this view business makes the maximization of shareholder value their primary aim and assumes that the maximization of economic efficiency will itself offer a basis for social welfare. The challenge to this view however is that emerging economic theories do not support the view that consumers maximize utility in their decisions in a move to efficiency in the allocation of resources. Instead behavioral and experimental economists observe that people do not behave rationally and financial markets do not always act efficiently. The assumption behind maximizing shareholder value i.e., that capital is the scarcest resource in an economy, contributes to a myopic focus and decline in long-term investments of the type that generate creative new solutions. This reality was clearly evident in the recession of 2008 – a view toward increasing shareholder value gave way to self-serving profiteering confirming the worst of all fears about the inability of business to think beyond its own self-preservation and enrichment at the great expense of society.
In order to illustrate the possibilities of faith integration in Christian Education with regard to business it will help to define what I mean by mission. Possessing a definition of mission is necessary for determining the flash points in which faith integration might occur most obviously. Starting with a definition of mission also supplies a foundation for understanding the ethical decision-making that makes up so much of the business landscape operationally and relationally to achieve a profitable position in highly competitive markets. My definition of mission starts with a theological frame that accepts the historical/particular quality of the biblical narrative and the prophetic strands of Scripture which proclaim that God acts in and on behalf of human experience. Add to this the influence of a Pentecostal perspective that further acknowledges the role of the supernatural and the current need and legitimacy of all the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Mission is that activity of God into which we have been commissioned by faith in Jesus Christ who introduced the now and future reign of God that is: reconciling (John 3:16; Matthew 28:18-20; 2 Corinthians 5:19); refreshing (Luke 4:18-19); concrete (Luke 4:21, Galatians 5:19-26, 1 Corinthians 2:4, 5); and eschatological (Mark 1:14-15, 1 Corinthians 2:9).
Using the definition of business supplied above, Table 1 compares the aims of both mission and business in particular those points of overlap and those points of tension. In dialogue over curriculum and student development the interactions between mission and business offer a basis for faith integration and illustrate the challenges in ethical reasoning and decision-making. The integration of business and faith (like the integration of faith and learning) has a strong foundation in the Scriptures:
Beware lest you forget the Lord your God by not keeping His commands and His ordinance s and His statues…lest when you have eaten and are satisfied, and have build good houses and lived in them, and your herds and your flocks multiply, and your silver and gold multiply, and all that you have multiplies, then your heart becomes proud, and you forget the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt…He led you through the great and terrible wilderness….that he might humbly you and that He might test you, to do good for you in the end.
Addressing the arrogance of success ensures that just distribution remains the fundamental mandate of economic ethics. The theme of just distribution repeats itself through hundreds of Old Testament passages which seek to prevent and finally decry distributive economic injustice.
- Distributive justice: the justice that is concerned with the apportionment of privileges, duties, and goods in consonance with the merits of the individual and in the best interest of society.
- Distributive justice: the nature of a socially justallocation of goods in a society. A society in which incidental inequalities in outcome do not arise would be considered a society guided by the principles of distributive justice. The concept includes the available quantities of goods, the process by which goods are to be distributed, and the resulting allocation of the goods to the members of the society.
Table 1: Mission and Business Contrasted – A Starting Point for Faith Integration
At first blush it may appear easy to outline the ethics of business or corporate management for the simple reason that the law outlines such a vast swath of behavior in business. However, as pointed out by Tarintino and Hynes (2012), “…law and ethics will overlap: what is perceived to unethical will also be illegal. However, in other situations, law and ethics do not overlap – and, in fact, they may even be far apart. In some cases what is deemed to be unethical will be legal and in others, what is illegal may be perceived as ethical.”
So what is the challenge? Meeting the requirements of the law is not only insufficient to the current business environment it can function in way far removed from the cosmological foundation of Christianity. Preparing students to work in the seams created by business law is the direct charge of Christian education whose ends include the development of leaders capable of working with a personal awareness of the kingdom of God. As pointed out by Sheller,
Legal and ethical considerations create risks for businesses, and these risks must be avoided, minimized or managed. A practical understanding of law and ethics has thus become a critical element in business decision-making and strategy. Businesses cannot rely exclusively on outside counsel or in-house legal staff to manage all risks. Managers need an understanding of the legal and ethical environments in which they operate.
The development of leaders in Christian education presents yet another opportunity to find common ground in curriculum design for faith integration.
Finding a Common Ground in Curriculum – Leadership
Servant leadership is an orientation to leadership that owns a transparent moral imperative, exercises personal awareness of the impact of leadership behaviors, recognizes the contribution potential of employees, and builds a culture characterized by modeling, mentoring, development, discipline, and fun. Servant leadership engages the essential business activities of vision, structure, profitability, and benevolence in an accessible way to employees, board members, stakeholders, and stockholders. Interestingly enough the development of servant leadership in the business world did not emerge from Christian Colleges or Universities – it emerged from thoughtful leaders who inherently exercised a Christian cosmological foundation.
Like the practice of ethics, the practice of leadership is exercised in business and the church (non-profit) with equal significance. This makes the subject a significant faith integration point in curriculum and in practice within the academy. Because the concept of servant leadership started with an assumed Christian cosmological foundation its development as a leadership concept and the research conducted in and around its practice provides a rich venue for continued exploration and definition.
Recent scholarly studies on Servant leadership offer a variety of definitions from which to apply servant leadership in practice and to continue research into its viability as a leadership approach. Consider:
Greenleaf (1977) states that the focus of servant leadership is on others rather than self and on understanding the role of the leader as servant. The servant leader, according to Russell and Stone (2002), takes the position of servant to his or her fellow workers and aims to fulfill the needs of others. Page and Wong (2000) define servant leadership as serving others by working toward their development and well being in order to meet goals for the common good. Another definition that is evident in the servant leadership literature describes servant leadership as “distancing oneself from using power, influence and position to serve self, and instead gravitating to a position where these instruments are used to empower, enable and encourage those who are within one’s circle of influence” (Rude, 2003 in Nwogu, 2004, p.2). Servant leaders trust followers to act in the best interests of the organization and focus on those followers rather than the organizational objectives (Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2004).
Anecdotal evidence confirms the positive impact of servant leadership on organizational success. Alan Mulally, former president and CEO of Ford Motor Company took the helm of the Ford Motor Company in 2006. At that time Ford was losing billions of dollars and was on the brink of bankruptcy. After Mulally stepped in, Ford posted a profit every year since 2009. When asked about his leadership style, Mulally responded,
At the most fundamental level, it is an honor to serve—at whatever type or size of organization you are privileged to lead, whether it is a for-profit or nonprofit…. Starting from that foundation, it is important to have a compelling vision and a comprehensive plan. Positive leadership—conveying the idea that there is always a way forward—is so important, because that is what you are here for—to figure out how to move the organization forward. Critical to doing that is reinforcing the idea that everyone is included. Everyone is part of the team and everyone’s contribution is respected, so everyone should participate….A big part of leadership is being authentic to who you are, thinking about what you really believe in and behaving accordingly. At Ford, we have a card with our business plan on one side and the behaviors we expect listed on the other. It is the result of 43 years of doing this.
When Ken Melrose (former CEO of Toro) stepped into his role at Toro the company was losing money with sales plummeting from $400 million annually to $200 million annually. The perspective Melrose took to the assignment was one of servant leadership. Melrose believed in people. He states, “You have to grow good people to be even better people. It’s like growing fine turf. You need to feed (train) them, pull them up in time of need (nurture and motivate them), and basically give them room to grow (empower them). Toro has great people, which makes for a good work environment.”
The changes Melrose initiated at Toro started with a significant reduction of force and a reduction in perks (servant leadership does not mean avoiding difficult realities – conversely it means facing them squarely). Everyone shared the burden of the circumstance including the executive suite. Melrose intentionally exercised servant leadership and created a company culture in which employees know they work for the customers and everyone is empowered to serve the customers. Did servant leadership work? Near the end of his service sales at Toro hit $1.4 billion!
In addition to demonstrating servant leadership’s contribution to business success, the theological foundation to servant leadership is easily established. The encounter Jesus had with the ambition of John and James in Matthew 20 sets the stage for understanding servant leadership as the model Jesus encouraged.
Jesus’ response refocused their ambition. James and John were not rebuked for their ambition. Instead they were given a challenge that transformed their ambition from self-serving to serving a purpose in line with the intention of God. In Jesus’ view, leadership was not a means of acquisition, but of stewardship. Jesus was also clear about the cost of leadership, (i.e., “drink the cup”). It is a rare ambition that pictures sacrifice as part of accomplishment. More often our ambition foregoes sacrifice in favor of pursuit of prominence, power, and pleasure. However the formation process of servant leadership includes sacrifice.
My thesis is that without a deliberate focus on the development of a servant leadership model the University inadvertently contributes to the pursuit of prominence, power, and pleasure on the part of graduates who find themselves better prepared in skill and knowledge than their peers to step into leadership roles in business or the church but who may lack a model for effective moral leadership. The ethical question faced by the academy is, what kind of graduates and leaders are we developing? The knowledge trust inherent in the academy summons this kind of stewardship perspective. Additionally, the fact that we are a Christian University beckons an even greater sense of responsibility do everything in our power to help students emerge as men and women who live faith integration in every aspect of their lives.
Developing a curriculum and a cultural practice of servant leadership within the academy goes a long way toward supporting the development of students who are capable of (1) transferring learning to action and (2) acting in a way that indicates faith integration to their values and assumptions.
Others more familiar with the inner working of the academy may have better suggestions for next steps than what I provide below. Regardless I offer these as beginning points to a process of change.
- Design/provide a platform for thought development among the faculty. Breakthrough concepts in how students learn as well as faith integration concepts will lead to changes in how course work is managed and engaged. With the multiplication of new learning platforms faculty need input in keeping their educational skills as well as their professional knowledge current.
- Adopt a learning centric and faith integration perspective from which department learning outcomes, course syllabi, and student assessments may be critiqued and developed. Given the fact that all knowledge is partial, it should not come as a surprise that constant review of the University’s products should occur. Like number one above this means engaging professors in the University in a way that encourages and provides for much greater collaboration in curriculum/course design and execution.
- Review curriculum offerings with the goal of identifying those points of intersection (like ethics or leadership) between programs where greater emphasis may be made in creating common learning and faith integration outcomes.
- Review student practicum courses for the degree to which they encourage the development of a learning and faith integration mindset among students. Design new ways to assess student development in faith and learning.
Scripture taken from the New American Standard Bible, © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1973, 1975, 1977, by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.
 Robert Dubin. “Theory Building in Applied Areas,” Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Marvin D. Dunnette ed. (Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, 1976, pp. 17-39), 22.
 David Dockery. “Integrating Faith and Learning in Higher Education.” (The Research Institute of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, September 20, 2000). Source: https://www.cccu.org/professional_
development/resource_library/2004/integrating_faith__learning_in_higher_education; Accessed 3 February 2015. Dockery tracks the impact of a pietistic view and its impact on education i.e., the ultimate bifurcation of faith and reason which he insists are not in contradiction to one another but in proper tension with one another.
 Phil Zuckerman. Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us about Contentment. (New York: New York University Press, 2008), 4.
 Dockery 2000.
 John B. Miner. Theories of Organizational Behavior (Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press, 1980), 3. See Miner’s discussion of the nature of scientific theory.
 1 Peter 3:15-16 (NASB)
 John D. Bransford, Ann L. Brown, and Rodney R. Cocking, eds. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000), 9.
 1 Corinthians 12:10 (NASB)
 Naive realism: naive realism holds that the view of the world that we derive from our senses is to be taken at face value: there are objects out there in the world, and those objects have the properties that they appear to us to have. As plausible as naive realism may sound, it has serious problems, among which is the problem of the variability of perception. Differences do arise that are clearly related to the experience and the cultural view of the perceiver. Critical realism: Critical realism theory states that the theory of knowledge, or epistemology, is different form a theory of being, or ontology. There is a reality which exists independent of its human conception. Critical realists believe that there are unobservable events which cause the observable ones; as such, the social world can be understood only if people understand the structures that generate such unobservable events. This is important in the experimental context, because it allows the scientist to distinguish between the event and what causes it. Of the views this one most matches 1 Corinthians 13:9 of knowing in part. Agnostic realism: any position involving either the denial of an objective reality or the denial that verification-transcendent statements are either true or false. The problem with this view is it cannot itself be validated or verified. It is pure subjectivism in which the construct of the perceiver is the final word on existence since reality is non-verifiable in this view.
 Bransford, Brown and Cocking 2000:139. See the discussion on knowledge centered learning environments and the necessity of providing organized cognitive activity and a structure for knowledge in the learning environment.
 Craig E. Johnson. Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership: Casing Light or Shadow 3rd. ed. (Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2009), xv.
 Eric Beinhocker and Nick Hanauer. “Redefining Capitalism” in McKinsey Quarterly (September 2014), 6.
 Deuteronomy 8:11-16 (NASB)
 Glenn H. Stassen and David P. Gushee. Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003). See the discussion by Stassen and Gushee, 420.
 Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distributive%20justice; Accessed 18 November 2014.
 John A Tarantino and Katy A. Hynes. “Truth in Ethics: Law v Ethics,” AP&S Ethics Seminar Presentation, May 10, 2012. Source: http://www.apslaw.com/media/article/41_2537_001.pdf; Accessed 18 November 2014.
 Source: http://scheller.gatech.edu/degree-programs/undergraduate/courses-curriculum/curriculum-lawethics.html; Accessed 18 November 2014.
 David E. Melchar and Susan M. Bosco. “Achieving High Organization Performance through Servant Leadership,” The Journal of Business Inquiry 2010, 9, 1, (http:www.uvu.edu/Woodbury/jbi/volume9), 74-88.
 Rik Kirkland. “Leading in the 21st Century: An Interview with Ford’s Alan Mulally,” McKinsey & Company, November 2013.
 Source: http://nasba.org/features/ken-melrose-being-a-difference-then-and-now/; Accessed 4 February 2015.
 Raymond L. Wheeler. An Inconvenient Power: the Practice of Servant Leadership (Claremont, CA: Unpublished Manuscript, 2013), 11. Also see John Howard Yoder. The Politics of Jesus 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 38. A similar affirmation of the centrality of service in leadership occurs in Matthew 22:25ff. Here Yoder comments, “In none of the accounts where this word is reported does Jesus reprimand his disciples for expecting him to establish some new social order, as he would have had to do if the thesis of the only-spiritual kingdom were to prevail. He rather reprimands them for having misunderstood the character of the new social order which he does intend to set up.” My observations regarding the events surrounding John and James’ request is similarly understood. It is not drive (ambition) that Jesus seeks to correct as much as it is the character of that ambition. That men or women in leadership roles possess a drive to make a difference is universal what is not universal is their understanding of how Jesus wants to reshape their drive around the values of the Kingdom of God so that both their approach to leadership and their ethical decision-making are transformed.
Some of what people write for or against the concept of leadership suffers from the same malady – they assume rather than define the term “leadership.” I read a series of posts between friends of mine this weekend that illustrate the point and prompt me to write my own thoughts.
One group argued that the term leadership is a tired and overused concept that did more damage than good. They contended that efforts to train leaders undermined the necessity of getting things done in an organization. They preferred to train ministers whose character exhibits clear and growing virtues and whose behavior demonstrates the ability to name and address problems and opportunities without being directed to do so. Their argument inferred that “leaders” are little more than prima donnas whose only real aim is the consolidation of power and the exercise of privilege. Not only does their argument hinge on a straw man assumption of a negative view of leadership it fails to define their new term “minister.”
The other group argued that leadership was critical every organization. They contend that the failure to train “leaders” undermines an organization’s innovative drive and diminishes its execution. They prefer to train leaders who are capable of identifying and addressing problems, empowering and mobilizing people around specific goals, developing new capabilities in others, and recognizing new opportunities without being directed to do so. Their argument infers that without developing leaders, positions of power in the organization become dominated by self-serving political hacks whose concern is the consolidation of power and the expansion of privilege. This too relies on a straw man argument that fails to define terms.
Both sides of the argument get at the same point – prima donnas, power mongers, hubris dominated stuffed shirts, and political hacks undermine morale, diminish employee engagement, and dilute the organization’s ability to perform.
Defining terms is important because of the variety of insights leadership studies seem to generate. One author lamented that there are as many definitions of leadership as there are people writing about it. I suppose this lack of uniformity in nomenclature might suggest a failure to define what leadership is. Or, it may show the situational influence that is part of defining the real work of leadership. Organizations exist in a variety of: development stages, market stages, demographic situations, and cultures. Given the wide number of variables and the required emphasis needed to discuss them effectively the definitions of what leadership looks like will vary.
I have found several definitions of leadership helpful in bringing clarity to discussions like the ones I see my friends engaging. Northouse (2008) attempts a definition of leadership that is often helpful. For him leadership is (a) a process, (b) that involves influence, (c) occurring within a group context, and (d) involving goal attainment.
One of my mentors defines leadership in a church context as: (a) with a God-given capacity and (b) a God-given responsibility to influence (c) a specific group of God’s people (d) toward God’s purposes for the group. (Clinton 1989:20)
The Apostle Paul offered his own word for leadership: προїστάμενς; nom. sing. masc. part. pres. mid. προῒστημι, met., To set over, appoint with authority; to preside, govern, superintend. Includes the idea of protection, care, and attention toward those for whom one is responsible. (Paul—Rom. 12:8)
Anderson at the University of Chicago gives an even broader definition for leadership i.e., the capacity of a human community to shape its future – a collective versus person.
Your organization does need leadership. So, before attempting to reinvent the wheel spend time thinking about how to define the deficiencies you see in human behavior. A role of power does not equate to a de facto exercise of leadership. In my opinion once we decouple the idea of leadership from the roles or positions an organization uses to describe its coordination and control functions it frees itself to reconsider these functions in a way that leads to more effective behaviors. More importantly taking the time to define your terms will help you avoid the pendulum swings of popular thinking and their inherent waste of resource. Organizations need leadership. Leadership is not the only need an organization faces.
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2014 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
A New York City subway train holds 1,200 people. This blog was viewed about 4,400 times in 2014. If it were a NYC subway train, it would take about 4 trips to carry that many people.