Caring leaders help others to think in terms of principles and measure their own actions based on these principles.

 

H. A Overstreet, author of The Mature Mind, wrote:

 “One mark of maturity is the power to think in terms of principles and the willingness to have one’s own behavior measured by those principles.”

 

Our individual maturity is directly related to the degree we think, act, and evaluate our actions based on principles. Aligning our values with principles yields a principle-centered life.

 

The willingness of an organization to think and act in terms of principles, and the willingness to measure its corporate behavior by those principles, is the mark of organizational maturity.

 

As adults we must develop the constant habit of appraising our behaviors as either immature or mature. Likewise, an organization needs to establish systems that, on an ongoing basis, appraise corporate behavior as immature or mature.

 

Childish and immature thinking, whether at the individual, corporate, or national level, is dangerous.  Not all adults are adults! Many who look grown-up on the outside are still childish on the inside.  Childish minds in adult bodies can cause great mischief.  Childish and egocentric thinking within an organization can provoke unrest, confusion, fear, and create misery in the lives of stakeholders.

 

Overstreet observed that the most dangerous members of society are grownups whose motives and responses are still infantile.  Emotionally underdeveloped adults in positions of authority have great capacity to make other people miserable.

 

In the Halls of Congress, in college faculty meetings, in church meetings–everywhere people meet–we see a mixture of maturity and immaturity.  Some with a chronological age of forty still have the ego-centered outlook of a five-year-old.  Even in organizations that have been in existence for many years we see organizational cultures that display incredible immaturity and a lack of principle-centeredness.

 

Maturing is a lifelong process. The most fundamental business of man is to mature. The most fundamental business of any organization is to mature.  As Overstreet pointed out, this means continuously developing the power to think in terms of principles and the willingness to have one’s own behavior measured by those principles.

 

Whether in the home, school, or corporation, maturity is achieved where conditions favorable to maturity exist.  Organizational leaders must be maturing and principle-centered if they are to facilitate the maturation of an organization’s culture.  Rigidity and false pride of organizational leaders results in an organization which is an unchanging anomaly in a changing world.

 

Unfortunately, the immaturities of such leaders may be so much like the accepted immaturities of the people they lead that they will move in remarkable harmony.  The real measure of organizational maturity is not the existence of harmony among the people within an organization, but rather harmony with principles! That is why the willingness to have one’s own behavior measured against principles is a true mark of personal and organizational maturity.

 

 About the author:

 

Dr. J. Howard Baker is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Texas at Tyler. Dr. Baker has been a FranklinCovey 7 Habits of Highly Effective People certified facilitator since 1994, and has served the University of Texas at Tyler as their 7 Habits facilitator. He teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in personal and organizational leadership, public administration, and computer information systems. He holds a B.S. in Management from Samford University, a Master of Accounting (MAcc) from the University of Southern California, and a Ph.D. in Information Systems from the University of Texas at Arlington. Prior to his teaching career he worked as head of information systems auditing for two of the largest financial institutions in the United States. He has been a member of The Institute of Internal Auditors since 1987 and became a Certified Internal Auditor (CIA) in 1989. Dr. Baker is a lifetime charter member of weLEAD and the founding editor of the weLEADInLearning web site's E-Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership located at www.weleadinlearning.org

 

 

This material is copyright protected. No part of this document may be reproduced, in any form or by any means without permission from weLEAD Incorporated. Copyright waiver may be acquired from the weLEAD website.

 

Stuart Miles/freedigitalphotos.net

Have you ever been asked to resign from a position? Usually by the time an employee or worker is asked to tender a resignation it means that those in authority have given up on trying to maintain a beneficial working relationship with that person. Management has abandoned all hope in the relationship. When asked to resign, an individual’s typical response is either to submit an oral or written resignation, or ask to be fired. In either situation the atmosphere is usually unpleasant and is characterized by a feeling of inevitable loss.

 

 The dictionary definitions for the word resign are:

1.      To submit (oneself) passively; accept as inevitable.

2.      To give up (a position) by formal notification.

3.      To relinquish (a privilege, right, or claim) To give up one’s job or office; quit, esp. by formal notification.

 

Resignation is usually thought of as the act, or an instance, of resigning from a position or office. However, the dictionary also says that the word resignation can mean “unresisting acceptance of something as inescapable; submission.” When we are resigned to a situation, we believe it is inevitable—that we must live with it. It is a feeling that often comes when we see no way to change a bad situation.

 

I suggest that for every formal act of resignation, an organization may have dozens, or even thousands of private and personal “resignations” where employees, workers, students, customers, or members of an organization simply abandon hope for positive change.

 

When this situation occurs with customers, they usually start doing business with a competitor. Volunteers of a nonprofit organization transfer their participation to another organization. However, when an employee faces private resignation, the situation is often not as flexible. With children to feed and bills to pay, an employee might quit their job mentally but continue to “work” physicallyfor many years. I have heard employees say “you have to leave your brain at the entrance when you come to work here.” If they could, such employees would hang a sign over the front door of their organization which would quote Dante Alighieri: “All hope abandon, ye who enter here!”

 

Under traditional authoritarian supervision many employees give up hope and stay. Some give up hope and leave. When a person comes forth voluntarily with an unsolicited resignation, it is usually the result of that person experiencing private resignation over an extended period of time regarding important organizational issues. They have finally concluded that those in authority will never acknowledge or properly deal with the issues they consider important. They have abandoned all hope. They have no positive expectations regarding their future relationship with the organization.

 

 Often talented younger employees choose to leave and try another organization. Those who give up and stay are often the less talented, or those who, for personal reasons, feel compelled to stay. Older employees, often with considerable experience and ability, also often choose to remain with the organization because they have tried changing jobs and discovered that they have just swapped one set of hopeless problems for another. They are now cynical and privately resigned that no organization will offer them hope!

 

Why would a person consider placing a sign over the entrance of their organization that contains the very same words found over the gates of Dante’s hell? It is because they see both as places of no hope. Hope is destroyed when expectations fail. When we hear leaders “talk the talk” but don’t see them “walk the walk” we experience failed expectations. Trust is then destroyed. Hope is abandoned.

 

Traditional authoritarian leadership is based on a Win/Lose paradigm of human interaction. Stephen Covey says that leaders with the Win/Lose leadership style “are prone to use position, power, credentials, possessions, or personality to get their way.” When people are continually on the Lose side of Win/Lose, they often begin to exhibit passive behavior. However, one danger of prolonged passive behavior is that it can lead to resentment, depression, or even physical illness. Such passive behavior may ultimately shift to behavior at the opposite extreme—aggressive behavior. Driven by months or years of hopelessness, the passive person may shift to aggressive behavior. Stephen Covey says that “disproportionate rage or anger, overreaction to minor provocation, and cynicism” can be the result of suppressed emotions. In rare cases this may even lead to employee suicide or domestic and/or work place violence.

 

Rather than asking for a person’s oral or written resignation, an effective leader should first consider asking for a person’s private  resignations—those issues that are viewed by the employee as hopeless and not susceptible to change. Learning what the resignations of employees are often reveals the most critical and jugular issues facing the organization. Unfortunately, authoritarian leaders are usually not prepared to truly listen and accept these issues as their responsibility.

 

 If an authoritarian leader decides to begin asking employees for their private resignations, it is very likely they will not share them. Usually the organization’s culture is so lacking in open communication and trust that the employees have already resigned themselves to the status quo. They are convinced that it will make no difference to honestly share their true private resignations. They might offer some comments to management that they feel are safe and within the realm of “discussables” in the current culture. However, they probably will remain convinced that truly opening up and being honest will just make them more vulnerable. They are well aware that there are certain topics that are “undiscussables” in the present culture. Often the most “undiscussable” issue within an organization is the issue of trust. Employees under authoritarian leaders don’t really trust their leaders—and the only trust these leaders have in their followers is that they “trust” their people will do exactly as they are told!

 

Authoritarian leaders will typically see nothing wrong with this situation, and will see no need for personal change. They will not seek to understand the private resignations of their followers. They will continue to seek commitment without genuine trust. The result, in the long run, is a shift to a Lose/Lose paradigm of human interaction.

 

We live in an interdependent reality. When we are interdependent, a “Lose” for one party ultimately translates into a “Lose” for the other. Win/Win—where both the leader and the follower consider the outcome positive—is the only viable alternative in the long run.

 

If one truly desires to be an effective leader—doing the right things—then open communication and trust must be built. To accomplish this there has to be a paradigm shift from Win/Lose to Win/Win. The Win/Win paradigm of human interaction is not possible to achieve when the culture offers no hope. When there is resignation and passive behavior, people feel like they are a “doormat.” They see no hope of openly stating what they really think or feel.

 

There is only one way to make the shift from a Win/Lose authoritarian leadership style to a Win/Win style. It is by personal change. As a leader, you must come to the place where you truly desire to trade in your traditional command-and-control style for openness and knowledge sharing. You must open yourself up to be influenced by those who have private resignations. You must desire to listen for understanding. People need to know that they are understood. They need to be affirmed, valued, and appreciated. Such affirmation should not be done in an insincere manner. Just saying the right words doesn’t make it so! As a leader, your character and behaviorspeak louder than your words. You must “talk the talk” and “walk the walk.”

 

Just as hope is lost when leaders do not “walk their talk,” hope can be regained over time when leaders abandon mere words and openly change their behavior. When you, as a leader, begin to see the world through the lens of Win/Win instead of Win/Lose, your attitude and behavior will begin to change. As your attitude toward others changes, they will sense a difference. Eventually, trust will be established with one or two individuals. As you prove to be trustworthy with one or two, word will begin to spread through the grapevine that there may yet be hope.

 

Slowly others will begin to regain hope as it becomes apparent that a new and more positive paradigm of human interaction has replaced the old. As your personal credibility increases, so will your personal influence. However, that influence will be a different kind of influence from what you had under the traditional authoritarian style of leadership. People will no longer “leave their brain at the entrance and just do what they are told” when they go to work.

 

Your trustworthiness and credibility, validated by the observation and experience of those who come in contact with you, will begin to unleash creative cooperation, synergy, and learning. An atmosphere of mutual trust and respect will begin to spread. You will find yourself growing in insight and learning as you listen and respect those in the rank and file. As you learn about, and address, the many private resignations within your organization, you will find yourself experiencing increased security in your own job. You will discover that there will be fewer occasions when you will need to terminate employees or ask for their written resignations. All this positive organizational change can begin once you decide to personally change and say—“I want your resignations!”

 

 Comments to: jhb001@juno.com 

 

 

Biography:

 

Dr. J. Howard Baker is Assistant Professor of Computer Information Systems at the University of Louisiana at Monroe. Dr. Baker has been a Franklin Covey 7 Habits of Highly Effective People certified facilitator for eight years, and has served the University of Texas at Tyler as their facilitator for four years. During the summer he offers a graduate and undergraduate course at U. T. Tyler in personal and organizational leadership. He holds a B.S. in Management from Samford University, a Master of Accounting (MAcc) from the University of Southern California, and a Ph.D. in Information Systems from the University of Texas at Arlington.

 

References:

 

Bartlett, John. Familiar Quotations, 10^th ed. 1919. (Quotation by Datnte Alighieri. 1265 – 1321. From: The Divine Comedy)

 

Covey, Stephen R. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Restoring the Character Ethic. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989.

 

Fitz-Enz, Jac. The 8 Practices of Exceptional Companies: How Great Organizations Make the Most of Their Human Assets. New York: American Management Association, 1997.

 

Lee, Blaine. The Power Principle: Influence with Honor. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997.

 

The American Heritage College Dictionary. Third Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1993.

 

Wallace, Harold and Masters, L. Ann. Personality Development for Work. Sixth Edition. Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing, 1989.

Homer Hickam probably isn’t a name very many will recognize, but early in his life he knew what he loved and wanted for a career. He wanted to be a rocket scientist. Mr. Hickman is the author of many books including Rocket Boys, the memoir about his boyhood adventures building rockets and growing up in the mining town of Coalwood, West Virginia ¹.  Rocket Boys was made into an award-winning 1999 motion picture titled October Sky.  The author had a boyhood dream of becoming a rocket scientist, and eventually became an engineer at NASA.  What he did for a living was real rocket science!

 

Rocket scientists are viewed by society as having a great deal of intelligence.  What they do is considered difficult.  Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronald Kadish, head of the Defense Department's missile-defense, in recently referring to ABM missile-defense research said, “This is rocket science, and it is difficult...” ²

 

Because of widespread acknowledgement that rocket science is complex and difficult, we often hear politicians and business leaders saying, “This is not rocket science.”  This means that what they are talking about is not that difficult to understand.

 

For example, Gary Ruskin, the director of the Congressional Accountability Project (an organization founded by Ralph Nader), in arguing for more disclosure of public documents on the Internet, recently said, “None of this is rocket science. A perfectly competent 12-year-old could write this database.” ³

 

Pete Stark (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee recently said, “Mr. Bush, let’s not waste time on this proposal…This is not rocket science. The outlines for a compromise are pretty clear.” ⁴

 

Finally, John F. “Jack” Welch, ⁵ 20 year Chairman and CEO of General Electric, gave this advice to the MBA class of 2001 at Harvard Business School:

 

“Business isn’t rocket science…Your job as a manager is to give people confidence.” ⁶

 

Business may not be rocket science, but it should be what I call “heart science!”  Rocket science is difficult to understand and difficult to do.  Heart science is simple to understand butdifficult to do.  Heart science is what it takes to build and maintain an organizational “culture of the heart.”

 

Three of the companies at the top of Fortune magazine’s ⁷ annual listing of “the 100 Best Companies to Work for in America”—Southwest Airlines ⁸, Synovus Financial ⁹, and The Container Store ¹⁰—have all created and sustained such a culture of the heart.  It is based on the premise that if you take care of people, the profit will take care of itself. It’s people caring for people.  It is putting people first.

 

Synovus corporate values include applying the Golden Rule.  Their corporate web site contains this message:

 

“It all starts with treating people right—the way you want to be treated. It's an old cliché', but it makes a lot of sense to us.” ¹¹

 

In a Synovus produced video entitled “A Culture of the Heart” these values are further explained:

 

“Take care of your people. Take care of your customers.  Treat them like you want to be treated. That’s the key.”  (Spoken by Stephen T. Butler, President and CEO of W.C. Bradley Company, a company established by the same family that established Synovus.)

 

Treating people like you want to be treated is known as the Golden Rule.  Southwest Airlines’ philosophy includes eleven primary attitudes.  One of these is “always practice the Golden Rule, internally and externally.” (Freiberg, 1996)

 

At The Container Store the maxim “treat people as you want to be treated” is granted policy status. ¹²

 

 All three of these companies make practicing the Golden Rule an important part of their corporate philosophy.  Is it a mere coincidence that all three of these companies have also been recognized as the #1 company to work for in America in Fortune magazine’s annual listing of “the 100 Best Companies to Work for in America?”

 

Habitually practicing the Golden Rule creates and maintains a healthy culture with a family atmosphere.  This is true in an actual family, a church “family,” or a business “family.”

 

Synovus companies are referred to as the “Synovus family.” The personnel within the Synovus family of companies are referred to as “team members” rather than employees. Taking care of the 12,000 people within the Synovus family means being sure that team members don’t feel a need to separate their job from the rest of their life.  Life should be one indivisible whole.  The centerpiece of the Synovus culture of the heart is making sure people know they are cared for, above and beyond the work they happen to do on the job in daylight hours.

 

Synovus and the W. C. Bradley Co. are two separate companies that have similar cultures. This is because the same family established both of them.  In fact, several directors serve on the boards of both companies. This has been true virtually for the entire existence of Synovus.  A few years ago an employee at W. C Bradley Co. lost a child, and in a letter of appreciation to the company for the support she received she wrote, “The beauty of this company is that when one person cries, everyone tastes the tears.”

 

Some writers say that practicing the Golden Rule is not good. Buckingham and Coffman, authors of First Break All The Rules: What the World’s Greatest Managers Do Differently (Simon & Schuster, 1999) say that great managers should ignore the Golden Rule–“Do unto others as you would have done to you”–and instead treat your employees as they would like to be treated. (Schwartz, 2000)

 

Unfortunately, there is a widespread misconception of what the Golden Rule actually teaches.  To illustrate, it is not saying that if I like peanuts, then I should give peanuts to others, even if they are allergic to peanuts!  That is focusing on a particular personal preference.  One must look beyond the specific practice to the underlying principles!  The Golden Rule is not about specific practices, or imposing your personal tastes, likes, or dislikes on others.  It is about practicing timeless universal principles that build and maintain sound human relationships.  The Golden Rule is about treating others by the same principles that you want to be treated.

 

The Golden Rule must be practiced within a principle-centered culture.  The Golden Rule teaches us that the way to treat others should be based on the very same principles that we hold dear, such as respect, human dignity, kindness, cooperation, generosity, commitment, discipline, sacrifice, due process, humility, honesty, fairness, and service.  A culture that is not aligned with these and other principles will be a culture that is politicized, devoid of genuine service, and probably will behave unethically under pressure.  These principles serve as a moral compass to guide decision-making.  Personal character is irrevocably related to these timeless principles, and is the starting point to building a culture of the heart.

 

Being principle-centered is not simply an intellectual exercise.  Knowing about principles is not the same as living by them.  Knowledge alone does not change behavior. There must be a connection made between the head and the heart.  Before behavior changes, a desire to change must be present.  We must desire to align our hearts to these principles.  That is part of heart science.  It is simple to comprehend but difficult to do.  However, if enough individuals within an organization do this, the culture will begin to shift toward a culture of the heart.  Companies with a culture of the heart try to hire new employees that are principle-centered and demonstrate a genuine attitude of service.

 

Max DePree, in his book Leadership Jazz, says, “Above all, leadership is a position of servanthood. Leadership is also a posture of debt; it is a forfeiture of rights.”

 

This is a critical point. I have encountered some who claim they want to be servant leaders, yet constantly exercise and guard “their rights” rather than forfeiting them as a humble servant. They lack a heart of submission to those they serve.  They do not understand you can’t serve both the master of control and the master of service! Eventually such a leader will hold to one master, and despise the other.

 

I have watched some, who thought they wanted to be servant leaders, struggle between these two masters.  When they finally discovered the reality of servant leadership— a forfeiture of rights—some actually turned and began to despise the concept! They had finally realized that a servant leader is often treated as a servant!

 

Max DePree said it so well:

 

“Vulnerability is the opposite of self-expression.  Vulnerable leaders trust in the abilities of others; vulnerable leaders allow the people who follow them to do their best.”

 

Managers who desire predictability through high control crush creativity, initiative, and commitment.  They may talk participation, but it is only surface deep.  Their real desires ultimately result in producing cynicism within the culture.  When employees genuinely know that they come first, the result is trust in the organization and love for their leaders.  Leaders who feel they are not trusted and loved might do well to examine their own heart and motives.  Is predictability and control more important to you than the growth of your people?

 

Max DePree reminds us, “There is no such thing as safe vulnerability.”

 

Peter Block wrote:

 

"If our organizations are to survive, the redistribution of purpose, power, and privilege will have to take place with the involvement and consent of those who in some ways stand to lose the most[emphasis mine], the managerial class.  And this is basically what choosing service requires."

 

That is how you move toward a culture of the heart.  You choose service over self-interest.  Not a patriarchal (parenting) kind of service, where “father knows best,” but a true servant leadership kind of service.  There is a difference!  A true servant leader listens first!  He doesn’t just decide what is best for you.  He doesn’t do it his way.  He is governed by principles and governs by principles. We show respect when we really listen to others. That is how people in a culture of the heart GROW.

 

When people talk to one another, there are often two meanings to what they say.  The first is the meaning of what is actually stated.  The second is the metamessage.  It is meaning that is not stated—at least not in words—but is gleaned from every aspect of context: the way something is said, who is saying it, or the fact that it is said at all. The metamessage is the "heart meaning"—the meaning we react to most strongly, that triggers emotion. (Tannen, 2001)  In a culture of the heart the message and metamessage should complement, not contradict each other.  There should be no need to “read the tea leaves” to find out what is really being said.

 

A culture of the heart rewards such open, honest expressions of concern and questions.  Responses to such questions are also honest and devoid of duplicity. When people sense duplicity, they are guarded in their communication and trust evaporates.

 

Dr. Stephen Covey says:

 

“Many executives say they value capitalism, but they reward feudalism…They say they value openness…but they behave in ways that value closeness, hidden agendas, and politicking.” (Covey, 1991)

 

One other important characteristic of a culture of the heart needs to be mentioned.  A culture of the heart encourages everyone to keep promises and honor commitments.  Violating commitments when “conditions change” is a major emotional withdrawal.  Heart science requires being very careful about what we promise, and then making sure we honor all our promises.

 

If conditions change, don’t renege on your commitments through the exercise of positional power.  Instead, go to the person or persons you made your promise to and ask to be released from the promise.  Usually they will release you.  However, be prepared to honor your promise to your own hurt when necessary.  This is what it means to live by the principle of integrity.  In the long run such actions will build trust.  Trust is essential to a culture of the heart.

 

Some argue that all this sounds good, but “this soft stuff really doesn’t work.”  However, the facts prove just the opposite!  The Gallup Organization has analyzed 25 years’ worth of interviews with more than 1 million workers.  They have concluded that the single most important variable in employee productivity and loyalty is not pay or benefits.  The single most important factor is thequality of the relationship between the employees and their direct supervisors.  It turns out the greatest sources of satisfaction in the workplace are internal and emotional, not financial. (Schwartz, 2000)

 

People desire a leader who sets clear and consistent expectations, provides the necessary resources, genuinely cares for them, values and encourages them, and supports their growth and development.  As the saying goes, “I don’t care how much you know until I know how much you care.”

 

Mother Teresa said, “The greatest disease in the West today is not TB or leprosy; it is being unwanted, unloved, and uncared for.”  This is as true in the corridors of big business as it is in the ghettos. (Freiberg, 1996)  Companies with a culture of the heart understand this need and work diligently to meet it.  They encourage their management to promote and even celebrate the success of their employees.  Most do it because it is good business and the right thing to do!  Intelligent business leaders know there is really no substitute for managing a company with honest and caring people.

 

This is why Robert Greenleaf, the father of modern servant leadership thinking, said that servant leadership is about making the people around you to grow as persons.

 

If your people don’t perceive themselves as growing, are you really serving them?  When was the last time you asked them for frank and honest feedback regarding your contribution to their growth?

 

A recent article in ABCNEWS.com’s “Working Wounded” ¹³ discussed performance reviews. It compared some performance reviews to having a pit bull sink its teeth into you!  The article said that it seems like some supervisors grow new teeth just for the purpose of performance reviews.  Other supervisors may put off reviews because they dread the process.

 

Synovus has recognized that it is difficult for most managers and team members to have a frank and constructive conversation about performance if there is money on the line.  So they have separated the evaluation process from salary adjustments.  Synovus has redesigned the whole process and named it Right Steps for Performance Development. ¹⁴

 

Performance reviews in an organization with a culture of the heart should be very different from traditional reviews.  Reviews in a culture of the heart are seen as a development tool.  Reviews are often held several times a year, not just annually.

 

Leaders use Right Steps meetings at Synovus to determine (1) what the team member enjoys, (2) what he/she wants to do in the future, and (3) what the company needs him/her to do.  The company then tries to place each team member in a position where the team member can fulfill all three.  They understand that satisfied team members are those whose jobs fulfill each of these criteria.  The manager uses the performance review to help the team member identify future growth options and build a career plan.  The focus is on the growth of people, not sitting in judgment of people.

 

 

The bottom line is that companies with a principle-centered culture of the heart have lower turnover, are more productive, and maintain higher customer loyalty than those who don’t.

 

 

According to BusinessWeek, TSYS, a payment services company in which Synovus owns an 80.8-percent stake, recently ranked the 75^th best overall performer among “The 100 Best Small Companies,” and 10^th within the banking industry group.  Synovus also ranked #5 among 128 companies researched in Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.’s annual Honor Roll, which recognizes those banking companies that have continually reported increases in earnings per share—regardless of the banking environment—over the last decade.  Only 13 have posted a 10-year record worthy of admission to the Honor Roll!

 

Synovus was also recently named in Working Mother magazine's 15th annual survey as one of the "100 Best Companies for Working Mothers."  They received the top score in the category of "Flexibility" afforded to working moms, and additional high marks in the categories of "Leave for New Parents," "Work/Life" and "Advancing Women."

 

Synovus and its family of companies recently ranked 23^rd in Training magazine’s annual survey of the "Top 50 Training Organizations."  They have also been named 10^th in the most recent edition of The 100 Best Stocks to Own in America.

 

These results demonstrate that practicing the Golden Rule and having a culture of the heart is not only a “good idea”, but is also very sound business!

 

Edwin Markham said: “We have committed the Golden Rule to memory; let us now commit it to life.”

 

Jack Welch, CEO of GE, one of the most admired companies in the world, knows what he is talking about when he says, “Business isn’t rocket science.”  The Golden Rule is not rocket science, and creating and sustaining a culture of the heart is not rocket science.  It is easy to understand, but hard to practice.  It takes considerable strength of character!  This is heart science!

 

 

Comments to: jhb001@juno.com

 

 

Biography:

 

Dr. J. Howard Baker is Assistant Professor of Computer Information Systems at the University of Louisiana at Monroe. Dr. Baker has been a Franklin Covey 7 Habits of Highly Effective People certified facilitator for eight years, and has served the University of Texas at Tyler as their facilitator for four years. During the summer he offers a graduate and undergraduate course at U. T. Tyler in personal and organizational leadership. He holds a B.S. in Management from Samford University, a Master of Accounting (MAcc) from the University of Southern California, and a Ph.D. in Information Systems from the University of Texas at Arlington.

 

Internet References:

 

1. (www.homerhickam.com/rocket.htm)

2. (www.csmonitor.com/durable/2001/05/03/fp2s1-csm.shtml)

3. (www.filegate.gov)

4. (www.editorialnetwork.com/archive/congress/06_01_1_1.html)

5. (www.ge.com/news/welch/index.htm)

6. Ribitzky, Romy. “Congrats Grads, Now What?” abcNEWS.com. June 12, 2001. (more.abcnews.go.com/sections/business/dailynews/commencement_advice_010512.html)

7. (www.fortune.com)

8. (www.southwest.com)

9. (www.synovus.com)

10. (www.thecontainerstore.com)

11. (www.synovus.com/about/vision.cfm)

12. Roth, Daniel. “My Job At The Container Store” Fortune.com. January 10, 2000. (www.fortune.com/indexw.jhtml?co_id=359&doc_id=201104&channel=artcol.jhtml&_DARGS=%2Ffragments%2Ffrg_top_story_body.jhtml.1_A&_DAV=artcol.jhtml)

13. Rosner, Bob. “Sitting in Judgment: Grading Employees' Performance”. AbcNEWS.com: Working Wounded. June 25, 2001. (abcnews.go.com/sections/business/WorkingWounded/workingwounded010622.html)

14. (http://www.synovus.com/investors/annual1999/personally_developing.cfm)

 

References:

 

Block, Peter. Stewardship: Choosing Service Over Self-Interest.  San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1993.

 

Brooker, Katrina. “The Chairman of the Board Looks Back” Fortune Vol. 143, No. 11, May 28, 2001: 62-76.

 

Colvin, Geoffrey. "America's Most Admired Companies." Fortune. February 21, 2000: 108-110.

 

Covey, Stephen R. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Restoring the Character Ethic. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989.

 

Covey, Stephen R. Principle-Centered Leadership. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991.

 

DePree, Max. Leadership Jazz. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

 

Fitz-Enz, Jac. The 8 Practices of Exceptional Companies: How Great Organizations Make the Most of Their Human Assets. New York: American Management Association, 1997.

 

Freiberg, Kevin and Jackie. NUTS! Southwest Airlines’ Crazy Recipe for Business and Personal Success. Austin: Bard Press, Inc. 1996.

 

Harris Ph.D., Jim. Getting Employees to Fall in Love with Your Company. New York: AMACON, 1996.

 

Huey, John and Geoffrey Colvin. "The Jack and Herb Show." Fortune. January 11, 1999.

 

Lee, Blaine. The Power Principle: Influence with Honor. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997.

 

Levering, Robert and Milton Moskowitz. The 100 Best Companies to Work for in America. Currency and Doubleday. 1993.

 

Schwartz, Tony. “The Greatest Sources of Satisfaction in the Workplace are Internal and Emotional” Fast Company Vol. 40, November 2000: 398-402.

 

Spears, Larry, editor.  Reflections on Leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s Theory of Servant-Leadership Influenced Today’s Top Management Thinkers.  New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1995.

 

Stein, Nicholas. "The World's Most Admired Companies." Fortune. October 2, 2000:183-196.

 

Tannen, Deborah. "What's THAT Supposed to Mean?” Readers Digest. July, 2001: 103-107.

 

“Super Kids” Modern Maturity Vol. 44, No. 4, July/August, 2001.

Leadership is about the way you perceive and treat yourself and how you perceive and treat others. Personal leadership involves the former; social and organizational leadership involves the latter. The two are interrelated.

 

Each of us has a unique, complex “thinking system” which has developed since birth. This complex system is believed to actually be a composite of several more fundamental thinking systems layered one on top of the other. Our “worldview” is the totality of our conception of what this complex, fragmented world is like. Our worldview is a composite of our cognitive style, genetic makeup, memory, mental models or paradigms, assumptions, vision of the future, and the fusion of factual and value premises. Our personal worldview plays a major role in determining outcomes in our personal lives. Our collective worldview plays a major role in determining outcomes in our organizations and institutions. This is often described as the “See-Do-Get” cycle. How we “see the world” determines “what we do,” and “what we do” determines “what we get” as an outcome.

 

Dr. Stephen Covey states that all things are created twice. There is a “first creation,” which is of the mind, and a “second creation,” which is the physical manifestation of the first creation. For instance, a blueprint is the first creation and the building is the second creation. Our attitudes and behaviors flow from our worldview.

 

Each of us filters the information we receive about the world through our worldview to determine what we consider truth. Our personal worldview will change and become more complex as we grow older and mature. Collective worldviews can follow the same pattern of maturation. (Albert Einstein understood this when he observed, “The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.”)

 

Our worldview is our mind’s way of dealing with what Dr. Michael Armour calls the “Four Big C’s”: Change, Complexity, Confusion, and Conflict. As we grow older, and our worldview can no longer sufficiently cope with the four C’s, we may experience a paradigm shift to a higher system of thinking. The mind activates more complex systems of thinking to cope with new problems. Rather than totally replacing our old worldview with a new one, we actually integrate parts of our old worldview with the new.

 

The perception you have of yourself is part of your worldview. It involves such issues as your personal accountability, values that matter most to you, your personal mission in life, and the importance of self-discipline. It also defines what you must do to hedge against leading an inconsequential life.

 

The answer to important life issues will depend on your maturity level. It is generally recognized that lower levels of maturity exhibit extremely self-serving worldviews. The worldview of an infant, for example, is totally self-centered. The end result of an infant’s worldview is a life consisting of a series of short-term reactions to physiological needs (such as nourishment, warmth, etc.). As the maturity of an individual increases, there is a shift from reactivity to proactivity. Proactivity means that our behavior is a function of our decisions, not our conditions. (Dr. Stephen Covey’s Habit 1 deals with this thoroughly.) Higher levels of maturity demonstrate consideration for others and self-sacrifice.

 

Different people stop reconstructing their worldview at different maturity levels, thus creating the incredible diversity of thought we see in our world today. We must understand that there are no “right” or “wrong” worldviews. Each of us has a unique worldview. However, there are similar worldview patterns that result in similar pursuits and standards of conduct.

 

Since our worldview determines how we lead others and ourselves, there is also a great deal of diversity of thought regarding leadership. Leadership models can be viewed along a continuum. At one end of the continuum the power model, with its authoritarian style, can be found. At this end of the continuum we find a top-down, command-and-control pyramid approach, with powerful decision-makers at the top. At the other end of the continuum is where we find servant leadership and similar leadership models. At this end of the continuum we find a worldview that sees the world as an interdependent reality where people are treated with respect in a totally egalitarian manner.

 

The purpose of the mission often determines the use of a given model. For instance, an authoritarian, command and control model of leadership may be very effective for stopping something, destroying something, or conquering something, such as an enemy during a war. The military has used the power leadership model for millennia very effectively. It is a leadership model that is hard-nosed and aggressive in style. The power model of leadership often involves the formation of privileged classes, strict hierarchy, turf protection, intimidation, and rank. Unfortunately, one can find many examples of the inappropriate use of this model of leadership today in corporations, government agencies, and churches. It is interesting to note that modern military organizations use a variety of leadership models to deal with the numerous complex roles they play in our modern world.

 

If the objective or mission is to build an organization dedicated to service (such as public service, customer service, or serving a congregation), empowerment, creativity, and the growth and maturing of individuals, then the power model of leadership is highly inappropriate. A leadership model based on a totally different system of thinking should be considered.

 

Our worldview determines our belief regarding whether the power model or servant leadership model is ever a legitimate approach. Our worldview also determines when we think it would be appropriate for us to use either model of leadership. Unfortunately, some worldviews see only one model as appropriate for all situations. As Abraham Maslow said, “He that is good with a hammer tends to think everything is a nail.” Other worldviews acknowledge the servant leadership model as legitimate, but attempt to implement it using authoritarian and patriarchal methods. Addressing this problem, Peter Block states, “the very system that has patriarchy as the root problem uses patriarchal means to try to eliminate its symptoms. This is the dark side of leadership.”

 

 

The servant leadership model is not new. However, Robert Greenleaf, who died in 1990, is considered to be the father of modern servant leadership ideas that have recently grown in popularity. Greenleaf was a lifelong student of organization and retired as Director of Management Research at AT&T. He also held a joint appointment as visiting lecturer at M.I.T’s Sloan School of Management and at the Harvard Business School. In addition, he held teaching positions at both Dartmouth College and the University of Virginia.

 

Greenleaf said that servant leadership is about making the people around you to grow as persons, to be healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, and more likely themselves to become servants. Servant leaders facilitate the growth of others along a maturity continuum—to greater and greater levels of maturity.

 

Although Robert Greenleaf is considered the father of the modern servant leadership model, no single perspective is complete. Rather than thinking of Greenleaf’s description of servant leadership as a single model, one might view it as a portal into a whole new universe of models based on certain fundamental principles. Other leadership thinkers such as Senge, Block, DePree, and Covey give us additional important insights into this universe.

 

Servant leadership manifests itself in different ways in different organizations. For instance, the fun-loving antics of Southwest Airlines (www.southwest.com) probably would not fit the more conservative culture of a major financial organization like Synovus Financial Corporation (www.synovus.com). Yet both organizations base their organizational culture on the servant leadership principles articulated by Greenleaf. Both companies consistently appear in the Fortune “100 Best Companies To Work For” list, and both have been the number one company on the list (http://www.fortune.com/fortune/bestcompanies).

 

Some think that the servant leadership model is too soft and doesn’t recognize the political nature of organizations and institutions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Where there is power there will always be politics. What the servant leadership model does is reshape the political environment so that political power is used to protect and build people, rather than keep them in a state of dependency. It deals with the reality of political power and its legitimate and ethical use. However, while protecting people from danger, servant leaders also expose them to a greater awareness of reality. That is why servant leadership can be so dangerous in some organizations. Challenging the power model of leadership is not just challenging a leadership style. It is challenging a worldview—a belief system—that provides control, consistency, and predictability to those in power.

 

John F. “Jack” Welch (www.ge.com/news/welch/index.htm), 20 year Chairman and CEO of General Electric, and one of the most highly regarded leaders in the business world today, once said that management is “looking reality straight in the eye and then acting upon it with as much speed as you can.” Robert Greenleaf said, “Awareness is not a giver of solace — it is just the opposite. It is a disturber and an awakener. Able leaders are usually sharply awake and reasonably disturbed. They are not seekers after solace. They have their own serenity.”

 

Servant leadership involves a mature worldview that chooses service over self-interest. Mature people recognize joint accountability. Achieving a high level of interdependence requires a culture where leaders listen first, and listen intently and for understanding. The job of the servant leader is to listen, to identify, and to clarify what the organization is saying. This level of listening requires more than just hearing. To the servant leader listening means a genuine willingness to be influenced by those you serve.

 

Servant leadership also involves developing an organizational culture that exhibits a high level of trust. Trust is dependent on having trustworthy people. Trustworthy people are principled and “walk their talk.” This is why personal leadership success precedes organizational leadership success. (Dr. Stephen Covey calls these two leadership successes the “private victory” and “public victory.” He says that private victories must precede public victories.) This “inside-out” approach is captured in the saying; “I cannot call myself your servant until I can call myself my master.” Self-mastery is essential for successful personal leadership. You cannot successfully lead others under the servant leadership model until you have first achieved a certain level of personal leadership mastery and internal synergy.

 

Practicing servant leadership within an organization means performing acts which help people remove the obstacles in their way—and helping them acquire the tools and resources they need to do their jobs better. It means jumping into the trenches and being willing to do whatever it takes to get the job done. It means leading by example. It means lightening the load of another. It means being willing to do whatever you ask others to do. It means leveling hierarchies. It means not only being a boss, but also a friend. It means listening to those served to find out what they really need you to do for them, rather than deciding yourself what is best for them.

 

Just because one serves, and has a leadership position, does not make that person a true servant leader. Robert Greenleaf says that a true servant leader is servant first. Others may aspire first to become a leader and then to serve, or to aspire to serve in a manner that is patriarchal and controlling. However, a true servant leader is one that exhibits very specific characteristics. Larry Spears, Executive Director of The Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership (www.greenleaf.org), has identified 10 critical characteristics that a servant leader should exhibit. These ten are by no means complete, but do communicate important aspects of this leadership model. The ten characteristics are:

 

 

1.      Listening

2.      Empathy

3.      Healing

4.      Awareness

5.      Persuasion

6.      Conceptualization

7.      Foresight

8.      Stewardship

9.      Commitment to the growth of people

10.    Building community

 

In describing servant leadership to another, it is recognized that the listener is always filtering and interpreting what is being said based on their current worldview. Truly understanding the servant leadership model may require a paradigm shift from old ways of thinking. It may require discarding old assumptions. It may require viewing the world differently. To accomplish this it will be necessary to be vulnerable, to listen for understanding, to respect differences in perspective, and to receive personal feedback from others. Only then will you be able to effectively examine and modify your assumptions, values, and paradigms–your worldview.

 

The servant leadership model cannot be achieved with a “quick-fix” approach. It cannot be instilled quickly within an organization. The transformation of the worldviews of individuals that make up an organization is a long-term, continuous effort. The decision to pursue the servant leadership model is certainly a matter of organizational strategy, but at its core it is a matter of personal choice. Is servant leadership a part of your worldview?

 

Comments to: jhb001@juno.com

 

About the author:

 

Dr. J. Howard Baker is Assistant Professor of Computer Information Systems at the University of Louisiana at Monroe.  Last year Dr. Baker taught an Honors Seminar at ULM, which included a field trip to the top servant leadership companies in America. Dr. Baker has been a Franklin Covey 7 Habits of Highly Effective People certified facilitator for seven years, and has served the University of Texas at Tyler as their facilitator for four years. During the summer he offers a graduate and undergraduate course at U. T. Tyler in personal and organizational leadership. He holds a B.S. in Management from Samford University, a Master of Accounting (MAcc) from the University of Southern California, and a Ph.D. in Information Systems from the University of Texas at Arlington.

 

 

References:

 

 Armour, Michael, and Browning, Don. Systems-Sensitive Leadership: Empowering Diversity Without Polarizing the Church. Joplin, Missouri: College Pres Publishing, 2000.

 

Barker, Joel. Paradigms, The Business of Discovering the Future.  New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1992.

 

Block, Peter. Stewardship: Choosing Service Over Self-Interest.  San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1993.

 

Covey, Stephen R. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Restoring the Character Ethic. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989.

 

Covey, Stephen R. Principle-Centered Leadership.  New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991.

 

DePree, Max. Leadership Jazz. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

 

Greenleaf, Robert K. Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness.  New York: Paulist Press, 1977.

 

Rinehart, Stacy T. Upside Down: The Paradox of Servant Leadership.  Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1998.

 

Senge, Peter. The Dance of Change: The Challenges to Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations.  New York: Doubleday, 1999.

 

Spears, Larry, editor.  Reflections on Leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s Theory of Servant-Leadership Influenced Today’s Top Management Thinkers.  New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1995.

When we drain power from a car battery it runs down. If we do this long enough, the battery will eventually become totally dead. In physics we call this “entropy”, which means that anything left to itself will eventually disintegrate until it reaches its most elemental form. Entropy happens when there is neglect. Neglect your body, and you will deteriorate. Neglect your car battery, and it will eventually die. Anything that is not attended to and renewed will deteriorate over time. That is why we have an alternator in our car. The alternator recharges the battery. It combats entropy. All things need caring for—and your employees are no exception. Nothing neglected will remain productive over time.

 

Employees are like car batteries. If you are always taking from them, but never “charging them up” emotionally, eventually they will run down. Stephen Covey and others use the metaphor of the Emotional Bank Account (EBA). Negative actions and neglect can become withdrawals against a person’s EBA. On the other hand, courtesies, celebrations, and affirmations are deposits to the EBA. If there are a lot of withdrawals, and few or no deposits, a person’s EBA will become so overdrawn that the relationship will become bankrupt.

 

 Effective leaders understand this concept and recognize the importance of giving encouragement and positive feedback on a regular basis. Such feedback should not be manipulative in nature, but should flow from a genuine appreciation and belief in their people. Effective leaders are obsessed with finding something good about an employee. They are very alert to opportunities to celebrate the achievement of others. These acts of encouragement are a real key to releasing the potential in people and promoting the use of their gifts and talents.

 

Few employees receive more affirmation from superiors than Southwest Airline employees. Southwest Airlines is recognized year after year by Fortune magazine as one of the best companies to work for in America. They are also famous for recognizing employees and celebrating their achievements. One token of this is a giant T-shirt hanging in the headquarters building of Southwest Airlines at Love Field. Imprinted on the shirt is this message:

“How many Southwest employees does it take to change a light bulb?” At the bottom of the shirt is the answer: “Four. One to actually change the light bulb and three to design the T-shirt to celebrate it!”

 

Southwest Airlines says that it uses thousands of small gestures to send big messages. The halls of their corporate headquarters are literally covered from floor to ceiling with photos, plaques, certificates, awards, honors, and various memorabilia that capture the spirit of their culture. Some have even accused Southwest executives of constructing more office space just so they could gain additional wall space in the halls to hang photos of employees and their families.

 

In the fall of 1999, I was selected as the Honor’s Seminar faculty member at the University of Louisiana at Monroe. I had proposed teaching a course entitled Personal and Organizational Leadership, with an emphasis on studying the top companies on the Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For list. That year Southwest Airlines was the number four company on the list.

 

Toward the end of the semester the class took a field trip to visit the number one and number four companies on the Fortune 100 Best list (Synovus Financial and Southwest Airlines). Southwest had donated four round-trip tickets for our trip. We also used two round trip tickets from my Southwest Airlines frequent flyer program. We still had to buy tickets for one leg of the trip. I called the Southwest Airlines reservation number and got a very nice and helpful young lady on the line. I explained that making the reservations would be complicated since we had frequent flyer miles, free tickets from Southwest, and we also needed to buy tickets for one leg of the trip. However, I didn’t know which flight to buy, since we wanted to purchase tickets for the least expensive flight—applying the free tickets to the more expensive flights.

 

She searched diligently to find the least expensive flight of the trip. There was just one problem. That flight did not have enough seats left at the rock bottom fare. We needed two additional seats at that fare. She suggested that since I was working with the executive office at Southwest to arrange our tour that I should call and ask if they could authorize her to sell all the tickets at the lowest fare!

 

I was so impressed with this reservationist and her attitude of service. She had worked almost a half-hour to book all the flights and now she would hold the two seats until I asked the executive office to release the seats at the lower fare! She was truly working to save us money and I really appreciated that. I got her name and phone number. I discovered that she was working at a phone center in Oklahoma. I thanked her and hung up.

 

I then called the executive assistant to the executive office at Southwest and told her the situation. She said there would be no problem lowering the fare for the two seats and that she would take care of it immediately. I gave her the reservations’ name and phone number. Then I mentioned that the reservationist had done an outstanding job helping me. I suggested that someone should mention this to her supervisor.

 

About ten minutes later my phone rang. It was the reservationist in Oklahoma. She sounded very excited and said, “You can’t believe what just happened to me! I just received a call from Colleen Barrett. She personally thanked me for giving you such extraordinary service!”

 

For those who don’t recognize her name, Colleen is the Executive Vice President of Southwest Airlines, and the Chair of the corporate Culture Committee. Within five minutes of my suggesting someone should recognize the fine work of this reservationist, the Executive Vice President of Southwest Airlines—a company of over 29,000 employees—had made a personal call to express her appreciation to the reservationist! I can tell you for certain that this reservationist received an incredible deposit to her Emotional Bank Account that day! This affirmation was like a powerful charge to her battery.

 

Such small gestures certainly do send big messages at Southwest. They can also send big messages within your organization. Do you look for opportunities to celebrate employee accomplishments, both great and small, or do you focus on finding fault and criticizing? Are most of the transactions you conduct with your employees considered “deposits” or “withdrawals” to their Emotional Bank Accounts?

 

Too many organizational cultures are still driven by criticism, fear, and punishment. (The floggings will continue until morale improves!) Celebrations and affirmations inspire, motivate, and reenergize people. Isn’t that what effective leadership is all about? Are you a “battery drainer” or a “battery charger”?

 

Comments to: jhb001@juno.com

 

About the author:

 

Dr. J. Howard Baker is Assistant Professor of Computer Information Systems at the University of Louisiana at Monroe.  Last year Dr. Baker taught an Honors Seminar at ULM, which included a field trip to the top servant leadership companies in America. Dr. Baker has been a Franklin Covey 7 Habits of Highly Effective People certified facilitator for seven years, and has served the University of Texas at Tyler as their facilitator for four years. During the summer he offers a graduate and undergraduate course at U. T. Tyler in personal and organizational leadership. He holds a B.S. in Management from Samford University, a Master of Accounting (MAcc) from the University of Southern California, and a Ph.D. in Information Systems from the University of Texas at Arlington.

 

Big plans are already underway for next year’s festivities and celebration! Many believe that next February 2^nd will not be a routine February 2^nd. Why? It is 2/2/02! All those two’s certainly must signify that next February 2^nd will be a very special occasion!

 

If you haven’t figured it out yet, here is a hint. It has to do with predicting the weather. Yes, that’s right! February 2^nd is Groundhog Day! It is the day the groundhog, also called the woodchuck, is supposed to come out of its burrow after a long winter sleep and look for its shadow. Groundhog Day has been a tradition in the United States since 1886, when it was first reported in The Punxsutawney Spirit newspaper. (www.groundhog.org/history/tradition.shtml)

 

The origins of this tradition are clouded, but it appears that it originated in Rome and was passed on to the Teutons, or Germans. The original European tradition taught that if the hedgehog casts a shadow on Candlemas Day, which occurs on February 2^nd, there would be six more weeks of bad weather.

 

Over the years the legend of Groundhog Day has been growing. Much credit is due to the Punxsutawney Groundhog Club of Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania. As many as 30,000 people now gather at Gobbler’s Knob in Punxsutawney, PA to observe the most famous groundhog in the world—Punxsutawney Phil. Over the years Phil has not only predicted the weather, but has also met the President of the United States and appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show! The Club even has its own web site (www.groundhog.org).

 

In 1993, Columbia Pictures released the humorous movie Groundhog Day starring Bill Murray and Andie MacDowell. Bill Murray plays a grouchy weatherman, also named Phil, who has been assigned to cover the Punxsutawney Phil groundhog event with his producer, Rita.

 

After covering the event, the weatherman gets caught in a traffic jam and decides to spend the night in Punxsutawney. He wakes up at 6:00am to his alarm clock playing the exact same song from the day before. In fact everything is exactly the same. It is Groundhog Day all over again! Everything he does begins to repeat itself. Somehow, only Phil, the weatherman, remembers anything about what has to happen from the previous cycle of the day. No matter what he does, every day is a repeat of Groundhog Day! After going through many cycles of the same Groundhog Day, Phil begins to tire of living. He tries ending his life by jumping off a building, but to no avail. He wakes up the next day at 6:00 to the very same song on the radio! Nothing stops the repetitions of Groundhog Day!

 

The movie reminded me of a dark side to life within some organizations. Such organizations exhibit what I will call Punxsutawney leadership. No matter who is in charge, everything remains the same! Leaders come and leaders go, but nothing really changes. Phil’s repetition of Groundhog Day is like the daily grind most of us experience within modern organizations. The leadership may change over time but the underlying culture remains the same. There are the same old situations with little variation. We keep repeating the same old things hoping for different results. Just as this weatherman was about to go crazy with the repetition, so many within these organizations feel like going crazy over the lack of new and better ideas. The leadership in these organizations is like the constant repetition of an old 78 rpm record that is scratched—constantly going over and over the same groove. The messages from Punxsutawney leaders sound like a “broken record”.

 

In the movie theater, when Phil’s alarm clock goes off at 6:00am for about the twentieth time, the audience groans, hoping that somehow Phil can escape from the daily grind of Groundhog Day. So it is within many organizations. As a new leader appears, you can hear the groan of employees hoping that the “groundhog day” cycle can be broken. However, it is a rare occurrence to break the Punxsutawney leadership cycle. That is because culture and leadership are two sides of the same coin. When an organization’s culture is formed, based on certain assumptions, then the next generation of leadership is usually determined by the existing culture! This is especially true when times are good.

 

Once an organization’s culture is formed, it is usually the case that those who are considered for future leadership positions must support and conform to the existing culture. The culture survives by passing itself on to newcomers and by selecting the next generation of leadership. Organizational culture is the mechanism for social control, determining how current and future leaders will perceive, think, and feel.

 

Organizational culture is formed from assumptions. However, assumptions grow from experiences. When a solution to a problem seems to work repeatedly, it comes to be taken for granted. It becomes a shared assumption. It becomes the organization’s reality. Leaders within the organization will then find it inconceivable to see things in any other way than the way the culture dictates. Those who challenge the culture stir up challenges and defensive behavior. Cognitive defense mechanisms allow the organization to continue to function as it has in the past.

 

Edgar Schein, considered one of the founders of the field of organizational psychology, has this to say:

 

“Rather than tolerating such anxiety levels we tend to want to perceive the events around us as congruent with our assumptions, even if that means distorting, denying, projecting, or in other ways falsifying to ourselves what may be going on around us.” (Schein, 1992)

 

“It was Machiavelli who said, you know if you really want to see people at their worst just try to change the existing order of things.” (Nathan & Tyler, 1987)

 

An organizational culture does not form spontaneously from nothing. The original leader(s) of an organization creates it. Schein says that there is little doubt that the initial shaping force is the personality and belief system of the founder. (Schein, 1987) Leaders create a culture by articulating their assumptions about reality. Sometimes these assumptions are false or incomplete. Some may be based simply on fantasy or habit. (Kilmann, 1986) False assumptions may appear correct in the short run, or under certain conditions. However, false or incomplete assumptions can be very dangerous to the health of the organization in the long run.

 

Often the assumptions upon which a culture rests remain unstated and untested for years. For leaders to be truly effective, they must recognize their role in cultural modification and face the difficult challenges such action presents. It will require considerable humility and the exercise of personal listening skills. Often those most blind to incomplete or incorrect assumptions are those who have risen to the top of their organization. In fact, that is why they are at the top—because they have been so loyal to the current culture and its underlying assumptions!

 

Effective leaders must examine their own taken-for-granted assumptions, which can be a very painful process. However, this process is absolutely necessary if they are to make things happen that will move the organization forward and allow it to adapt to changing environmental conditions.

 

Successful cultural changes are typically made incrementally. This is why it is so important that cultural changes be made in good times. This allows sufficient time to complete the evolution of the cultural change. “The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” People who fear sweeping changes may exhibit sufficient courage to make one small change. Once the change has been successfully completed, be sure to celebrate it. Celebrate each small step. Don’t wait until your entire vision has been accomplished before celebrating.

 

Be aware of the tendency to allow things to just “rock along” during good times. The human tendency is to ignore those who challenge the culture and its underlying assumptions during good times. When new leadership positions open within an organization lead by Punxsutawney leaders, such positions are typically filled with more Punxsutawney leaders—those who will do things the same way as in the past—based on the same assumptions that the old leadership held. Punxsutawney leaders embrace the most deadly assumption of all—erroneous extrapolation. (Kilmann, 1986) They assume that by changing nothing, the good things that have happened to the organization in the past will continue to happen in the future! They react to cultural change like the groundhog seeing its shadow. They become scared and quickly scurry back into their corporate burrow for six more weeks of inactivity! By the time bad times arrive, it may be too late to change!

 

Too much change too fast will bring on the wrath of those who desire the status quo. Those attempting to change the status quo are almost always viewed as “troublemakers.” The more drastic the change, the more preparation needs to be made ahead of time to counteract the human tendency to counter change.

 

When accepting change means admitting that the way things were done in the past was wrong, people are certain to resist. People do not like to lose face or feel embarrassed. Therefore, to be effective, cultural change must be both incremental and presented in a way that shows that what was believed or done in the past was done under very different conditions—and therefore perfectly understandable. Those who are willing to change must be portrayed as strong, flexible, and exercising vision. Effective leaders will focus on the positive benefits of the future rather than what went wrong in the past.

 

To facilitate cultural change, pick out individuals who are “on-board,” and encourage them to be cheerleaders and coaches to the fence sitters. Change will require considerable effort and determination over time. It will not come automatically or over a weekend. Patience and determination are critical characteristics of change agents. Cultural change is never a “quick fix.”

 

When positive cultural change does occur, don’t forget to publicly support and compensate those who have helped you overcome the resistance. Cultural change is usually personally disruptive—and is never easy. Those who help you in your mission will certainly pay a personal price. If you ignore the sacrifices they have made you will weaken future change efforts.

 

Once change begins to take place within the culture, there will be a tendency to lapse back into the “old ways.” For change to be lasting, it must be made in such a way that it will be self-perpetuating. However, while blocking the tendency to relapse, one must never make the new way the “only way.” As an effective leader you must not allow a new generation ofPunxsutawney leaders to arise. The last thing that needs to happen is to start believing that the new culture is now the ultimate culture.

 

Effective leaders must always be reexamining their assumptions. They should always be diagnosing the present strengths and weaknesses of their organization. Such leaders set a positive example of humility, learning, and personal growth. They make it clear that there is “no going back,” but there is always” going forward!” Those following such leaders will not groan like the theater audience watching the twentieth cycle of the same Groundhog Day, hoping that the “groundhog day” cycle can be broken. Rather, they will be energized to challenge their own assumptions and think creatively. “Creativity breeds enthusiasm; and enthusiasm, correctly focused, breeds productivity.” (Smith, 1985)

 

 

Comments to J. Howard Baker: jhb001@juno.com

 

Biography:

 

Dr. J. Howard Baker is Assistant Professor of Computer Information Systems at the University of Louisiana at Monroe. Dr. Baker has been a Franklin Covey 7 Habits of Highly Effective People certified facilitator for eight years, and has served the University of Texas at Tyler as their facilitator for four years. During the summer he offers a graduate and undergraduate course at U. T. Tyler in personal and organizational leadership. He holds a B.S. in Management from Samford University, a Master of Accounting (MAcc) from the University of Southern California, and a Ph.D. in Information Systems from the University of Texas at Arlington.

 

 

References:

 

Kilmann, Ralph. “Beyond the Quick Fix: Five Tracks to Managing Organizational Success”. Executive Excellence. Executive Excellence Publishing, 1986.

 

Nathan, John & Tyler, Sam. “Entrepreneurs: Excellence in Action”. Executive Excellence. Executive Excellence Publishing, 1987.

 

Schein, Edgar. “Leadership as Managed Cultural Change”. Executive Excellence. Executive Excellence Publishing, 1987.

 

Schein, Edgar. Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1992.

 

Smith, Hyrum. “How To Build Your Own Pyramid of Productivity”. Executive Excellence. Executive Excellence Publishing, 1985.

 

Peter Senge, MIT professor and author of The Fifth Discipline, said:

 “No one in the past 30 years has had a more profound impact on thinking about leadership than Robert Greenleaf.” 

 Robert Greenleaf, author of the classic series of essays on the theme “the servant as leader,” was a powerful advocate of mentoring.  In The Power of Servant Leadership, edited by Larry Spears, Robert Greenleaf proposed that there are psychic rewards to be gained by oldsters who take the time and trouble to mentor the young to become servant-leaders.

  He stated, “What could bring more satisfaction to oldsters than helping some of the young to become servant-leaders?” (page 54)

 

As an oldster himself at the time of his writing, he saw the need for a more caring society, but had little confidence that many of the leaders of his generation would actually meet the challenge.  He was definitely not persuaded that much progress toward a caring society would “be initiated by those who are now established as leaders.”  He stated that he did “not expect much” from his contemporaries. (page 53)

 

Robert Greenleaf saw that once an individual rose to a position of power and influence with a nonservant mindset, it would probably take a metanoia (a profound transformation or conversion) to change such a leader into a true servant-leader.  He stated:

 

“For the older ones among us who are ‘in charge,’ nothing short of a ‘peak’ experience, like religious conversion…seems to have much chance of converting a confirmed nonservant into an affirmative servant.” (page 23)

 

Although many influential leaders consider themselves effective mentors and servant-leaders, the fruits often do not bear this out.  Often the person who is energized and inspired to be an able mentor of the young is not a person of great formal power and influence.  In fact, a very successful mentor is likely to be one who has not risen to the top within his or her organization, but has remained in a lower level position in order to have greater access to young people.

 

Superiors may consider these effective mentors as oddballs.  This is because such persons may not want to conform to the organization’s culture and rise to a position of prominence.  Many organizational cultures place little value on truly growing people and helping young people internalize a lifestyle of service.  You can see this in academia, where senior faculty may pay lip service to mentoring junior faculty and students, but in reality there is a spirit of competition and a “scarcity mentality” driven by self-interest.  Institutional rewards often go to those most driven by such self-interest, rather than recognizing and rewarding those who are highly effective mentors.

 

Able mentors often prefer to spend their time and energy preparing and inspiring the next generation to become effective mentors and servant-leaders.  They see their mentees as those who will become the builders of more serving institutions in the future.  These visionary mentors are often very talented at growing people.  They are driven by a vision of the future.  They believe that there is tremendous psychic reward in giving themselves to make a difference in the lives of others.

 

Robert Greenleaf provided this striking example in an address he made to a gathering of university students: (page 102– The Power of Servant Leadership)

 

“Thomas Jefferson had such a mentor in George Wythe, the Williamsburg lawyer under whom Jefferson apprenticed.  Without the influence of George Wythe, there might not have been a Jefferson to write The Declaration of Independence or draft the statutes in Virginia that shaped the Constitution.  He might have settled for the role of eccentric Virginia scholar.  Find such a mentor if you can.”

 

 

Comments to: hbaker@leadingtoday.org

 

 

About the author:

 

Dr. Howard Baker is Director of Education for INSPIRE! Learning Systems.  He holds a B.S. in Management from Samford University, a Master of Accounting (MAcc) from the University of Southern California and a Ph.D. in Information Systems from the University of Texas at Arlington.  He has been a Certified Internal Auditor (CIA) since 1989.  He is an adjunct professor in both Business Administration and Public Administration at the University of Texas at Tyler.  Dr. Baker is a lifetime charter member of weLEAD and the founding editor of the weLEADInLearning web site’s E-Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership located atwww.weleadinlearning.org.  His weLEAD email address is hbaker@leadingtoday.org.

Many of us grew up watching teenage movies with themes based on the popularity of high school cheerleaders, beauty queens, and good-looking star athletes. These were the “beautiful people” that everyone admired and wanted to have as friends. Of course many times these popular teenagers were actually self-centered, insensitive, and very superficial. Before the end of the movie the true character of these idols was exposed. The exposure usually came with the triumphant recognition by the students of a timid, shy, mousy teenager who really possessed the true character.

 

Stephen Covey, in his book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, identifies a change that has taken place in America over the past fifty to seventy-five years. For the first 150 years in America the success literature focused on what he calls the “character ethic.” Individuals living their lives based on ethical principles such as honesty, integrity and humility characterized this earlier period. Around World War I there began a gradual shift from an emphasis on character to an emphasis on personality. This shift was toward what Stephen Covey calls the “personality ethic.” It places emphasis on outward appearance rather than character. It emphasizes “appearing to be” rather than “actually being.” 4

 

David Riesman, in his book The Lonely Crowd, says that character is developed in the home and then dispersed into society through work, play, politics and various activities of society. 7 Riesman recognizes that the emphasis on character that was dominant in America in the nineteenth century has gradually been replaced. Today the success literature emphasizes techniques more than character. Communication techniques, public relations techniques and dressing for success are major themes today.

 

Recently, a friend of mine shared her experiences about an employee who was a true diamond in the rough. Prior to returning to the work force full-time, she was working a few hours each week as a consultant to several small businesses. Entering a client’s business one day, she observed that the whole office was in an uproar. The problem was that on the day before, the owner had hired a person we’ll call Mary, who appeared in short shorts and looked like she had just left an all night bar. Because the owner was short handed and desperately needed help, he hired Mary on the spot and put her to work immediately.

 

My friend soon came to depend a great deal on Mary to assist her. Mary was always eager to learn and do things the right way. As my friend spent more time with Mary, she began to see that Mary had real character built on a strong work ethic. Unfortunately, like the greater part of an iceberg, this character was hidden “under water” from the casual viewer, and only the “tip of the iceberg” was visible to others. Mary was abrasive at times and lacked many social skills.

 

Stephen Covey uses the iceberg as a metaphor to explain the relationship between personality and character. 4 Covey explains that personality is like the tip of an iceberg—the part that people see or come in contact with first. In teenage movies, and many times in real life, we judge people by their physical beauty or their possessions. The tip of the iceberg symbolizes all these traits that are immediately visible.

 

The first time that my acquaintance suggested to Mary that she continue her education at the local college, Mary was horrified at the suggestion and said it was something that she could never do. No one in her family had ever graduated from college. Mary had been scripted by what Stephen Covey calls the “social mirror.” Each of us tends to form the perception of our self from our surroundings and the opinions, perceptions, and paradigms of others. How we perceive ourselves is often very distorted and out of proportion. 4

 

You can see someone’s outward beauty, but you can’t physically see character. Character is “below the surface.” People with character are honest and sincere in their relationships. They demonstrate integrity daily by standing up for what they believe, and they know what is right and what is wrong. They treat people fairly. They live the six “pillars of character,” which are trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. 2

 

The “character ethic” is based on such pillars, and principles such as sincerity, temperance, humility, courage, integrity, honesty, industry, and thrift. These principles cannot be violated if an individual wishes to be truly successful. 3 True success goes beyond financial success. This character, symbolized by the larger portion of the iceberg submerged under the water, was still extant in 1933 during the Great Depression. Many Americans were without work and lacked any means of supporting their families. President Roosevelt implemented an emergency assistance program to help these individuals. Written into the law was the requirement that assistance be given in cash. It was hoped that by giving assistance in cash, officials would be able to convince these proud men, who were industrious, to accept government help. 1 How times have changed!

 

Some people have a tremendous strength of character but it is hidden behind a personality or appearance that is not acceptable. How often do we ignore such people or “write them off” immediately as failures? We need to prepare ourselves to recognize when a character base is strong enough to overcome the lack of an acceptable personality or image, and give such people support and encouragement until they are able to acquire the necessary social skills to function in healthy personal and business relationships.

 

I was once so introverted and awkward that one of my teachers told me I would never be a public speaker. A manager once painted a mental picture of me working in an office by myself for the rest of my life, with someone sliding a tray of food under the door at lunchtime. I carried these images, derived from the social mirror, in my head for many years. I accepted them as reality—“the way things are.” Thanks to the help and encouragement from many people over the years, I came to recognize that my self-concept was not totally accurate—and certainly not predetermined. I discovered that I could be proactive and change my social skills over time. Today I speak regularly before audiences of hundreds of people and have taught communication and leadership courses at the college level for many years.

 

Some time passed and my friend had been working full time at another location for about a year when a position came open in her department. She immediately thought of Mary. Forgotten was her lack of acceptable social skills and her unprofessional dress and language. What was remembered was the fact that Mary was a dedicated employee who worked very hard, was very honest, and always eager to learn. As brusque as Mary could be at times, she was never mean or spiteful or cruel to anyone. She did not have a winning personality, but she did have a lot of character.

 

My friend hired Mary. When Mary came to work for the department, the response was worse than it had been at the first business where she had worked. Employees would come to my friend and say, “Did you hear what she just said?” “I can’t believe you hired her!” One manager even said Mary needed to be talked to about the way she conducted herself when men came in the office. However, there was never a single complaint about her work or her work ethic—only her social skills.

 

Within a year Mary had won over the office staff just as she had won my friend. They too began to recognize the solid character underneath the unsuitable social interaction. People in the office began to informally help Mary become more aware of her inappropriate dress and language. Mary was also urged to continue her education. She finally developed enough confidence to enroll at the local junior college. Once she saw that she was an “A” student, she decided to continue her education and pursue a management degree at the local university.

 

Last May my friend attended graduation ceremonies and watched Mary graduate magna cum laude! Over the past eight years, Mary has developed a winning personality, which complements her outstanding character. Because of her hard work, dedication, and work at self-improvement, Mary has moved into a professional position within her organization and is considered a very valuable employee.

 

Many times we are guilty of “selective perception.” When we first meet someone, we are often guilty of judging the value or worth of the person based on what we immediately see—the “tip of the iceberg.” Often the halo effect causes us to make a determination about the person we have met based on a single characteristic, such as their looks or their speech. 6 The shortcuts we use to judge others may keep us from opportunities to help others to grow and mature. How many people appear to be “losers” at first, but turn out to be real “winners” once we get to know them? Judging on outward appearance and first impressions can keep us from developing personal and professional relationships that would be very fulfilling and beneficial.

 

Personality is unique to each individual. Some people have very flawed personalities, yet under the surface they have a magnificent character. Often it takes time to discover this since it is “below the surface.” My personal experience tells me that a person with a flawed personality and strong character is usually easier to assist than a person with a winning personality and a flawed character!

 

Anybody can lead perfect people. Servant leadership organizations believe that a person that is immature, stumbling and inept is capable of great things when wisely led. As Robert Greenleaf said, “The secret of institution building is to be able to weld a team of such people by lifting them up to grow taller than they would otherwise be.” 5

 

As leaders, we are in the business of “growing people.” We must not overlook those who may lack certain social skills, but have character. Once such a person is worked with, there is no limit to what such a person can contribute to the organization.

 

Comments to: jhb001@juno.com

 

BACK TO weLEAD HOME PAGE

Biography:

Dr. J. Howard Baker is Assistant Professor of Computer Information Systems at the University of Louisiana at Monroe. Dr. Baker has been a Franklin Covey 7 Habits of Highly Effective People certified facilitator for eight years, and has served the University of Texas at Tyler as their facilitator for four years. During the summer he offers a graduate and undergraduate course at U. T. Tyler in personal and organizational leadership. He holds a B.S. in Management from Samford University, a Master of Accounting (MAcc) from the University of Southern California, and a Ph.D. in Information Systems from the University of Texas at Arlington.

 

References:

1. Bernstein, I. (1985). A Caring Society: The New Deal, the Worker, and the Great Depression. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

2. Character Counts! Retrieved July 28, 2001 from http://www.newciv.org/ncn/eric/character.html

3. Character Ethic Vs. Personality Ethic. Retrieved July 28, 2001 from http://www.ryu.com/mascio/7habits/Chicago/sld017.htm

4. Covey, Stephen R (1989). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. New York, New York: Simon & Schuster.

5. Greenleaf, Robert K. Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. New York: Paulist Press, 1977.

6. Frequently Used Shortcuts in Judging Others. Retrieved July 27, 2001 from http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~achelte/obl/lprob03/tsld009.htm

7. Riesman, David (1974). The Lonely Crowd. Clinton, Massachusetts: The Colonial Press, Inc.

A familiar parable is that of putting new wine in old wineskins. In biblical times new wine was stored in strong, new leather bottles. As the new wine fermented, the new leather was capable of expanding and remaining intact. On the other hand, if old leather bottles, which had been subject to decay, were used, the wineskins would often burst from the action of the fermenting wine. Thus both the new wine and the bottle would be lost.

 

What can this parable teach us today? Are there leaders in the year 2001 trying to put new wine in old wineskins? I suggest that when we try to establish a new leadership paradigm (such as servant-leadership) within an organization without first addressing the need for a compatible organizational culture, we are pouring new wine into old wineskins.

 

Talking servant-leadership doesn’t make it so! You can learn all the buzzwords and jargon, yet not be a servant-leader. You can know about servant-leadership and yet not really know servant leadership. Knowing servant leadership involves more than head knowledge. It involves heart knowledge! It means shifting your own paradigms and beginning to walk the talk. Servant-leadership is something you can’t fully know until you actually live it! Dare to solicit some feedback from those who work for you. If your so-called subordinates see your leadership behavior as autocratic and coercive rather than supportive and serving, you still don’t know servant-leadership!

 

Writing to executive leaders, Stephen Covey (Executive Excellence, Dec. 1995) pointed out the need for personal change: “Isn’t it ludicrous to think that you could transform a culture without having the individuals change. To me it is, and yet such thinking is common: everything in this organization should change, except me. If you make yourself the exception, forget the transformation.”

 

Every organization has an organizational culture. The culture is determined, consciously or unconsciously, by executive leadership—sometimes by just one dominant leader. The organization’s culture, more than any other factor, determines the results the organization achieves.

 

Small organizations may have a single culture, while very large organizations may have a dominant corporate culture and numerous subcultures. The culture represents the organization’s worldview and what it considers to be reality. Culture is made up of various artifacts, values and assumptions. It reflects the organization’s basic beliefs about what the organization is about, how its members are expected to behave, and defines itself in relation to the environment. The environment is anything outside the control of the organization that impacts the organization.

 

Organizational culture is unique to each organization. However, organizational cultures seem to fall along a continuum. At one end of the continuum is the power pyramid model and at the other end is the inverted pyramid servant-leadership model. Various names have been applied to these two models. A culture on the power pyramid side of the continuum might be referred to as a traditional, bureaucratic, patriarchic, or autocratic organizational culture. A culture on the inverted pyramid servant-leadership side of the continuum might be referred to as a principle-centered, entrepreneurial, stewardship, or egalitarian culture. In reality, the description of organizational culture is far more complex, since such cultures are multi-dimensional.

 

Cultures can be examined in various dimensions such as how they view people, make decisions, view leadership, and how they deal with risk, creativity, and communication. In general, the traditional organizational culture values the status quo, supports leadership from the top down, and is autocratic. Those who are effective at controlling others are considered to be the heroes in such a culture. Extreme cases of this type of culture strangle the human spirit and create a sense of helplessness.

 

The servant-leader or entrepreneurial culture emphasizes the growth and maturing of people, empowerment based on that growth, and promotes creativity. Such a culture values commitment and a passion to serve. Accountability at all levels of the organization is promoted. It endorses serving as the highest form of achievement.

 

Organizations with traditional cultures tend to be rather closed systems. A strong managerial class and a separate working class often characterize an organization with such a culture. The emphasis of management is on compliance, rather than broad ownership and accountability. Loyalty and trust are expected (regardless of the leader’s behavior) rather than earned. Maintaining control is of the utmost importance. Policing, auditing, monitoring, and surveillance are evident throughout the organization. The influence of ideas or individuals from outside the management class are avoided or ignored. Due to the closed nature of the system, the organization’s view of reality over time becomes more distorted and inbred as entropy sets in.

 

Peter Block, author of Stewardship (1993), says that having one group manage and another group execute is the death knell of the entrepreneurial spirit. In contrast, an entrepreneurial organizational culture focuses on people. Earned respect, new ideas (from whatever source), fun, learning, and service are typical characteristics. Power is used for service, and work is integrated with managing. Control is placed close to where the work is actually performed, and local units are encouraged to innovate practices that fit local situations.

 

Robert Greenleaf, who died in 1990, is considered to be the father of modern servant-leadership. However, most students of servant-leadership recognize that servant-leadership concepts did not originate with Greenleaf. Rather, servant-leadership has been around for thousands of years. Servant-leadership is successful because it is based on timeless and universal principles. Practices based on these principles result in a commitment to the growth of people, listening, empathy, stewardship, and the building of community. Greenleaf himself readily admitted he was not the creator of the servant-leadership concept. He was first introduced to the concept while reading The Journey to the East (Hesse, 1956). (For more on servant-leadership, see the January issue of weLEAD.)

 

In considering the two ends of the organizational culture continuum, Greenleaf suggested that traditional organizational cultures resulted in “people-using” institutions and servant-leadership cultures resulted in “people-building” institutions. He said that lip service has been given for a long time to the idea that people are the most important asset in an organization, but only recently have a few organizations begun to question traditional organizational assumptions.

 

It is well known that creativity is a key element of an entrepreneurial culture. Greenleaf recognized that a servant-leadership culture was, in fact, an entrepreneurial culture. He pointed out that the concentration of power in the hands of a few, or a single leader, was potentially corrupting. Even though many executives are successful in mastering a persona of humility and openness, few are able to maintain a proper personal awareness and avoid the arrogance and corrupting influence of holding and using considerable power. Greenleaf said that such arrogance tended to impair or corrupt one’s imagination, thus reducing creativity. As one who had lived most of his corporate life deferring to power and being pushed around by bureaucrats, Greenleaf knew what he was talking about!

 

Greenleaf emphasized that servant leadership is about helping the people around you grow as persons, to be healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, and more likely themselves to become servants. In reading this description, many have missed the connection between servant-leadership and creativity. It takes a great deal of imagination to create and maintain an organizational culture that makes people freer, more autonomous, and more likely to become servants. It also requires hard work, and the pay-off may not be seen quickly. Creating such a culture doesn’t just happen, and there is no “quick fix”. On the other hand, an uncorrected wrong action by a single leader may destroy months of building trust. Creating a culture of trust and accountability is a most challenging endeavor!

 

Books and seminars on servant-leadership are becoming more plentiful. Unfortunately, some organizations “buy in” to the benefits of servant-leadership, but attempt to implement it quickly without addressing the deep, underlying issue of organizational culture. Leaders in such organizations may “know about” servant-leadership, but may not “know” servant leadership!

 

Short of the appearance of a powerful change agent or agents, the present culture of an organization will dictate the manner used to change the culture. If the culture is based on the traditional model, rather than the entrepreneurial servant-leadership model, it is doubtful that any long-term positive change will occur! In this case, servant-leadership will be viewed as just another “program of the month”. It is important to remember that the culture is bigger than any of us. It is “the way we do things around here”. Therefore, the current leadership will most likely go about reform in a manner consistent with the current culture!

 

Peter Block describes this process: “The very system that has patriarchy as the root problem uses patriarchal means to try to eliminate its symptoms. This is the dark side of leadership.”

 

This is like putting the new wine of servant-leadership into an old autocratic organizational culture wineskin. So how does an organization that is steeped in a traditional autocratic culture, make the transition to servant-leadership? It must first focus on changing the culture itself. This is done in three steps. First, the old culture must be unfrozen. Next, there must be a move to the new culture. Finally, the new culture must be frozen. The newly created culture must incorporate organizational learning, so that the organization can adapt to new conditions and alter practices over time.

 

Preaching servant-leadership to the troops without the leaders setting an example of change will only create cynicism. Trust must be earned by new and different behavior. This kind of change does not take place by talk, articles in the company newsletter, policy changes, or the creation of servant-leadership training programs. Without positive and sustained change in the behavior of the leaders, all this amounts to just more patriarchy!

 

To make the transformation from a bureaucratic culture, those in executive leadership positions need to stop telling others what is best for them and start listening to what their organization is saying. They need to practice full disclosure and stop operating on a need-to-know basis. They need to stop acting only in the interest of their managerial class and begin to act in the interest of the whole organization. They need to examine existing systems to see if they reinforce traditional bureaucratic organizational behavior or entrepreneurial behavior.

 

Those in executive leadership positions also need to start building a unified community. This means moving in the direction of equality. Inequality is the enemy of community. This doesn’t mean everyone has the same power or salary, but it does mean that everyone is allowed dignity and respect as a human being. Respect is shown to workers when they are given a voice in the processes and decisions that affect them. Such empowered workers will become the new heroes in the organization.

 

Trust can only be built on managerial behavior that is radically different from that displayed in the old bureaucratic culture! Until such change is observed, any effort to implement servant-leadership, empowerment, and a true entrepreneurial spirit will be like pouring new wine in old wineskins. It didn’t work thousands of years ago in biblical times, and it will not work today.

Comments to: jhb001@juno.com 

About the author:

Dr. J. Howard Baker is Assistant Professor of Computer Information Systems at the University of Louisiana at Monroe. Last year Dr. Baker taught an Honors Seminar at ULM, which included a field trip to the top servant leadership companies in America. Dr. Baker has been a Franklin Covey 7 Habits of Highly Effective People certified facilitator for seven years, and has served the University of Texas at Tyler as their facilitator for four years. During the summer he offers a graduate and undergraduate course at U. T. Tyler in personal and organizational leadership. He holds a B.S. in Management from Samford University, a Master of Accounting (MAcc) from the University of Southern California, and a Ph.D. in Information Systems from the University of Texas at Arlington.

References:

Block, Peter. Stewardship: Choosing Service Over Self-Interest. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1993.

Burton, Terence, and John Moran. The Future Focused Organization. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1995.

Connors, Roger, Tom Smith and Craig Hickman. The Oz Principle: Getting Results Through Individual and Organizational Accountability. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1994.

Cornwall, Jeffrey and Baron Perlman. Organizational Entrepreneurship. Homewood, IL: Irwin, 1990.

Covey, Stephen R. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Restoring the Character Ethic. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989.

Covey, Stephen R. Principle-Centered Leadership. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991.

Covey, Stephen R. “Keys to Transformation.” Executive Excellence. Vol. 12 No. 12 (Dec. 1995): 3-5.

Depree, Max. “Creating a Positive Environment.” Executive Excellence. Vol. 13 No. 62 (June 1996): 11-12.

Fitz-Enz, Jac. The 8 Practices of Exceptional Companies: How Great Organizations Make the Most of Their Human Assets. New York: Amacom, 1997.

Hanson, Daniel. “Building Community.” Executive Excellence. Vol. 13 No. 62 (June 1996): 5.

Pinchot, Gifford, and Elizabeth Pinchot. The End of Bureaucracy & the Rise of the Intelligent Organization. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1993.

Spears, Larry, editor. Reflections on Leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s Theory of Servant-Leadership Influenced Today’s Top Management Thinkers. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1995.

Many of us grew up watching teenage movies with themes based on the popularity of high school cheerleaders, beauty queens, and good-looking star athletes.  These were the “beautiful people” that everyone admired and wanted to have as friends.  Of course many times these popular teenagers were actually self-centered, insensitive, and very superficial.  Before the end of the movie the true character of these idols was exposed.  The exposure usually came with the triumphant recognition by the students of a timid, shy, mousy teenager who really possessed the true character.

 

Stephen Covey, in his book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, identifies a change that has taken place in America over the past fifty to seventy-five years.  For the first 150 years in America the success literature focused on what he calls the “character ethic.”  Individuals living their lives based on ethical principles such as honesty, integrity and humility characterized this earlier period.  Around World War I there began a gradual shift from an emphasis on character to an emphasis on personality.  This shift was toward what Stephen Covey calls the “personality ethic.”  It places emphasis on outward appearance rather than character.  It emphasizes “appearing to be” rather than “actually being.” ⁴

 

David Riesman, in his book The Lonely Crowd, says that character is developed in the home and then dispersed into society through work, play, politics and various activities of society. ⁷ Riesman recognizes that the emphasis on character that was dominant in America in the nineteenth century has gradually been replaced.  Today the success literature emphasizes techniques more than character.  Communication techniques, public relations techniques and dressing for success are major themes today.

 

Recently, a friend of mine shared her experiences about an employee who was a true diamond in the rough.  Prior to returning to the work force full-time, she was working a few hours each week as a consultant to several small businesses.  Entering a client’s business one day, she observed that the whole office was in an uproar.  The problem was that on the day before, the owner had hired a person we’ll call Mary, who appeared in short shorts and looked like she had just left an all night bar.  Because the owner was short handed and desperately needed help, he hired Mary on the spot and put her to work immediately.

 

My friend soon came to depend a great deal on Mary to assist her.  Mary was always eager to learn and do things the right way.  As my friend spent more time with Mary, she began to see that Mary had real character built on a strong work ethic.  Unfortunately, like the greater part of an iceberg, this character was hidden “under water” from the casual viewer, and only the “tip of the iceberg” was visible to others.  Mary was abrasive at times and lacked many social skills.

 

Stephen Covey uses the iceberg as a metaphor to explain the relationship between personality and character. ⁴  Covey explains that personality is like the tip of an iceberg—the part that people see or come in contact with first.  In teenage movies, and many times in real life, we judge people by their physical beauty or their possessions.  The tip of the iceberg symbolizes all these traits that are immediately visible.

 

The first time that my acquaintance suggested to Mary that she continue her education at the local college, Mary was horrified at the suggestion and said it was something that she could never do.  No one in her family had ever graduated from college.  Mary had been scripted by what Stephen Covey calls the “social mirror.” Each of us tends to form the perception of our self from our surroundings and the opinions, perceptions, and paradigms of others.  How we perceive ourselves is often very distorted and out of proportion. ⁴

 

You can see someone’s outward beauty, but you can’t physically see character.  Character is “below the surface.”  People with character are honest and sincere in their relationships.  They demonstrate integrity daily by standing up for what they believe, and they know what is right and what is wrong.  They treat people fairly.  They live the six “pillars of character,” which are trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. ²

           

The “character ethic” is based on such pillars, and principles such as sincerity, temperance, humility, courage, integrity, honesty, industry, and thrift.  These principles cannot be violated if an individual wishes to be truly successful. ³  True success goes beyond financial success. This character, symbolized by the larger portion of the iceberg submerged under the water, was still extant in 1933 during the Great Depression.  Many Americans were without work and lacked any means of supporting their families. President Roosevelt implemented an emergency assistance program to help these individuals.  Written into the law was the requirement that assistance be given in cash.  It was hoped that by giving assistance in cash, officials would be able to convince these proud men, who were industrious, to accept government help. ¹  How times have changed!

 

Some people have a tremendous strength of character but it is hidden behind a personality or appearance that is not acceptable.  How often do we ignore such people or “write them off” immediately as failures?  We need to prepare ourselves to recognize when a character base is strong enough to overcome the lack of an acceptable personality or image, and give such people support and encouragement until they are able to acquire the necessary social skills to function in healthy personal and business relationships.

 

I was once so introverted and awkward that one of my teachers told me I would never be a public speaker.  A manager once painted a mental picture of me working in an office by myself for the rest of my life, with someone sliding a tray of food under the door at lunchtime.  I carried these images, derived from the social mirror, in my head for many years.  I accepted them as reality—“the way things are.”  Thanks to the help and encouragement from many people over the years, I came to recognize that my self-concept was not totally accurate—and certainly not predetermined.  I discovered that I could be proactive and change my social skills over time.  Today I speak regularly before audiences of hundreds of people and have taught communication and leadership courses at the college level for many years.

 

Some time passed and my friend had been working full time at another location for about a year when a position came open in her department.  She immediately thought of Mary.  Forgotten was her lack of acceptable social skills and her unprofessional dress and language.  What was remembered was the fact that Mary was a dedicated employee who worked very hard, was very honest, and always eager to learn.  As brusque as Mary could be at times, she was never mean or spiteful or cruel to anyone.  She did not have a winning personality, but she did have a lot of character.

 

My friend hired Mary.  When Mary came to work for the department, the response was worse than it had been at the first business where she had worked.  Employees would come to my friend and say, “Did you hear what she just said?”  “I can’t believe you hired her!”  One manager even said Mary needed to be talked to about the way she conducted herself when men came in the office. However, there was never a single complaint about her work or her work ethic—only her social skills.

 

Within a year Mary had won over the office staff just as she had won my friend.  They too began to recognize the solid character underneath the unsuitable social interaction.  People in the office began to informally help Mary become more aware of her inappropriate dress and language.  Mary was also urged to continue her education.  She finally developed enough confidence to enroll at the local junior college.  Once she saw that she was an “A” student, she decided to continue her education and pursue a management degree at the local university.

 

Last May my friend attended graduation ceremonies and watched Mary graduate magna cum laude!  Over the past eight years, Mary has developed a winning personality, which complements her outstanding character.  Because of her hard work, dedication, and work at self-improvement, Mary has moved into a professional position within her organization and is considered a very valuable employee.

 

Many times we are guilty of “selective perception.”  When we first meet someone, we are often guilty of judging the value or worth of the person based on what we immediately see—the “tip of the iceberg.”  Often the halo effect causes us to make a determination about the person we have met based on a single characteristic, such as their looks or their speech. ⁶   The shortcuts we use to judge others may keep us from opportunities to help others to grow and mature. How many people appear to be “losers” at first, but turn out to be real “winners” once we get to know them?  Judging on outward appearance and first impressions can keep us from developing personal and professional relationships that would be very fulfilling and beneficial.

 

Personality is unique to each individual.  Some people have very flawed personalities, yet under the surface they have a magnificent character.  Often it takes time to discover this since it is “below the surface.”  My personal experience tells me that a person with a flawed personality and strong character is usually easier to assist than a person with a winning personality and a flawed character!

 

Anybody can lead perfect people.  Servant leadership organizations believe that a person that is immature, stumbling and inept is capable of greatthings when wisely led.  As Robert Greenleaf said, “The secret of institution building is to be able to weld a team of such people by lifting them up to grow taller than they would otherwise be.” ⁵

 

As leaders, we are in the business of “growing people.”  We must not overlook those who may lack certain social skills, but have character.  Once such a person is worked with, there is no limit to what such a person can contribute to the organization.

 

 

Comments to: jhb001@juno.com

 

 

Biography:

 

Dr. J. Howard Baker is Assistant Professor of Computer Information Systems at the University of Louisiana at Monroe. Dr. Baker has been a Franklin Covey 7 Habits of Highly Effective People certified facilitator for eight years, and has served the University of Texas at Tyler as their facilitator for four years. During the summer he offers a graduate and undergraduate course at U. T. Tyler in personal and organizational leadership. He holds a B.S. in Management from Samford University, a Master of Accounting (MAcc) from the University of Southern California, and a Ph.D. in Information Systems from the University of Texas at Arlington.