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

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.    

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 

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.