Skip to main content

HOW DOES ONE KNOW THE SERVANT?

For those who follow and this is everyone, including those who lead the really critical question is: Who is this moral individual we would see as leader? Who is the servant? How does one tell a truly giving, enriching servant
from the neutral person or the one whose net influence is to take away from or diminish other people? Rabbi Heschel had just concluded a lecture on the Old Testament prophets in which he had spoken of true prophets and false prophets. A questioner asked him how one tells the difference between the true and the false prophets. The rabbi’s answer was succinct and to the point. “There is no way!” he said. Then he elaborated, “If there were a way, if one had a gauge to slip over the head of the prophet and establish without question that he is or he isn’t a true prophet, there would be no human dilemma and life would have no meaning.” So it is with the servant issue. If there were a dependable way that would tell us, “These people enrich by their presence, they are neutral, or they take away,” life would be without challenge. Yet it is terribly important that one know, both about oneself and about others, whether the net effect of one’s influence on others enriches, is neutral or diminishes and depletes. Since there is no certain way to know this, one must turn to the artists for illumination. Such an illumination is in Hermann Hesse’s idealized portrayal of the servant Leo whose servanthood comes through in his leadership. In stark modern terms it can also be found in the brutal reality of the mental hospital where Ken Kesey (in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest) gives us Big Nurse strong, able, dedicated, dominating, authority-ridden, manipulative, exploitative the net effect of whose influence diminished other people, literally destroyed them. In the story she is pitted in a contest with tough, gutterbred MacMurphy, a patient, the net effect of whose influence is to build up people and make both patients and the doctor in charge of the ward grow larger as persons, stronger, healthier an effort that ultimately costs MacMurphy his life. If one will study the two characters, Leo and MacMurphy, one will get a measure of the range of possibilities in the role of servant as leader.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

FUNCTIONS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

Function of the Holy Spirit. This list of the 70 Functions of the Holy Spirit come from her research. He leads and directs. (Matthew 4:1; Mark 1:12; Luke 2:27; 4:1; Acts 8:29; Romans 8:14) The Holy Spirit speaks – in, to and through. (Matthew 10:20; Acts 1:16; 2:4; 13:2; 28:25; Hebrews 3:7) He gives power to cast out devils. (Matthew 12:28) He releases power. (Luke 4:14) The Holy Spirit anoints. (Luke 4:18; Acts 10:38) The Holy Spirit “comes upon” or “falls on”. (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 2:25; 3:22; 4:18; John 1:32,33; Acts 10:44; 11:15) He baptizes and fills. (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 1:15,41,67; 3:16, 4:1; John 1:33; Acts 1:4-5; 2:4; 4:8,31; 6:3,5; 7:55; 10:47; 11:24; 13:9,52; 1 Corinthians 12:12) He gives new birth. (John 3:5,8) He leads into worship. (John 4:23) He flows like a river from the spirit man. (John 7:38-39) He ministers truth. (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13) He dwells in people. (John 14:

SETTING A DIRECTION VS PLANNING AND BUDGETING

Since the function of leadership is to produce change, setting the direction of that change is fundamental to leadership. Setting direction is never the same as planning or even long-term planning, although people often confuse the two. Planning is a management process, deductive in nature and designed to produce orderly results, not change. Setting a direction is more inductive. Leaders gather a broad range of data and look for patterns, relationships, and linkages that help explain things. What’s more, the direction-setting aspect of leadership does not produce plans; it creates vision and strategies. These describe a business, technology, or corporate culture in terms of what it should become over the long term and articulate a feasible way of achieving this goal. Most discussions of vision have a tendency to degenerate into the mystical. The implication is that a vision is something mysterious that mere mortals, even talented ones, could never hope to have. But developing

ALIGNING PEOPLE VS ORGANIZING AND STAFFING

A central feature of modern organizations is interdependence, where no one has complete autonomy, where most employees are tied to many others by their work, technology, management systems, and hierarchy. These linkages present a special challenge when organizations attempt to change. Unless many individuals line up and move together in the same direction, people will tend to fall all over one another. To executives who are overeducated in management and undereducated in leadership, the idea of getting people moving in the same direction appears to be an organizational problem. What executives need to do, however, is not organize people but align them. Managers “organize” to create human systems that can implement plans as precisely and efficiently as possible. Typically, this requires a number of potentially complex decisions. A company must choose a structure of jobs and reporting relationships, staff it with individuals suited to the jobs, provide training for those who need it,