5minutesORLess

On Becoming a Leader--Warren Bennis Why Follow A Leader?: 3. Reliability

 Warren Bennis, in his book, On Becoming a Leader, identifies four ingredients leaders have that generate and sustain trust in followers.  They are:

1.  Constancy, 2. Congruity, 3. Reliability and 4. Integrity.  In the previous post we looked at congruity.

Bennis says of reliability, "Leaders are there when it counts; they are ready to support their co-workers in the moments that matter."  I would add they are not only ready to support, they actually do.  Reliability is the external evidence of an internal quality.  Reliability is found not in the good intention but in the good doing.  If you want to know if I'm reliable as a person, watch what I do.  

As a leader, why would you do what you said you would do?   It could be out of fear that if you are unreliable you may lose the support of those who follow you.  That's selfish.  It could be because if you fail to follow through eventually you will have no followers, thus making you ineffective and no longer a leader.  That's selfish in motive too.  Or, it could be you are reliable--dependable, one in whom people can place their confidence--because to do otherwise would violate your basic internal sense of care, compassion, purpose and rightness.  Reliability is a part of and an expression of personal integrity.  To not be reliable is to live out a lie.  I didn't do what I said I would.

An important aspect of reliability is dependence.  Dependence is what followers experience when they follow reliable, trust worthy leaders.  The guards come down.  The backs are no longer protected.  The shields come down and the window of vulnerability is huge.  What a time saver.  How much more can be done when self-protective armor is not having to be built and maintained.

What do the names Josheb-Basshebeth, Eleazar and Shammah have to do with reliability?  They were known and proclaimed in 2 Samuel 23:8-18 as "David's Mighty Men."  What earned them that honor?  When it came to battle against all odds, they were reliable.  We don't know their ranks and responsibilities before their infamous battles but we do know when it came to fighting against all odds to the death, they stood their ground for their King.  Were they impressively skilled and strong?  No doubt, but that is not what made them mighty.  It was their reliability that made them great and mighty.  They kept their commitment to their King.  They had, no doubt, taken an oath at some point as an officer of King David's army and they simply did what they said they would do.  They would fight and risk death to protect their King.

There is a Hebrew word used 240 times in the Old Testament and is typically translated as mercy.  The word is hesed.  Yet as Walter Wright in Relational Leadership points out, hesed has a dimension of meaning enlarging the understanding of what mercy is.  Wright says, "Hesed is God's commitment to be our God even when we fail to live up to our part of the covenantal relationship."  He goes on to say, "This is the model we have for being servant leaders who are full of mercy, who are keepers of commitments." (page 11)  God is reliable.  We trust in Him because He does what He said He would do.  What greater expression of mercy could there be than that?

If there is only one behavior or characteristic of virtuous integrity I could pass on to young ministry leaders it would perhaps be to live a life of reliability.  So often out of a desire to please and serve I hear younger men and women in a spiritual leadership capacity say they will call someone, they will get together, they will do a specific task and then ... life gets in the way.  Reliability is a form of truthfulness and people who don't keep commitments don't make leaders that followers can depend on.  When I begin to question the reliability--the truth-full-ness--of a leader I also start to question the depth and maturity of the rest of their integrity as well.  When guardedness enters into my mind I will tend to hold back for personal protection.  The result is a less than full capacity to serve those whom our vision and mission say we are committed to because I'm distracted by my questions of trust.

The quality was regarded as so important by Paul that in his last instructions to his mentoree, Timothy, Bishop of Ephesus, he wanted to make sure for continuity, "And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others."

Question for Reflection:  How reliable am I?  How often do I find myself apologizing for not doing what I said I would do?  How trust worthy am I becoming if I am sincere in my intentions but fail to keep my word?

On Becoming a Leader--Warren Bennis Why Follow A Leader?: 2. Congruity

Warren Bennis, in his book, On Becoming a Leader, identifies four ingredients leaders have that generate and sustain trust in followers.  They are:

1.  Constancy, 2. Congruity, 3. Reliability and 4. Integrity.  In the previous post we looked at constancy.

2. Congruity  If constancy can be likened to a horizontal line, congruity would be the vertical line.  Whereas constancy implies a steadiness over time, congruity goes deep into the core soul of the person. 

Congruity is the match or alignment between our being and our doing.  Most people think good thoughts and want to do the right thing.  Fewer are able to consistently live out their intentions.  Those who do have congruity.  Why is that important for those who follow?  Bennis says, "Leaders walk their talk.  In true leaders, there is no gap between the theories they espouse and the life they practice."  At a basic level we follow people who make us feel safe.

Does congruity produce constancy or is it the other way around?   Do they come as a package?  Or, are they mutually independent?  The answer is probably, "yes."  What we do know is if constancy and congruity are both present, good leadership happens.  I've seen good, decent, solid-to-the-core people who, for a variety of reasons, were incapable of leading a team  forward (creating a desire and intention to follow) through the good and bad times because you never quite knew how they would act when push came to shove.  I've also experienced good people who were also cowards.  They also had a problem with congruity.  No doubt they genuinely wanted to do the good.  It's just they did a poor job of consistently living out their beliefs under easy circumstances and were even more inconsistent in times of tension and stress. 

If it gives us any comfort even the Apostle Paul struggled with congruity.  And he was courageous enough to display his struggle so we can indentify with him. (Romans 7:7-25)  I saw this when I came upon the horrible head-on crash in December, 2008.  As we were futilely trying to put out the car fire with two trapped inside, to tend to the injured, and frantically trying to find anyone with blankets or fire extinguishers, I still can see people in cars on cell phones telling someone how horrible this accident was--people who may have had a congruity problem.

I've been in other situations where the leader was constant--constantly duplicitous and incompetent.  They wanted to do right and to follow through on convictions, but you never knew what they would do from one situation to another and from one day to another.  As a follower, the first order of the day was to check leader's mood to see what kind of decisions were best sought that day.  For me, I'd rather serve a Patton-type autocrat who I could trust and believe in than a wishy-washy, temperamental, blowing in the wind nice person. 

When it comes to merging constancy and congruity, it seems what we begin to see in a leader is a person who has a steady temper(ment) and a deep awareness of doing right(eous) at all times.

The person who personifies the integration of constancy and congruity for me is Paul--the same person who struggled with it.  From the moment on the road to Damascus to his last days in prison, his actions and his attitude never varied much.  His actions as described through the eyes and pen of Doctor Luke were consistent with the admonitions he gave, for example, to Timothy and Titus.

But Paul wasn't perfect.  He too struggled with hypocracy and inconsistency (opposites of congruity and constancy) but he worked at and overcame his struggle with the help of the Holy Spirit.  Isn't that a part of what transformation is all about?

In 2 Timothy Paul admonishes his mentoree Timothy, "Yet I am not ashamed because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day.  What you have heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.  Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you--guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us."  (2 Timothy 1:12b-14)  That speaks to Paul's congruity. 

In Acts 28:29 Luke records Paul's words to the Jewish leaders of Rome, "Therefore, I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"  Luke's last words on the life of Paul follow in verses 30 and 31.  "For two whole  years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him.  Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ."  That speaks to Paul's constancy.  Whether it was on the ship in the storm (Acts 27:13-26), speaking before Peter and the leaders of the new church in Jerusalem (Acts 15), addressing the Greek scholars in Athens, toiling as a tent maker in Ephesus for three years with Priscilla, Aquila and Apollos or planting a church in Corinth, Paul's inner core, his soul (congruity) and his resulting witness over time (constancy), was in excellent alignment.

Dictionaries in defining congruity put an emphasis on agreement.  Agreement certainly is a part of congruity but, for me, congruity conveys more of a sense of fusion than merely agreement.  Agreement of walk and talk are critical.  But a fusion means the soul, the talk and the walk are no longer separable; they have become one. 

Question for Reflection:  What gives you confidence you are displaying congruity to those in your care?  At your next staff/team meeting why don't you ask them to give you some examples?