Mon • Jul 27th, 2009 • by Tom Nees • Comments 3
Upon his recent election as a General Superintendent in the Church of the Nazarene, Eugenio Duarte, told the cheering General Assembly delegates – “it has always been the case that the church teaches me how to serve. That’s all I know. That’s all I came to do.”
This small, quiet man from the Cape Verde Islands, always it seems with a smile, spoke softly and soberly about learning to serve as a way of leading. This was no victory speech.
Duarte fits the profile developed in the ’70’s by Robert Greenleaf in his writings about servant leadership. As an alternative to the dominant and increasingly destructive model of corporate leadership Greenleaf suggested that leaders should first become servants before assuming positions of authority. Followers he suggested should seek out leaders who serve well.
The current financial melt-down and resulting global recession has been attributed in large part to unrestrained greed by business and government leaders who are anything but servants. Thus our reaction to the growing income gap between the rich and the poor as evidenced by the outrageous bonuses paid to Wall Street brokers and bankers.
Which leads me wonder about the marks of leaders who serve or, as with Greenleaf, servants who become leaders. It has something to do with what motivates people.
Evidently in the corporate world talented people usually follow the money. On the contrary, servants who become leaders are not motivated by money. If it comes their way they give generously. They do not assume the right to a higher standard of living simply because they have more than others.
Authority, for servants who become leaders, is reluctantly accepted rather than sought after. Eugenio Duarte’s election occurred in a culture that is foreign to most of society. He did not seek the election. There was no campaigning nor post-election victory celebration. Servants, by definition do not seek authority.
Servants who become leaders are not motivated by status. They are unimpressed with honorific titles. They remain close to those in whose service they lead. Servants who become leaders don’t cease being servants. That is who they are. When honored and esteemed they do not seem to be better than others.
Duarte and the other leaders who were elected with him, serve within a faith community which espouses values contrary to the world around us. Unfortunately many, if not most of the examples of leadership within the faith community have been copied from the corporate world. Maybe it’s time to turn that around.
And I wonder, if servants can become leaders can leaders become servants? I hope so.
Mon • Jul 20th, 2009 • by Tom Nees • Comments 6
five things that speak louder than words
Do leaders look different than followers? Since most of us are both leaders and followers, do we change our appearance when we assume a leadership role?
Carol Kinsey Goman author of The Nonverbal Advantage: Secrets and Science of Body Language at Work is sure that whether we realize it not we form opinions by what we see as well as what we hear when watching leaders.
But it’s not the difference you may be thinking about. It’s not about clothes and fashion even though there are any number of guides to help us dress for success. There seems to be some unwritten, however unimportant expectation that leaders should dress-up as compared to others in their following.
For men leaders, that’s easy. A business suit and tie will do. For women leaders it’s more difficult. Remember the relentless fashion commentary about Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin during the recent presidential election? Notice the fashion critique of Judge Sotomayor during her Senate hearing for appointment to the Supreme Court.
Goman’s study has nothing to do with clothes, fashion, beauty, stature, or any other variable in the human family. Evidently none of that matters much. At least not nearly as much as the body language of communication.
She reminds us that “people interpret what you say to them only partially from the words you use” and then explains “They are picking up most of your message (and all the emotional nuance behind the words) from your nonverbal signals.”
In a current Washington Post “On Leadership” Column, Goman interprets video-clips of celebrities to illustrate five non-verbal lessons.
Watch those facial expressions
In the 2008 presidential debates between Obama and McCain, both candidates Goman claims, erred at times affecting their “likeability” rating.
Talk with your hands if you know what they’re saying
Hands in the pockets or clenched fists convey secrecy and distrust while open palms and arms spread suggest openness and transparency.
Show your whole body
Don’t hide behind a lectern. Standing tall, making eye contact with the audience are non-verbal signs of credibility and confidence.
Don’t go overboard
Over-the-top exaggerated gestures are counterproductive.
Align your words and gestures
Unless tone of voice, expressions and hands are congruent with the message people will forget what was said.
Successful leadership requires effective communication, whether before an audience, in a board room or with just another person. How something is said is as important as what is said.
Tue • Jul 14th, 2009 • by Tom Nees • Comments 2
All the leaders I know wonder how long to stay in their present position and what to do next. Sooner or later the end will come, either required by the institution – retirement or or term limits – or by the realization that it’s time to move on either for personal reasons or for the good of the institution.
Sometimes the decision to move to another assignment is initiated by an invitation, opportunity or need to advance one’s career. Or it may be some inner restlessness.
The iWAM assessment I provide in executive coaching includes a line of questioning that helps people understand their inner “clock” – how long before they get burned out or bored regardless of the position. Some leaders have a short “clock” time – a year or so, while others with a long “clock” are satisfied with the same assignment for several years.
Interestingly enough, even though my “clock” time is a very short one year, I stayed at the Community of Hope for 20 years. However, there was something new and unpredictable nearly every day. It never became boring and certainly never predictable.
After 20 years it was difficult for me to let go. Change was needed for me as well as the organization. I wasn’t sure if I was hanging on because I thought the organization needed me as much as I needed the organization.
A man who had developed into a recognized leader following his remarkable transformation said something that helped me do what I was finding so difficult. “If you don’t step back, I can’t step forward.”
That was the word I needed to settle my inner struggle – to let go and move on.
There was a time when leaders could anticipate staying with an organization for a lifetime. That seldom happens now. Most leaders will move from one position to another several times during their careers. Even entrepreneurial leaders will eventually leave the organizations they founded to others.
Knowing when to leave is essential for a life-time of rewarding leadership. A few suggestions -
Tue • Jul 7th, 2009 • by Tom Nees • Comments 7
Speak the Truth and Point to Hope: A Leader’s Journey to Maturity, by Lisa J. Marshall is one of the few books I keep returning to for insight and the pure enjoyment of good writing. Especially now.
I’ve recently agreed to serve as the CEO of a nonprofit organization whose tag is “challenged by faith to end poverty” around the world. It’s an organization I helped start in 1990. I never thought it would grow to its present scale nor that I would be asked again to provide direction. (I’ll forward information upon request.)
In this assignment I’m forced to practice some of the leadership lessons I’ve learned in the past and have been blogging about on the Leading To Serve website.
I have a couple of questions which Lisa Marshall deals with directly. First, what is the difference between management and leadership? And second, why at this age after retirement from one institutional leadership assignment should I even consider taking on another.
Marshall warns that we should not read her book if we think “that the current state of leadership – in business, in the public sector, in our faith communities, in education or international affairs – is just fine.” In her estimation we have too few visionary leaders committed to common good and too many leader/managers committed only to their own success and the bottom line.
She claims that most so-called leaders with “positional power” are merely managers who do things that can be measured. “Because they are fundamentally managers,” she observes, “many of our leaders simply do as they are told.” They “sacrifice ethics and long-term thinking on the altar of generating 20 percent per year increased return on investment (ROI), or they govern via polls . . .”
While not all that I do in this new assignment fits Marshall’s “bottom -line” motivation, I find that the management responsibilities of a multi-million dollar international organization crowd out visionary long-term thinking.
I can’t avoid my management responsibilities. I hope that the way I do management is in itself a form of good leadership recognized by the board, staff, constituents and those whose welfare is dependent upon the success of the organization.
And there is this thing about age. I retired from an organization with an age limit on service. From talking to peers I know that I’m not alone in viewing forced retirement from an institution as the end of one’s life’s work. It takes considerable mental and emotional energy to believe that leadership, if not life, is more than a position. More than once I’ve wondered if I have come to the end of my story.
Back to Marshall’s book. The leaders we need, she says, learn to live out their own stories through journeys to maturity in “four critical domains: intellectual, emotional, moral and spiritual.” The leadership journey that Marshall charts begins with a time of “preparation.” During this time the leaders learn to hear and respond to an inward “call,” the vision and values that will ultimately write their stories. The journey inevitably descends to a time of testing in the “pit,” where leaders must face down the “monsters” of arrogance, depression and greed. Eventually leaders emerge through a “wormhole” passage to “metamorphosis” before the “return” home as the “wise elders.”
While these stages of leadership development are not necessarily age-specific nor linear, she does suggest that leadership maturity results from a life-long pursuit of vision and values. When it comes to leadership maturity, “in every way but the physical, older is better.”
That’s what I keep coming back to, and passing on to others. Barring physical and mental incapacity, which can happen at any age, accumulated years of experience should be an advantage.
But of course experience and age do not guarantee a developmental path to leadership maturity. Marshall reminds us that “we have so few pictures of people who live out their last years in impeccable maturity and integrity, and so many images of people whose rise to the top is followed by increasingly embarrassing and immature behavior.”
The reason, she believes, is that most leaders remain stuck in the “Peter Pan syndrome” – a go-it-alone style focused on “youth, conquest and dominance.” She criticizes leaders that refuse to grow up, who want to “win every battle and outsmart the enemy every time.”
What I’m reminded of everyday is that though leadership is more than management, it is nevertheless demonstrated by good management. And, that if I allow the years to teach, I too can continue to contribute as a “wise elder.” Good lessons from Lisa Marshall.