Think about Oz and the love you may have for the 1939 movie or the 1900 book portraying the story of the Wizard of Oz.  Or, you may have read one or more of the thirteen Oz sequels written by L. Frank Baum (1856-1919).  But, few realize that there are a set of lessons for developing leadership abilities based on the story’s content and the history, life, and times of the story’s creative and entrepreneurial author—a man who served in roles as actor, breeder of rare chickens, director, gardener, lyricist, merchant, movie producer, philatelist, photographer, playwright, printer and newspaper publisher, salesman, theater manager, window dresser, and, of course, celebrated author.  Enter The Way of Oz: A Guide for Wisdom, Heart, and Courage and its roadmap for leadership development and travels down the yellow brick road of life.

 

Now, imagine the characters of Oz bearing special symbolism for learning, loving, serving, focusing on the future, and humility.  You might imagine the associations: the Scarecrow for wisdom and learning, the Tin Woodman for heart or loving, the Cowardly Lion for courage and service, Dorothy for leadership and a focus on the future, and the Wizard for humility and related virtues.  For the purposes of this short essay let’s focus on Dorothy and her character as a metaphor for a future focus and leadership.  At end we’ll see how a focus on the future and leadership are tied inextricably to the characteristics imbedded of the other major players of the Wizard of Oz masterpiece.

 

Dorothy in The Way of Oz is the leadership person—the character with a focus on the future—the character who brings out the best in others through understanding, heart and her own courage—all cast in a spirit of kindness and service.  And, with Dorothy’s savvy about personal and institutional planning, diversity, sustainability, scientific and political understanding, and personal responsibility—she is a character who makes significant differences in the lives of others—men, women and creatures alike!  Dorothy in The Way of Oz also knows how to detect and deter life’s wicked witches, both of the internal (e.g., self-doubt, imposter syndrome) and external (e.g., aggressive, manipulative and envious co-workers, friends or family members) varieties.

 

Through The Way of Oz, we learn about Dorothy’s approach to personal planning, involving integrated learning and scholarship, personal environmental scanning, selective volunteerism—all while drawing on the wisdom of teachers and mentors, and connecting learning and wisdom through caring and service.

 

The 21^st Century Dorothy also understands institutional strategic planning and its components: vision, mission, environmental context, goals and objectives (directed through implementation strategies and articulated challenges), group oversight and shared understanding, and benchmarking integrated with periodic reporting and results-driven revisions of plans.

 

In The Way of Oz, Dorothy accentuates the best in colleagues and institutions through her understanding of the mosaic model of diversity and the importance of science and political insight for developing policy and actions related to sustainability.  She is also wise in her comprehension of secular democracies and their power to serve our worldwide community.

 

On the “personal responsibility front,” Dorothy of The Way of Oz is empowered by determination, persistence, priority consciousness, critical thinking, and complex reasoning—all with ethics in the lead.  She is also able to manage life’s time—systematically and sensibly.

 

Our modern Dorothy’s focus on the future is powerful because it is cast through an archetypal story written by a man who, despite his foibles and frailties, knew how to relate to others in unique ways.  In other words, Frank Baum made a difference and The Way of Oz can make a difference in many peoples’ lives—particularly in the area of leadership development.

 

Thus, the Way of Oz approach to leading, involving personal planning, integrated learning and scholarship, personal environmental scanning, and selective volunteerism, fortified by organizational strategic planning, an understanding of diversity, science and political insight to guide decisions about sustainability, and personal responsibility—all with ethics in lead—prepares one for a life of personal and professional fulfillment.  These elements of the Way of Oz and the new book of the same name—enriched by the creative graphics of Dusty Higgins and video content portraying leadership roles of students, faculty, and staff in universities as one segment of society—can make a significant difference in lives of seekers and future leaders of our world community.  Many have found—in these thoughts—the true magic of The Way of Oz.  Consider joining us!

       

 

About the author:

 

Robert V. Smith serves as Provost and Senior Vice President at Texas Tech University (TTU). He has oversight responsibility for fourteen colleges and schools, along with the libraries and several other academically related units and programs.

 

He is the author or co-author of more than 320 articles and nine books.  The Way of Oz: A Guide to Wisdom, Heart, and Courage (Texas Tech University Press, 2012) is available in hard cover, paperback, and electronic versions in all electronic formats. You can find out more about Robert Smith and his book at http://www.thewayofoz.com/index.htm

 

 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.

Despite the hundreds of books, programs and websites devoted to leadership, the truth is that leaders can't be trained.  Leaders need to be developed.  Hopefully this doesn't seem like a simple matter of semantics, because it isn't.

 

Let me illustrate this distinction.  Leadership is more about WHO you are than about what you do or what you know.  Two executives can do and say the same things but get very different results - even when they do and say those things to the very same person!  Although what you say and what you do are important, effective leadership is even more dependent on HOW you do or say those things.  This explains why the actions of those two executives can elicit such different responses.

 

You can train people about what to say.  You can train people about what to do.  You can even show someone how to do and say those things.  But getting them to change how they go about doing things and getting them to change how they go about saying things is a whole other story.

 

Leadership is about who we are, and it's this "how" of doing, saying, and being that defines who we are.  I think a good deal of "who we are" is captured within the competencies of Emotional Intelligence, developed and made popular by Daniel Goleman.  There are 12 EI competencies, with five of them being the one's that ultimately affect our effectiveness as leader.  These five competencies are:

 

1) Coaching and Mentoring - The ability to develop others

2) Inspirational Leadership - The ability to develop a compelling vision and to lead with it

3) Influence - The ability to utilize persuasion

4) Conflict Management - The ability to resolve disagreements

5) Teamwork and Collaboration - The ability to build and guide teams

 

Let's briefly examine each one of these competencies with respect to training vs. development as it pertains to leadership.

 

Coaching and Mentoring

 

As a professional coach, I know many professionally trained coaches.  They've gone through a curriculum of coach training from an accredited coaching school.  And yet, although they have the necessary skills and knowledge to be a good coach, a number of them are really rather poor at coaching.  Conversely, I've come across associates who are reasonably good at coaching, yet have never had any formal coach training.

 

How is this possible?  How is it that someone with great coaching skills is mediocre at coaching?  And how is it that someone without any formal training is very effective at coaching?

 

The answer of course, is in HOW they apply their coaching knowledge and skills.  In order to be effective as a coach, one must, at the very least, be aware of one's own emotions, have control of one's emotions, be empathetic, and have good judgment.  The reality is that each of those traits must either be developed or be natural to a person.  They just aren't things that can be "trained".

 

Inspirational Leadership

 

Leaders need to be inspiring.  They need to instill pride, they need to hold and communicate a vision, and they need to inspire an organization and its people to aspire to excellence.

 

Here's the challenge…  People aren't simply inspired by the right words.  The right words spoken by the "wrong" person will have only a minimal effect.  In order for a leader to move others to action, he or she needs to be someone who others admire and respect.

 

How does someone garner the respect of others?  It's obviously through our words and actions, but once again, "how" we say what we say and do what we do determine the impact those words and actions will have.  "Who we are" is something that can be shifted and developed, but it cannot be "trained".

 

Influence

 

Effective leaders are influential.  We influence people by our words and actions, but of course, it comes back to how we're viewed by others and how we do and say the things we do.  Honing and improving those abilities comes down to development and not training.

 

Conflict Management

 

Conflict and challenges are inevitable in business, and a good leader has the ability to diffuse and resolve situations as they arise.  In order to be effective in this effort, a leader needs to have the respect and trust of those involved.  How we conduct ourselves during these times is important, but even more critical is how we've conducted ourselves in the past.  Establishing "who we are" takes time and is not something that can be trained - only nurtured and refined.

 

Teamwork/Collaboration

 

In order for a leader to successfully foster an atmosphere of collaboration, he or she must be good at the previous competencies - coaching, inspiring, influencing, and resolving.  Clearly this ability once more rests on things best developed and not trained.

 

Now that we've made a case for leadership development and one against "leadership training", we need to address how this development occurs.  Here's what has to happen:

 

1. An objective assessment of one's competencies needs to take place.  Since "how" we do and say things is habitual, we're generally blind to our shortcomings.

 

2. No one needs to be excellent in every competency in order to be an effective leader.  Based on the objective assessment of our leadership skills, we need to focus on one or two areas to target for improvement.

 

3. Enlist the help of one or two trusted associates to help point out (in a loving fashion, of course!) when we fall back into old patterns.

 

By being mindful of your words and actions, and being persistent in your efforts to improve, you'll find that over time - there is no "quick fix" for what we're achieving - your effectiveness and impact as a leader will increase.  Not only should we strive to develop ourselves as leaders, but need to work to develop those around us.  Ultimately, a great leader is someone who develops other leaders.

 

 About the author:

 

Michael Beck is a Business Strategist and Executive Coach.  For more articles on leadership, personal effectiveness and personal productivity, please visit www.michaeljbeck.com. 

 

Turmoil, stress and uncertainty would all describe the working experience of many of us over the past three or four years and even today as we are beginning to look forward to an improving economy, many millions of Americans remain out of work. Many millions more remain marginally employed and stuck in a world that does not give them the luxury of choice. A job, any job, remains a blessing and upward mobility remains a distant memory to many among us. Confidence remains tenuous in the American work place. As leaders, not only are we tasked with hitting our benchmarks and goals, we are also responsible for looking out for the welfare of our people. The current economy gives us the chance to do both.

 

There is no doubt that the fight and drive of the American worker took a hit several years back, when we went from, what on the surface, looked like a strong healthy economy, to one where nothing was for certain and one where we did not immediately know where the bottom was. It took agonizing months to understand just how low it could go and suddenly jobs were at a premium, companies were disappearing and millions of Americans whom had never seen or experienced a true economic down turn, were out on the street and unemployed, unemployed and with no immediate prospects of finding another job. Talk about frightening!

 

I would have to admit to loving the spirit of the American worker. Irascible to the core but damn they can surprise you with their ingenuity and willingness to put their head down and get the job done. The chances are very good that they will whine about something after the crisis has passed but there is not a more productive worker in the world. Part of what makes them such an incredible and productive asset is that ingenuity and the great initiative they show in getting the job done. Needless to say, the trauma suffered by the US economy in 2008 and well into 2009, was way more than enough to dampen that spirit and way more than enough to take away that incredible initiative.

 

Though I am very cautious in saying this, and though the signs and measures remain very mixed, it would seem that the American economy is in recovery. There remain any number of challenges and obstacles to our getting back to something resembling the powerful economic engine we had known and pretty much took for granted but consumer spending and confidence are steadily improving, the unemployment rates are inching downward and the real estate market has regained a pulse, though it remains in very grave condition. This is a critical moment in time and one in which strong and effective leadership can and should play a big role.

 

Certainly it would be hoped that leadership has sustained us through all that has gone on but now it has gone from being a fight just to survive, for both the business and our staffs, to one where we need to stand up and move forward, to compete, to attack, to overcome and to win. A great many of our staff members are scared and very reluctant to move and we as leaders need to show them the way. Leaders have to lead, that is what we do and why we are here. In taking these initial steps, we have every opportunity in the world of getting shot down or shouted down but our determination to stand up and move forward will give our people great reasons and the inspiration to do the same. I can promise you that there will be many wanting and hoping we will fail, not many willing or able to face their fears and do much more than keep their heads down. Our willingness allows them to have hope, to believe that something can get better and it will inspire others to follow suit. More than anything else, leaders are purveyors of hope and hope can lead to action and action well directed (leadership) can lead to success.

 

Of course there is that chance that our timing will be off or that our actions and message will be misunderstood and we end up standing out there by ourselves looking the fool but that is why we do this right? I can promise that the alternative and our failing to stand and make the attempt to move our people will not move us any further toward success. 

 

In the aftermath of this long and very deep recession there are not many among us who are looking forward to doing anything other than keeping their heads down and remaining a part of the anonymous masses. There are not many among us who are that confident in our status and willing to stick out their necks. The immediate and most obvious impact of this fear driven environment is a complete lack of initiative. People who are scared do not take chances and do not stick their necks out. Our job as leaders is to give our people the confidence to step forward to have the willingness to take chances, to make mistakes and to have the courage to succeed. Leadership and only leadership can inspire that change.

 

Why does any of this matter? Isn’t blind compliance a good thing in the work place? What does it matter if our staff members have initiative or not, as long as they do their job? As leaders we are not so much the ones doing and touching everything, as we are the ones assigning who does what, to what standard, as well as assuring that tasks are getting completed and assuring that those standards are being met. There is no doubt that our lives are simplified if our people are doing what they are told and shutting up in the process but without an attachment and sense of ownership to the tasks our staff members would take on, there is no sense of accomplishment, no sense of ownership and no sense of pride. Beyond that there is no interest in finding better or more effective methods and little or no desire to improve. It is nice to think of ourselves in our various leadership roles as being all knowing and omnipotent but that is just not reality and beyond benefitting from the collective knowledge of those we lead, a huge side benefit to listening and giving voice to their suggestions or concerns is letting them know they are valued and that their opinions matter. Even if we ultimately choose a different path, that we listened and considered their suggestions is extraordinarily important and encourages that initiative and extra effort we need as leaders. Beyond simply accomplishing tasks, there has to be something in it all for our people and a big part of leadership is providing that insight, that vision of something better. If they can see it, they are much more likely to accomplish it.

For his actions on 16 February 1967 in the Republic of Viet Nam, Platoon Sergeant Elmelindo R. Smith of Honolulu Hawaii was posthumously awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. He was 32 years old. The chances are very good you never heard of him. I wonder why that is? 

 

Citation:

 

“For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life, above and beyond the call of duty: During a reconnaissance patrol, his platoon was suddenly engaged by intense machinegun fire hemming in the platoon on 3 sides. A defensive perimeter was hastily established, but the enemy added mortar and rocket fire to the deadly fusillade and assaulted the position from several directions. With complete disregard for his safety, P/Sgt. Smith moved through the deadly fire along the defensive line, positioning soldiers, distributing ammunition and encouraging his men to repel the enemy attack. Struck to the ground by enemy fire which caused a severe shoulder wound, he regained his feet, killed the enemy soldier and continued to move about the perimeter. He was again wounded in the shoulder and stomach but continued moving on his knees to assist in the defense. Noting the enemy massing at a weakened point on the perimeter, he crawled into the open and poured deadly fire into the enemy ranks. As he crawled on, he was struck by a rocket. Moments later, he regained consciousness, and drawing on his fast dwindling strength, continued to crawl from man to man. When he could move no farther, he chose to remain in the open where he could alert the perimeter to the approaching enemy. P/Sgt. Smith perished, never relenting in his determined effort against the enemy. The valorous acts and heroic leadership of this outstanding soldier inspired those remaining members of his platoon to beat back the enemy assaults. P/Sgt. Smith's gallant actions were in keeping with the highest traditions of the U.S. Army and they reflect great credit upon him and the Armed Forces of his country.”

Leadership, no matter how much we would try to make it into an academic exercise, is our looking our people in the eye and asking them for something better and our being willing to, not only stand with them, but to stand out in front of them, in the effort. If we are not willing to take risks and sacrifice toward accomplishing an end, why should they?  

Leadership is about inspiring others in accomplishing our goals, even if we are wounded and have to crawl or perish in the attempt.  

 

Who have you inspired today?

       

 About the author:

 

Brian Canning is a regular contributor to weLEAD and a business analyst working in the federal sector. For the past thirty years he has worked in the automotive repair industry, most recently as a leadership and management coach with the Automotive Training Institute in Savage, Maryland. After serving as a tank commander with the 1st Armored Division in Europe, he started his career as a Goodyear service manager in suburban Washington D.C., moving on to oversee several stores and later a sales region. He also has been a retail sales manager for a large auto parts distributor, run a large fleet operation and headed a large multi-state sales territory for an independent manufacturer of auto parts. His passions are history, leadership and writing.

 

 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.

What if servant leadership had not been initially labeled servant leadership?  How many times has this been pondered as this value-laden leadership concept evolved?  And why does the name itself present an impediment for implementation, empirical researching, and overall comprehension?  Could we not argue that the oxymoronic implication the terminology suggests has hindered the spirited and necessary debate within leadership, management and organizational behavioral circles, both academic and anecdotal, to nearly subjugate this important leadership theory to others such as transformational or authentic leadership?

 

This brief essay is not intended to offer substantiated results of exhaustive research that are based on testing terminologies and definitions in an effort to “poll”, if you will, labels that might be less controversial.  But when most – at least in my experience – conversations about servant leadership begin with an obligatory and extensive discussion on the terminology itself rather than on the characteristics of the theory, it causes me to wonder what if our beloved founder, Mr. Greenleaf, had selected another term.  Of course one could make the argument that a conversation on the definition of the term aids the overall explanation of the theory.  But I will leave that debate for another day.

 

So what is it specifically about the term servant leadership that creates a barrier to further understanding?  I believe that the challenges are primarily three-fold:  the contradiction inherent in the term, the religious connotations that are implied and the lack of operational clarity offered by the theory’s title.  I offer the suggestion that a slight adjustment to the theory terminology e.g. the name of it could open the door to further acceptance within the wider community.

 

Servant and its entomological cousin, service, by its very definition imply assuming an inferior position to a master or leader.  Those who are either in positions of leadership or those who aggressively seek these offices (which causes its own set of servant leadership implementation issues) are immediately disengaged when they encounter passive terminology.  How can one effectively and efficiently lead while taking an inferior posture.  Moving past this initial barrier may be accomplished if the individual is able to transform servant into supporting or, better yet, into stewardship rather than focusing on the more stereotypical passive role of a servant. 

 

Issues of faith are complicated within a standard corporate environment.  Not only does their exist an intangible quality to one’s belief system that varies greatly across the world but also there are human resource and legal implications that have to be seriously considered which makes the discussion of religion taboo within most situations.  The frequent use of the term servant within religious circles as well as the well-used example of Jesus Christ as the pinnacle of servant leadership has given the impression to many that servant leadership is strictly a faith based approach to leadership and may work in those arenas but not in a serious business environment. 

 

Compounding this issue is the servant leadership community itself.  There have been many academic programs that have emerged that teach servant leadership and have attempted to define the theory for future research.  Many of these “centers” have emerged at faith-based institutions that teach the subject within a biblical context.  Certainly there are moral parallels within servant leadership that align well with religious instructions but until the servant leadership community matures past “do these things because they are the right thing to do” and into demonstrating compelling, measurable increases in output; the theory will continue to remain primarily anecdotal.

 

Finally, the term does not provide implicit instructions on how to implement the style.  Authentic leadership means to lead authentically.  Transformational leadership means to lead by transforming.  When our hypothetical corporate leader stumbles across servant leadership, although those of us within the subculture know that it means to lead by serving, to the CEO this immediately brings up connotations of inferiority which brings us back to square one of this essay.  What if servant leadership was not called servant leadership?

 

I ask this question merely to generate conversation on a clear hindrance to the development of this wonderful leadership concept.  Is it possible to alter the labeling terminology to open up the concept to further research or is the fact that the term “servant” being in the definition give the theory strength and separation from other value-laden leadership approaches?   What other terms could be applied to allow the theory to gain more widespread recognition? 

 

 About the author:

 

JJ Musgrove is currently the Director of Donor Services, Community Foundation of the Chattahoochee Valley in Columbus, Georgia.  He joined the community foundation’s staff in April of 2011 after serving for six and a half years as the executive director of the Columbus Symphony Orchestra in the same city.  He has a bachelor of arts in theatre from Graceland University in Lamoni, Iowa, and a masters of arts in theatre from the University of Central Missouri.  He is currently enrolled in the masters of organizational leadership, servant leadership track at Columbus State University.  He is a featured speaker on arts administration, nonprofit leadership and fundraising, and value-laden leadership theories.  He is a member of the Greenleaf Center on servant leadership and serves on the panels of the Columbus Cultural Arts Alliance and the Georgia Council for the Arts.

 

 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.

To produce healthy plants it takes the right amount of water, sunlight, fertilizer, and care. Too much water or too little sunlight may hurt your plants. The best gardeners learn through experience and reflection what flowers need to grow and develop. In a similar way, seasoned leaders know what it takes to help people and organizations achieve their potential. They provide the right amount of direction, discussion, coaching and feedback to help people succeed. They have a balanced approach in areas like the following:

 

1. Task and People

 

The seasoned leader focuses on both the task and the people. Some leaders are too task-focused. For example, Ralph led a group of seven people. With him it was all business. No small talk or reaching out to people as people. For him the only thing that mattered was results. On the other hand some leaders are too focused on pleasing people at the expense of solving problems and getting the work done.  

 

2. Talk and Listen

 

What’s your ratio? We have all met leaders who are ineffective because they don’t listen. Remember the God given ratio—two ears, one mouth. On the other side of the equation I met one leader who was a great listener but his employees didn’t know where he stood on key issues. The seasoned leader engages in the appropriate amount of both talking—stating their views and listening to ideas of others.  

 

3. Plan and Do

 

Planning is important, but so is execution. Some leaders over plan and under execute. Of course some leaders do just the opposite. They’re busy having meetings, doing power point presentations but making no improvements in the operation. Is there a “right” balance? It depends. In some situations an hour spent planning makes the implementation go more smoothly. In a crisis situation you may have only 60 seconds to plan—quick action is required.     

 

4. Results and Process

 

Some leaders only focus on results. In meeting after meeting they ask, “What’s the bottom line?” Results are important but so is process—how things are done. However, putting all your attention on process is also wrong. Results count!  The seasoned leader focuses on both what is being accomplished and how it’s being accomplished. 

         

5. Firm and Flexible

 

There are times to be firm and there are times to be flexible. The overly flexible leader is unwilling to take a firm stand. They are wishy-washy and often flip flop on their position. On the other hand, the overly firm leader is rigid and sees every issue as black and white. Seasoned leaders have the wisdom to know when to hold the line and when to be flexible. 

 

6. Coaching and Letting Go

 

An important part of a leader’s job is to coach people on how to be more effective and efficient. However, there is an important difference between too little and too much coaching. Too much can frustrate initiative. On the other hand, too little coaching and guidance can cause failure. Sometimes failure can be the best thing, life lessons often come out of failure. Other times it can be catastrophic – in the case of accident, injury, or other severe loss. Seasoned leaders know the difference between providing too much and too little coaching. 

 

7. Facts and Feelings

 

Getting the facts is important. But tuning into your feelings is also important before making important decisions. Some executives fail to identify the danger signals because they repress their feelings as if feelings are something to be avoided. I like the way author and blogger Mary Jo Asmus stated it in a recent blog— “Connect with your heart when your head wants to rule. Connect with your head when your emotions are threatening to take over.”

 

8. Work Life and Family Life

 

Some leaders get totally consumed by their job and neglect their family. In his book, Better Under Pressure, Justin Menkes, interviewed Ralph Larsen, retired CEO of Johnson and Johnson. In the interview Larsen stated, “…you’ve got to make sure that you have the right balance between your work life and your family life, that you take care of your family and kids so you don’t have chaos at work and at home.”

 

What would you add to this list?

 

Summary

 

Seasoned leaders know the importance of balance. But finding the right balance doesn’t mean moderation in all things. Rather it means being versatile and flexible. It means using the appropriate mix of various ingredients to help people grow and blossom. Great leaders have the wisdom to know what actions are needed and necessary to achieve success.   

 

 

Bibliography

 

Kaplan, R.E. and Kaiser, R.B. “Developing Versatile Leaders.”  MIT Sloan Management Review

(Summer 2003).

 

Menkes,J. Better Under Pressure. Harvard Business Review Press, 2011.

 

 

About the author:

Paul B. Thornton is the author of numerous articles and 13 books on management and leadership. His latest book, Leadership—Off the Wall, highlights the guiding principles some well-known business and political leaders keep on their desks or post on their office walls. 

 

In addition to being a speaker and management/leadership trainer, he is a business professor at Springfield Technical Community College. In the last 20 years, he has trained over 10,000 people to be more effective managers and leaders. You can find out more about Paul at www.PBThornton.com and contact him at PThornton@stcc.edu

 

*image courtesy of Simon Howden/freedigitalphotos.net

 

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.

If you ask any historian to name the greatest leaders in western civilization, there's a good chance the 16th president of the United States will make the list. He willed his country to victory in the gut-wrenching Civil War, issued the Emancipation Proclamation and facilitated the eventual ratification of the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery.

 

A number of traits contributed to Abraham Lincoln's greatness. He possessed a brilliant intellect. He had an uncommon amount of common sense. He was a thinker, someone who philosophically examined the world and crafted a rationalized set of personal beliefs by which he steadfastly lived.

 

While he was blessed with many talents, Lincoln's greatest attribute may have been his ability to communicate. He was a skilled orator who eloquently wrote many of his own speeches. He listened sincerely when others spoke. He empathized. He mastered the art of interpersonal communications several decades before the term "interpersonal communications" was coined.

 

It wouldn't be a stretch to credit Lincoln as one of history's greatest communicators. But of all the communications techniques he so successfully employed, there was one where he especially shone.

 

Abraham Lincoln was a remarkable storyteller.

 

Lincoln succeeded under some of the most difficult leadership conditions any U.S. president has had to face. To communicate is such times, he often resorted to stories. Instead of berating the incompetent generals who blundered in the Civil War's early battles, Lincoln educated and motivated them by using stories. To smooth over ruffled political feathers with members of Congress, Lincoln would pull out a story and use it to establish common ground.

 

Among history's eminent leaders, however, Lincoln was not unique in his reliance upon stories. Political leaders throughout the ages have moved the masses by using stories to communicate their political platforms. In modern days, big-time CEOs use storytelling to mobilize international staffs in the quest for billions of dollars of profit. Jesus Christ himself used parables and story-based lessons to enlighten his disciples.

 

Indeed, stories pack a punch. They're powerful. They paint pictures. They work, because our human brains are conditioned to listen to and be receptive to stories. Long before the written word, and long before Gutenberg invented the printing press, people used stories to communicate histories and traditions as well as norms and expectations. In other words, our ancestors sat around the fire every night and told stories. The propensity to tell and listen to stories is essentially a part of our DNA.

 

So, if people are so receptive to storytelling, you and I would be foolish not to use stories in our work. Good storytellers tend to be effective leaders and successful salespersons. If you manage people, teach them and motivate them by conveying important information through stories. If you sell products and services, use a story to paint a picture in your prospect's mind. By making the product or service part of a story, prospective clients mentally project themselves into the story. Once someone makes that kind of psychological commitment, they're much more likely to buy.

 

Let's say we asked the same prospective client to sit through two sales presentations for competing products. Both salespersons touched on features and benefits. Salesperson One was very straightforward and focused on delivering factual content. Salesperson Two was accurate but explained the features and benefits using stories. A couple of the stories were about previous clients who enjoyed positive results from using the product. I guarantee the second salesperson has a higher likelihood of landing the client.

 

One of the most important skills in sales is the ability to overcome objections. Well, if you get an objection, tell a story to keep the deal alive. Are you ready to deliver your close? Make it more desirable by couching it inside a story. Has the process become mired? Advance it by telling a story.

 

Whether you are managing a staff, selling a service, delivering a speech, trying to persuade voters to elect you or attempting to resolve a conflict between two of your colleagues, make it easier by spinning a yarn. Stories reassure people and disarm them.

 

As you make a commitment to including more stories in your daily work, keep a couple things in mind:

 

1. Stories must be relative to the situation at hand.

 

2. Know when to shut up. If a story goes on too long, it loses its effectiveness

 

3. Think about the work you do and determine what kinds of stories could be effective in certain situations.

 

4. Catalog stories in your mind. Look back on your own experiences as well as the experiences of your colleagues. Make a list of stories to have at your disposal, so you can use them whenever it's expedient.

 

Every product, service, business and person has a story, probably multiple stories. The trick is to pull out these stories and use them to your benefit at the appropriate times. After all, if President Lincoln used stories to save a country, we would be wise to use them to save our businesses and careers.

 

 About the author:

Jeff Beals is an award-winning author, who helps professionals do more business and have a greater impact on the world through effective sales, marketing and personal branding techniques.You can learn more and follow his "Business Motivation Blog" at www.JeffBeals.com

 

 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.

What if servant leadership had not been initially labeled servant leadership?  How many times has this been pondered as this value-laden leadership concept evolved?  And why does the name itself present an impediment for implementation, empirical researching, and overall comprehension?  Could we not argue that the oxymoronic implication the terminology suggests has hindered the spirited and necessary debate within leadership, management and organizational behavioral circles, both academic and anecdotal, to nearly subjugate this important leadership theory to others such as transformational or authentic leadership?

 

This brief essay is not intended to offer substantiated results of exhaustive research that are based on testing terminologies and definitions in an effort to “poll”, if you will, labels that might be less controversial.  But when most – at least in my experience – conversations about servant leadership begin with an obligatory and extensive discussion on the terminology itself rather than on the characteristics of the theory, it causes me to wonder what if our beloved founder, Mr. Greenleaf, had selected another term.  Of course one could make the argument that a conversation on the definition of the term aids the overall explanation of the theory.  But I will leave that debate for another day.

 

So what is it specifically about the term servant leadership that creates a barrier to further understanding?  I believe that the challenges are primarily three-fold:  the contradiction inherent in the term, the religious connotations that are implied and the lack of operational clarity offered by the theory’s title.  I offer the suggestion that a slight adjustment to the theory terminology e.g. the name of it could open the door to further acceptance within the wider community.

 

Servant and its entomological cousin, service, by its very definition imply assuming an inferior position to a master or leader.  Those who are either in positions of leadership or those who aggressively seek these offices (which causes its own set of servant leadership implementation issues) are immediately disengaged when they encounter passive terminology.  How can one effectively and efficiently lead while taking an inferior posture.  Moving past this initial barrier may be accomplished if the individual is able to transform servant into supporting or, better yet, into stewardship rather than focusing on the more stereotypical passive role of a servant. 

 

Issues of faith are complicated within a standard corporate environment.  Not only does their exist an intangible quality to one’s belief system that varies greatly across the world but also there are human resource and legal implications that have to be seriously considered which makes the discussion of religion taboo within most situations.  The frequent use of the term servant within religious circles as well as the well-used example of Jesus Christ as the pinnacle of servant leadership has given the impression to many that servant leadership is strictly a faith based approach to leadership and may work in those arenas but not in a serious business environment. 

 

Compounding this issue is the servant leadership community itself.  There have been many academic programs that have emerged that teach servant leadership and have attempted to define the theory for future research.  Many of these “centers” have emerged at faith-based institutions that teach the subject within a biblical context.  Certainly there are moral parallels within servant leadership that align well with religious instructions but until the servant leadership community matures past “do these things because they are the right thing to do” and into demonstrating compelling, measurable increases in output; the theory will continue to remain primarily anecdotal.

 

Finally, the term does not provide implicit instructions on how to implement the style.  Authentic leadership means to lead authentically.  Transformational leadership means to lead by transforming.  When our hypothetical corporate leader stumbles across servant leadership, although those of us within the subculture know that it means to lead by serving, to the CEO this immediately brings up connotations of inferiority which brings us back to square one of this essay.  What if servant leadership was not called servant leadership?

 

I ask this question merely to generate conversation on a clear hindrance to the development of this wonderful leadership concept.  Is it possible to alter the labeling terminology to open up the concept to further research or is the fact that the term “servant” being in the definition give the theory strength and separation from other value-laden leadership approaches?   What other terms could be applied to allow the theory to gain more widespread recognition? 

 

 

About the author:

JJ Musgrove is currently the Director of Donor Services, Community Foundation of the Chattahoochee Valley in Columbus, Georgia.  He joined the community foundation’s staff in April of 2011 after serving for six and a half years as the executive director of the Columbus Symphony Orchestra in the same city.  He has a bachelor of arts in theatre from Graceland University in Lamoni, Iowa, and a masters of arts in theatre from the University of Central Missouri.  He is currently enrolled in the masters of organizational leadership, servant leadership track at Columbus State University.  He is a featured speaker on arts administration, nonprofit leadership and fundraising, and value-laden leadership theories.  He is a member of the Greenleaf Center on servant leadership and serves on the panels of the Columbus Cultural Arts Alliance and the Georgia Council for the Arts.

 

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.

Our colleges and universities administer an “anti-leadership vaccine,” according to John Gardner (Greenleaf, 1969).  Robert Greenleaf, the father of servant leadership, agrees and adds that we have the misfortune to live in the age of the anti-leader. We’ve done a good job of educating cynics, critics and experts—the technical specialist who advises the leader or the intellectual who stands off and criticizes the leader, but no one wants to educate the leader himself  (Greenleaf, 1969).   And yet the leadership crisis looms.  “We give every appearance of sleep-walking through a dangerous passage of history,” writes Gardner (1990); “we see the life-threatening problems, but we do not react.  We are anxious but immobilized.”

 

With an increasing awareness of that leadership crisis, more voices are calling for universities to become involved.  The Kellogg Foundation’s “Leadership reconsidered: Engaging higher education in social change” (2000) declares that higher education has the potential to produce future generations of transformative leaders who can help find solutions to our most vexing social problems.  With the help of Synovus, and other businesses following their lead, Columbus State University is accepting the challenge through a commitment to develop servant leaders—leaders committed to the ethical use of power and authority who want to help others grow.

                                                                                                                          

The CSU Servant Leadership Program, now in its third year, seeks to help students develop the knowledge, skills, and spirit of servant leaders through both academic and experiential learning.  Stipends, which are provided mainly by Synovus, are available for a limited number of entering freshmen.  In return for the stipend, students participate in an academic seminar for one-semester-hour of elective credit each semester, engage in community service through non-profit agencies, and participate in mentoring as both a mentor to an at-risk child and as a mentee.  Personal development assessments, conferences, retreats, and social events are also integral parts of the program.  The stipends are renewable for a total of eight semesters.  The program now includes 12 juniors, 13 sophomores, and 15 freshmen.

 

High school seniors who have demonstrated potential in the areas of service, leadership, academics, and commitment to the development of self and others are recruited during the Fall each year.  Interested students submit applications by January 31, and the selection process takes place during February and March.  Each new year begins with an Orientation Retreat on the Friday before Fall Semester classes begin.  Evaluation of the program continues on an on-going, continuous, cyclical basis with year-end evaluative reports completed during May and June each year.  Results, collected both quantitatively and qualitatively, suggest that the program is a quadruple-win benefiting the university, the community, collaborating businesses, and the students.

 

From the university’s perspective, good students are being attracted to the program and retention rates are high.  No strict standard exists for SAT minimum scores, and selected students’ scores have ranged from the 900’s-1300’s.  The program does require that students maintain an overall B average, and only three have been lost for academic reasons.  About half of the students are on the Dean’s List each semester, and the overall GPA is about 3.5 each semester.  Servant leadership students are becoming very active on campus and now fill about half of the new positions in student government.

 

Our servant leadership students are also making a positive difference in the community as they complete 6-8 hours per week of community service through 24 different non-profit agencies.  They give thousands of hours of service each year, and agency directors give them high praise.  Each student mentors a young child in the public school system who is deemed to be “at-risk” by teachers.  “Karen absolutely made the difference for LeAnn; she turned her around,” a teacher recently declared in describing the value of the mentoring relationship.  “LeAnn became a child who believed she could read, and she made amazing progress.”  The effect on the college students is perhaps even greater than on the little children.  “This experience opened my eyes in a way that nothing else could,” wrote one servant leadership student.  “Thank you for making my freshman year the greatest year of my life,” wrote another.  The program participants are learning that it truly is in giving that we receive.

 

The program is funded entirely through local means.  After the final report was presented from a task force commissioned to explore the development of a formal leadership program in 1998, the CSU administration secured funding through a local foundation.  At the same time, collaboration was established with the Pastoral Institute, a local counseling and educational center.  Through the Business Resource Center and The Center for Servant Leadership, which are divisions of the Pastoral Institute, businesses contribute stipend money for students involved in the program. Synovus has been the principal supporter.

 

Not only does Synovus give generously for stipends, this locally-founded company, listed among the best places to work in America, supplies mentors for the CSU students.  Synovus is the holding company for Total System Services, one of the largest credit card processing centers in the world, and for Columbus Bank and Trust Company, a locally founded bank.  Executives from the Synovus family of businesses are matched with servant leadership students in mentoring relationships for several reasons.  First, the arrangement puts the CSU student, who mentors at-risk children, in the uniquely important position of serving as a bridge between those in the mainstream of the social order and those in danger of being left out of society.  The relationship also helps our college students to access wise advice and practical help from an adult who is seen as an exemplary servant leader, and, in turn, Synovus benefits by being able to introduce our fine students to the career possibilities available with their companies.  Ultimately, we all benefit, say executives at Synovus, as young people who subscribe to the servant leadership philosophy and who have been educated in servant leadership principles, skills, and attitudes are attracted to Columbus and stay here to make a better quality of life for everyone.

 

The world needs young people who want to learn to serve instead of rule, who will not gain advantage for themselves by setting individuals or groups against one another, who will not use political patronage to further their own ambitions nor vindictive measures against those who oppose them, who will not exploit the public trust or the public treasury for their own gain, who want to see institutions called back to their primary mission of service and groups move toward goals that are in the best interest of the whole.  It is this need that the Columbus State University Servant Leadership Program addresses.  Through hands-on experience in needy areas, and through learning about themselves and their community and about leadership research and theory, university students are developing responsibility for their community, a sense of engagement, and the knowledge that service is a mutually beneficial thing.  We are learning together to serve as we lead and to lead as we serve.

 

Comments to: editor@leadingtoday.org

 

 

Biography:

 

Dr. Mary Sue Polleys holds a B.A. in Speech and Education from Mercer University, an M.A. in Speech Communication from Auburn, and a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from Auburn.  Having taught in corporate settings and public and private schools, she has also served for almost nine years as Chair of the Muscogee County School Board, which oversees a public school district of 32,000 students and 5,000 employees.  She serves on the faculty of Columbus State University, Columbus, Georgia, as Director of the Servant Leadership Program.

 

Acknowledgement:

Technical assistance from Ms. Angela Johnson, Columbus State University

 

References:

 

Astin, A. W. & Astin, H. S. (2000).  Leadership reconsidered: Engaging higher education in social change.  Report for the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, Battle Creek, MI.

 

Gardner, J. (1990).  On leadership.  New York: Free Press.

 

Greenleaf, Robert K. (1969).  The crisis of leadership.  In Don M. Frick & Larry C. Spears (Eds.), On becoming a servant leader.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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.