Pecking Order

Norwegian psychologist T. Schjelderup-Ebbe found that in any flock one hen usually dominates all the others. She can peck any others without being pecked in return. Second comes a hen that pecks all others but the top hen and the rest are arranged in a descending hierarchy, ending with one poor hen that is pecked by all and can peck no one.

Within all organizations there is a pecking order - sometimes its systematized, but most often it is informal. Everyone knows about it, and if they were honest they'd say they don't like it when they are being pecked upon but it ain't so bad when you are in a position to do the pecking. In these environments promotions are often given by length of service or by assignment from the top. It is usually well established organizations that use this system. Newer, more nimble companies base promotion on who can get the job done, who can get results, who can lead - regardless of age, length or service or connections. Leaders who get their position by assignment rather than merit base their security on their title rather than their talent. Those who follow this type of leader do things because they have to, not because they want to. Juxtaposed against this model is the model where leaders are great not because of their power, but instead because of their ability to empower others. Which kind of leader do you want to follow?

Leaders must be willing to make personal sacrifices. Far too many folk want to bear the title, but not bear the cost. The captain of the hockey team is not always the most skilled player, but he is the most respected. He's often the first on the ice to practice, the last off the ice, represents the team, goes the extra mile, and makes sacrifices for the good of the team.

Leaders need followers. How can our leaders lead us if we are unwilling to follow? We seem to have entered a phase where all directives from our leaders are open for discussion and are options for followers to consider. There should be no expectation that we follow our leaders blindly, yet at the same time we can not always be guided by a compass that says "I'll follow as long as it makes me feel good", or, "I'll see what fits for me, take that, and leave the rest."

Vince Lombardi, former coach of the Green Bay Packers is credited with a number of quotes crafted to bring out the best in his players. Known as a man driven to the goal of victory on the gridiron, he coined the phrase, "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing". As we move toward the middle of the first decade of the 21st century, we face challenges that arrive at a pace which has not been seen at any other time in our history. Now more than ever we need leaders who not only have the authority to lead, but are competent to lead. As we chart our course for the future, should we borrow a page from Mr. Lombardi's book and say, "Leadership isn't everything, it's the only thing."

Emerging Leaders

I've had opportunity recently to dialogue with some young, passionate, on-fire individuals. I'm inspired by their energy and conviction and a little disquieted by their fervor. As they express their desire to see things change, they use descriptives like radical, unyielding, totally sold-out, and revolutionary. Great concepts ... might be a bit tough to be on the receiving end. In a recent discussion with my young friend I shared my sense that in biblical narratives as well as most non-western cultures, there is a prominent place for elders. There is a recognition that there is great benefit and necessity for input from those who have experience, wisdom, and knowledge. So I asked, "In your context, is there a place for the elders of our faith, our church, our denomination?" He had to think about that, and frankly, so do I.

It seems that much of the blame for the current state of the church is being rightly laid at the feet of the elders, and as a result their input is not only unwanted, it viewed as counter-productive. I see great similarities between the current revolution and the revolution of the 1960's. The view then was that the establishment was bad - it was what brought us to the place where we were - a bad place. The revolution called for something new, fresh, and alive that wasn't constrained by old forms and 'tradition.' And so the conflict began: old vs new, traditional vs contemporary, young vs old, my way vs your way. Sound familiar?

In some circles, this cyclical turmoil is seen as normal, but in our Christian context, can we or should we say the same thing? Is there room in the church for all parts of the body? How can we be inclusive rather than exclusive? How can we take the best that each one of us has to offer and use it for the Glory of God?

When we look at the leadership style of Jesus, we see a man who enlisted and used a very diverse group of people in His cause. What is it that prevents us from understanding this lesson? Are we any different than the people Jesus led? Perhaps its less about the followers, and more about the leader(s).

Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way!

It has been said that some are born to greatness, others have greatness thrust upon them. I think that is true of leadership as well. Some folk you meet seem to have leadership in their genes - whether its organizing a sleepover, president of the youth group, or the natural, unelected 'leader of the pack'. In our ego-centric culture there is a prevailing notion that everyone should strive to be a leader, because, well ... everyone is a leader. It seems this hypothesis comes from an interesting application of logic that says leaders are people who influence others, and since everyone influences someone, then all are leaders. Baloney.

Leadership comes down to a few key issues. Leaders are responsible for vision and culture. They deal with the questions of 'where are we going?', 'what's our purpose?', 'what are our values?', 'how will we behave?' Leaders propose, rather than impose. Leaders give hope no matter how desperate the situation. Leaders understand the Afghan proverb that says, "If you think you're leading and no one is following you, then you're only taking a walk."

Often discussions on leadership get hijacked by those who drag in Hitler or Mussolinini as examples of leaders. These folk aren't leaders, they are maniacal, dictatorial, psychopaths - I'm pretty sure you won't find any of those adjectives in Webster's Dictionary under "Leadership". For those of us engaged in activities that do not include world domination, leadership is a word with positive connotations. Leaders have values, integrity, vision, and honesty. They inspire, are hard working, take risks, take the long view, put their goals ahead of personal needs, are not afraid to go against the status quo, are willing to stand up for what is right regardless of the cost, and are able to balance confidence with humility. It is with this concept of leadership that this blog has been launched, and by which leaders and their leadership will be discussed.

"If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more, and become more, you are a leader."
- John Quincy Adams (6th President of the United States)