Monday, May 29, 2017

Boys to Men – Comparing Two Great Leaders

One might well be described as a pampered, spoiled brat and the other as one neglected and held in little esteem. Both became strong leaders, indeed rulers. One was elevated to a position of highest authority in a foreign land, the other became the king of his native country. Joseph and David are two of the most revered leaders in the Bible. They share much in common and numerous differences as well.  This week’s blog will lay the lives of these two great leaders side by side comparing and contrasting their individual characters and leadership styles. Approximately 700 years of history separate Joseph and David (Joseph c.1700 BC, David c.1000 BC) (Alexander 30-32), but both their stories begin with their boyhoods.
           
Joseph was born to Jacob’s first love and second wife Rachel. Jacob unwisely and overtly demonstrated that Joseph was the favorite son of the favorite wife, showing him preferential treatment and giving him the infamous long coat of many colors. This created animosity and jealousy among Joseph’s ten older half-brothers. His full brother Benjamin was born later. Joseph is first seen in the scriptures, after his birth, as a tattle-tale running home with a bad report of his brothers (Genesis 37:2).
           
David was the youngest and considered the slightest of the sons of a man of Bethlehem named Jesse. When the prophet Samuel, under the Lord’s instructions, came to Jesse’s home to anoint a new king of Israel, David wasn’t even considered. Instead he was given the lowly job of tending the sheep out in the fields. As Samuel gazed at each of Jesse’s seven noble son’s he was surprised that the Lord’s answer was “no” to each one. The Lord told Samuel not to look at appearance. “Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart” (NIV Bible, 1 Samuel 16:7). In 1 Samuel 16:10-12 we read, “Jesse had seven of his sons pass before Samuel, but Samuel said to him, ‘The LORD has not chosen these.’ So he asked Jesse, ‘Are these all the sons you have?’ ‘There is still the youngest,’ Jesse answered, ‘but he is tending the sheep.’  Samuel said, ‘Send for him; we will not sit down until he arrives.’ So he sent and had him brought in. He was ruddy, with a fine appearance and handsome features. Then the LORD said, ‘Rise and anoint him; he is the one’” (NIV Bible).
           
So begin the sagas of Joseph’s and David’s lives. Also noteworthy is the devotion and closeness each of them developed for the Lord at an early age. Joseph was a dreamer. He had vivid dreams which he understood were meaningful communiqués from the Lord. Thus began a lifetime of close communion with God. David was a worshipper. No doubt, on the quiet nights and days spent tending sheep out in the fields he sang and worshipped and played his lyre, also developing a lifetime habit of close communion with his Lord. Perhaps it was here, as a shepherd watching over his sheep, that David got a glimpse of the Great Shepherd watching over him. It is easy to imagine David alone with the sheep, singing, worshipping and praising God…

“The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. He makes me to lie down in green pastures; He leads me beside the still waters. He restores my soul; He leads me in the paths of righteousness for His name's sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me” (NKJV Bible, Psalm 23:1-4).
           
The next pivotal events in their separate journeys from boys to men, find David and Joseph taking significantly different paths: 

Joseph is sold into slavery by his jealous brothers and taken to Egypt. J. Lawrence Eason observes, “Joseph was smarter than his brothers. And because they recognized his superiority, they were jealous of him. Jacob also had recognized the superiority of his son Joseph, and doubtless had given him the long coat to symbolize, appropriately, a person who would one day achieve distinction” (84). Don Howell comments, “Joseph’s life shifts from favored son in the land of promise to destitute slave in a foreign land. The focus of the unfolding narrative will be not on Joseph’s inner struggles, but on his stunning rise to prominence, despite repeated setbacks, according to the unconquerable divine plan” (22).    

David is next seen becoming the champion of Israel when he stands up to fight and slay Goliath.  Everyone knows the story. David, though small in stature, wearing no armor and bearing no sword, defeats the giant with only a sling shot. Goliath was angered at David’s youthful appearance and lack of armor. “He said to David, ‘Am I a dog, that you come at me with sticks?’ And the Philistine cursed David by his gods” (NIV Bible, 1 Samuel 17:43). Of greatest significance in this episode, however, was David’s faith in God. He answered Goliath and the entire Philistine army saying, “You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the LORD Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. This day the LORD will hand you over to me… All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the LORD saves; for the battle is the LORD's, and he will give all of you into our hands” (NIV Bible, 1 Samuel 17:45-47). Of this turning point in David’s life, Duvall and Hays comment, “During this episode, David, in essence, switches flocks. He changes from watching his father’s sheep to watching over God’s sheep, the nation of Israel. He accepts the responsibility for this regardless of the danger” (317). 

Thus we see in these two young men tremendous strength of character and humility. Joseph, though a slave, conducted himself always with integrity and unwavering faith in the God of his father, Israel. Joseph’s rise to favor in the household of Potiphar was quickly dashed by the false accusations of Potiphar’s seductive wife whose advances Joseph refused. Of Joseph’s humility and trust in God when he was falsely accused of Potiphar’s wife, Josephus writes, “Now Joseph, commending all his affairs to God, did not betake himself to make his defense, nor to give an account of the exact circumstances of the fact, but silently underwent the bonds and the distress he was in, firmly believing that God, who knew the cause of his affliction and the truth of the fact, would be more powerful than those that inflicted the punishment upon him” (66). Likewise, due to the jealousy of king Saul over David’s fame as a mighty warrior, David was soon fleeing for his life. Though pursued by Saul, whose intent was to kill him, David refused to raise his hand against Saul even when given the opportunity. Eason writes, “David on two different occasions, had the opportunity to slay his mortal enemy, Saul; but in each case he had mercy on Saul, leaving his punishment to the Lord” (138).

We see, in the process of each of their lives, that the boys of integrity and faith become men—leaders called by God. Joseph becomes a ruler in the land of Egypt. David becomes king of Israel. How did they lead? Who were their followers, and how did they get followers to follow them? What were their leadership styles and approaches?

Joseph was an administrator. He was “considered by the ancient Israelites to be the ideal for all administrators or figures of authority” (Gardner 243). He was thoughtful and well organized.  The fact that he was a dreamer and one who could interpret dreams is another indication of his contemplative nature. He was a man with a plan when the Pharaoh and the people of Egypt needed a plan. When a leader knows the direction, others will follow.

David appears in many roles. He was a “shepherd, warrior, musician, outlaw, faithful friend, empire builder, sinner, saint, failed father, ideal king” (Gardner 72). David’s name appears more than 1000 times in the Bible, more than any other. “He has a prominent place not only in the political and military history of his people but also in their theology and poetry and even in their hopes for the future” (Gardner 72). David was a great leader because he was courageous, fearless and confident. He was willing to act when others were fearful. He was a motivator who saw a need, urged others to action and took the forefront to lead the way. When a leader is passionate and sure, people will follow. David, as such, seems to be far less thoughtful than Joseph and much more spontaneous. 

It is here, looking at their differing leadership styles, that we see the greatest contrast between David and Joseph. Joseph was patient and methodical. He led the Egyptians to systematically store their provisions for years and then, in time of famine, to systematically dispense those provisions for years. When faced with temptation, the thoughtful Joseph weighed the consequences of his actions and maintained his integrity and his virtue. David, on the other hand, was brash and spontaneous. Battles move along much more quickly than grain grows on the stalk season after season. As a commander, David had to make decisions quickly and on the move. With this nature and leadership style it is easier to see how David, when faced with temptation, may have acted on impulse and without forethought when summoning beautiful, bathing Bathsheba to his chamber. However, with the same intensity he brought to battle, he fervently repented when brought to the realization of his sin. Hear his heart of repentance...

“Have mercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love;
according to your great compassion blot out my transgressions.
Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin” (NIV Bible, Psalm 51:1-2).

“Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.
Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me.
Restore to me the joy of your salvation and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me”
(NIV Bible, Psalm 51:10-12).

It was David’s heart coupled with his courage that made him a great leader. This is what God saw in the little shepherd boy whom He instructed Samuel to anoint as king. “Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart” (NIV Bible, 1 Samuel 16:7).

As a servant leader in ministry today, I would do well to bring a blend of David and Joseph into my leadership style. With these strengths and virtues as my guide, my call to ministry will be as the commission of a ship’s pilot. My Captain will select the course and I will call passengers (followers) aboard. I will pilot God’s ship boldly and steadfastly:
At the Captain’s command set sail.
To the course He directs never fail.

At His order be no hesitation.
Fix the bow toward the destination.

Into the storm, into the fray,
Fearlessly steer the ship on its way.

With steady hand to the way hold fast.
Steer the ship from the start to the last.    -AP

As admonished in Deuteronomy 5:32, “Be careful to do what the LORD your God has commanded you; do not turn aside to the right or to the left” (NIV Bible). As encouraged in Hebrews 12:1, “Let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us” (NIV Bible). And as taught by Jesus, may my heart remain pure through it all. “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God” (NIV Bible, Matthew 5:8).    

Godly leaders are followers of God Himself and will not act except by His command. They will be dreamers who dream big and cast clear vision for others to see and follow. They will courageously take risks and lead boldly and fearlessly, inspiring followers to join them in pursuit of the godly vision. The integrity and vision of Joseph blended with the courage and heart of David—what a powerful combination!

______________________

Works Cited

Alexander, David and Pat, Editors. Eerdmans’ Concise Bible Handbook. 
Grand Rapids:  Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980

Eason, J. Lawrence.  The New Bible Survey. 
Grand Rapids:  Zondervan Publishing House, 1977

Howell, Don N. Jr. Servants of the Servant, A Biblical Theology of Leadership.
Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2003

Duvall, J. Scott and Hays, J. Daniel.  Grasping God’s Word—Second Edition. 
Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 2005

Josephus, translated by Whiston, William.  Josephus, The Complete Works. 
Nashville:  Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998
 
Gardner, Joseph L., Editorial Director.  Who’s Who in the Bible.
            Pleasantville:  The Reader’s Digest Association, 1994


Monday, May 22, 2017

Servant Leadership

In my last blog entry, “How Do You Define Success?” we introduced a model of leadership taught by Jesus: A leader’s role should be that of a servant. This week let’s examine the concept of servant leadership a little further.

What is the purpose of a king? What is the job of a president? Is the coach the head of the football team—the manager the leader of the baseball team? What is the role of a CEO, a general, a politician, a pastor? All of these positions are occupations of leadership. What then is a leader?

Contemporary leadership scholars emphasize three aspects of leadership activity that effective leadership must recognize and address: the leader, the follower and the context. Leadership always involves relationships with followers. No follower, no leadership. A leader relates to other people and the nature of this relationship is part of his or her success. Further, all leadership happens in some sort of context, i.e., the place, time, circumstances, etc. Because they are always different and changing, the nature of leadership is always fluid and responsive to these changing factors.

Coupling these aspects of leadership together with the concept of slavery and service as positive requisites of leadership causes us to look afresh at what really constitutes leadership. If a king or a president or a CEO or a pastor sees their role only as one of authority, or as a position to bring themselves wealth, power, exultation, etc.—they are missing the mark of a leader. A football coach or a baseball manager’s job is to bring out the best abilities of the athletes under his supervision and to build them into a well functioning team. The manager is a servant to the team she leads; helping to coach, teach, prod and encourage each team member to their best potential. Kings, presidents, CEO’s and pastors should see their roles in the same light. A leader is a servant to those he leads.

Don Howell (2003) notes, “The great leaders of the Old Testament are commonly designated ‘servant of the Lord.’ This is the title of honor par excellence for those who discover a joyful abandonment to the will of the Lord” (p. 7).[1] Therefore, I see that a leader not only serves those over whom he has authority, but also is a servant to whomever is in authority over him. With these considerations I am challenged anew to recognize that my leadership requires me to be a servant first and always to my Lord and also to those over whom my Lord has given me charge.






[1] Howell, Don N. Jr. Servants of the Servant, A biblical theology of leadership. Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2003

Monday, May 15, 2017

How Do You Define Success?

Here is an interesting leadership concept from the teachings of Jesus:

“You know that the rulers in this world lord it over their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them. But among you it will be different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must become your slave. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:25-28 NLT).

Jesus here introduces a new concept in leadership: We lead by serving. This was an entirely different idea to the world which had equated leadership with privilege, wealth and comfort. The world today still views it the same way. A successful leader is paid more, lives in the nicest houses, drives the most luxurious cars, enjoys fine dining, wears designer clothes, employs others to serve them, and generally enjoys the highest standard of living. Jesus turns that model upside down. Leadership means giving more and receiving less—giving more of your life’s time and energy to serve those whom you lead and thus having less for yourself.

If you are a leader who believes that the position you have been empowered with is a God-given calling, then your leadership has an added God-given definition. A leader in God’s economy must be more than smart, shrewd, visionary and organized. The successful leader by Jesus’ standards must also become a slave to those whom he or she is called to lead. The successful leader is not the one who gains the most for her or himself, but the one who gives the most for the benefit of others.    


Monday, May 8, 2017

Handling Resistance with Two-way Communication

One of the best tools a leader can employ is two-way communication, giving and receiving messages face to face if possible or by whatever medium is employed. Let us, for this article, specifically consider communication in handling resistance. Whenever leading change, resistance can be expected. Employing effective communication is the most important leadership skill to overcoming resistance.

Every problem can be seen as an opportunity—an opportunity to engage in back and forth communication and find solutions. Facing resistance provides the opportunity to engage in two-way communication to discover the reasons behind the resistance and reach mutual accord toward forward progress. Open resistance is actually desirable because it begs for communication and resolve. Covert resistance may take longer to detect and address. However, when it becomes apparent—and it surely will eventually—it still is an opportunity to initiate productive communication.

If you are a leader proposing change, you must believe the change is for the best—the best for your organization and for its members. If not, why are you doing it? So, if the change is for the best, your job as the leader is to convince all parties involved. You must compellingly communicate the vision, identify obstacles and overcome them. You must understand why there is resistance, which means listening as well as telling. The benefits of these two-way conversations will serve the greater good if you are 1) able to identify and correct flaws in your plan, 2) able to allay fears and ameliorate the plan, and 3) able to win greater support and buy-in to the change vision.    

As well as confronting resistance, there is often resistance to having a conversation about the problem. Tough conversations are certainly not comfortable for you or your organization. So why would you want to subject yourself and your organization to discomfort? In her book, Fierce Conversations, Susan Scott offers this answer: “Because what’s on the other side of your toughest issue is worth it: relief, success, health, freedom from stress, happiness, a high-performing team, a fulfilling personal relationship. And because of what’s in store for you if you continue to avoid addressing and resolving the tough issues” (Scott, 2004, pp. 124-125).[1] 

  




[1] Scott, S. (2004), Fierce Conversations. Achieving success at work and in life, one conversation at a time. New York: Berkley Publishing Group 

Monday, May 1, 2017

Conceptualizing Change Leadership

A simple illustration often used in the Bible to demonstrate the process of God bringing change to people’s lives is the picture of a potter reshaping clay. The prophets, for example, often used this imagery to lead people toward change:

“O Lord, you are our Father.  We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand” (NIV Bible, Isaiah 64:8). 

“‘Can I not do with you as the potter does?’ declares the Lord . ‘Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand’” (NIV Bible, Jeremiah 18:6). 

The apostle Paul in the New Testament used the same picture: 
“Does not the potter have power over the clay…” (NKJV Bible, Romans 9:21)
           
I once had the privilege of watching a potter give a demonstration of his craft. He began by reaching into a burlap bag and pulling out a brick of clay. It was very stiff, hard and cool to the touch. As he held and pressed it in his hands for a while, it started to become more pliable as it began to warm up. After warming and kneading it in his hands the potter was eventually able to roll the one time stiff brick into a pliable ball which he then pressed into the center of his spinning wheel. Adding a little bit of water as the wheel began to spin, the potter skillfully began to reshape the lump of clay carefully into a new form. After finally reshaping the clay into the desired shape of a beautiful vase, the potter explained that the next step in the process was the most critical of all. In order for the new vase to retain its shape it would have to be re-hardened by baking it in a kiln. Then it would not only be beautiful to look at, but it would be strong enough to be able to be used for the purpose it was created.          
           
This process of un-hardening something to reshape it and then re-hardening it again serves as a simple illustration of the three basic steps of Kurt Lewin’s change theory model. Students of leadership have probably studied Lewin’s concepts of unfreezing, changing and refreezing.   

Unfreezing
The concept of unfreezing refers to the observation that the stability of human behavior is based on “quasi-stationary equilibria” or resident organizational forces which tend to resist change. In order for change to occur, these forces or embedded norms of operation must be removed if the organizational equilibrium is to be moved (Schein, 2002-2006, p. 1).[1] Put more simply, the first step toward change is to unfreeze the hardened, non-pliable norms of operation to make possible the reshaping and change of the organization.  

Changing      
This is perhaps the most exciting and fun part of Lewin’s change theory because it has directly to do with actually changing. This is where the potter begins to create something new. This is the process of reshaping the old organizational structure anew. This is the stage that the effective change agent has had to restrain him or herself from jumping into prematurely. However, once the careful and thoughtful unfreezing has been completed, the anticipated change can be started.


Refreezing
When we finally come to the ideal place where all the new changes have been put into position; the processes of disconfirmation, trial and error have yielded the desired results; the organizational team is on board, well educated and informed; we dare not forget the advice of the skilled potter. The beautiful newly created vase will remain vulnerable to collapse unless it is fired in the kiln. Unless the carefully prepared organizational changes are refrozen; unless they are firmly set into the culture of the organization, they may collapse and fade away much more quickly than it took to build them.
           
The key point to be made is that if refreezing is to take place, the new behavior must be congruent with the rest of the behavior of the learner or it will simply set off new rounds of disconfirmation. This can lead to the unlearning of the very things that have just been learned (Schein, 2002-2006, p. 4).[2]

The model of unfreezing, changing and refreezing offers a vivid conceptualization of change leadership. As a minister I have witnessed all too often the results of churches that have been stifled by old methods and traditions which have led ultimately to the closing of their doors for lack of current relevance in the communities they were meant to serve.  I have seen new programs started by pastors that begin with enthusiasm and great initial success only to fade away once the pastor is reassigned, moves on or simply runs out of gas. Key learning to take away from this change model is not only the three key phases for lasting change, but the reality that the entire organization needs to be involved with the process and buy into the reshaping if the desired change is to be enduring.





[1] Schein, E. H. (2002-2006).  Kurt Lewin’s theory in the field and in the classroom: 
Notes toward a model of managed learning.  Retrieved March 2016, from http://www.a2zpsychology.com/articles/kurt_lewin's_change_theory.htm

[2] ibid.