5minutesORLess

On Becoming a Leader—Warren Bennis, Why Follow a Leader? 4. Integrity

In earlier posts we talked about Bennis’ list of essential competencies. They include a shared meaning, a distinctive voice, integrity, and an adaptive capacity.

We also talked about what Bennis felt were essential ingredients in the make-up of a leader.  A guiding vision, passion, integrity and curiosity and daring.

Finally, we’ve been going through his four ingredients that generate and sustain trust in followers.  Those key ingredients include constancy, congruity, reliability and integrity.  Integrity is the only characteristic showing up on all three lists.  Obviously it is essential to a leadership guru like Bennis and it’s essential to those influencing others on a day-to-day basis.

Why?  What is it about integrity making it so foundational?  I think it simply comes down to trust—not in performance but in the deep driven nature of the leader.  Integrity is a deep soul issue speaking to the absence of corruption.  We want safe leaders and hopefully, we all want to be safe leaders.  We all want leaders who keep their word and the word they are keeping is based on a fundamental premise of selfless caring for others.

The word in Scripture, perhaps, best suming up integrity is upright.  It was a criterion of Paul for appointing deacons and elders and was a name Isaiah attributed to God, himself. “Upright One.” (Is. 26:7)

If I were to brainstorm as many words that seem to describe integrity I would include, safe, true, truth teller and truth keeper and veracity.  I would make sure I included trust worthy as well.  Integrity speaks to the maturity of the soul.  To me, a person of integrity has depth of character and is disciplined, pure, good, spiritually transforming and one who is loving.

But  When we look at all of Bennis’ lists of ingredients and competencies I think we would all agree all are essential and proven to be effective.  Yet, for example, a guiding vision is subject to manipulation since it is about things to come.  Passion is important but Islamic jihadists are passionate too. Curiosity and daring create forward motion but can result in risky, if not disastrous adventures.  A shared meaning is important for collective identity but so is fanaticism.  A distinctive voice promotes a charismic leader but where is the voice taking us and what, exactly is this voice saying?  And we know an effective leader needs to be flexible and adaptive to an ever changing environment but what are we adapting to under the influence of this leader?  So, each ingredient and competency is essential but each is subject to corruption and abuse.  The only competency and essential ingredient standing alone, unsupported by any other ingredient or competency is integrity.

What's a good metaphor for integrity?  Perhaps it's a tuning fork.  First of all the metal has to be pure to perfectly transmit the vibrations throughout.  Secondly it has to be milled to such close tolerances since any imperfections will not only make the fork out of tune but any instrument tuned to that tone will be out of tune as well.  In the end, integrity, like leadership is even more about influencing others and their personal attributes than it is about our own.  After all, nobody comes to a concert hall to listen to tuning forks, do they? 

Question for reflection and discussion.  The depth of our integrity has been defined as what we do when no one is looking.  If everyone around me could read my mind and I had a vidcam trained on me at all times, what do I change in my thoughts and my actions?

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?

On Becoming a Leader--Warren Bennis--Leaders and Managers

Leaders and Managers

Warren Bennis, in his book, On Becoming a Leader, says, "I tend to think of the differences between leaders and managers as the differences between those who master the context and those who surrender to it." (p. 39)   He goes on to say, "No leader sets out to be a leader.  People set out to live their lives, expressing themselves fully.  When that expression is of value, they become leaders."  (p. 104)  I would add that when people fail to meet the mark of a leader, to master the context, as Bennis describes, they become managers.  Ouch!  This is not a 'dis on managers, per se.  People can be and are very effective managers and serve in many capacities as a supervisor, a lead or a group manager.  That's not what I'm referring to.  It's the attitude of manager, not the function that is the problem.  Check out the attached file contrasting the differences between managing and leading.  There is a huge difference and it is all in attitude, not function.  Download Contrast of Managers and Leader 

A leader without the discipline of a manager introduces more chaos than direction.  However a manager without the capacity to positively influence others to take risks, challenge conventional thinking, to push the rules and not be satisfied with compliance is a person way too comfortable with keeping order rather than pushing the ministry envelope.

One of my favorite memories is the reaction of a dear friend and pastor whom I've had the privilege of coaching/mentoring.  Early in our relationship I was talking about the distinctions between managing and leading ministry when a sobering thought coalesced  in his mind.  Like Macauley Caulkin in the movie, Home Alone, he put his hands on his cheeks and exclaimed, "Good grief, I'm a freaking manager."

Managing is not bad, it's just that left to itself the ministry is neat but has no future.  Left to itself ministry management degrades to being merely a custodian of ritual.

What is the difference between the attitude of a spiritual leader and that of a ministry manager?  As Bennis has pointed out and as I've illustrated in previous posts, it is about having a distinctive voice speaking a clear vision for the future.  The voice of the manager speaks to what must be done.  The voice of a leader speaks to what can be done.  Leadership is about a passion for what could be rather than than a manager's intention to achieve planning mileposts and program goals.  It is about leaders who have the courage and conviction to do the right things rather than simply to do things right.  And finally, for the leader, it is truly about pushing the envelope; getting people to take risky stretches of faith and to get those who follow to begin to wonder, "what if."  The manager does his or her job well when risk is minimized, not enhanced; when people complete their planning goals and mileposts and stay on track.  Leaders do their job well when the discipline of managing chaos is present and from that base of stability future vision is implemented.

You may have gained a misimpression.  It sounds like the worst thing you would want to be is a manager.  That couldn't be further from the truth.  Managing is the hygiene of ministry and organizational process.  Without it there is chaos, conflict and wasted resources.   Every effective leader MUST be a disciplined manager.  Where the problem lies is in having an ATTITUDE of a manager while thinking and acting as if you are a leader.  It is about attitude, not actions.

Question for Reflection  When I feel I've been successful is it because I met my goals and the plans of the ministry (usually measured in "nickles and noggins"--money and attendance) or is it because lives have been changed for the better because of my influence and the efforts of my team?

"When am I a Leader?" An Issue of Context

Several times this month I've had variations of the same question from spiritual leaders.  The question, and it's a good one, is, "When in my role as pastor is it appropriate to be THE LEADER and when should I be pastoral?"

My answer is this.  Being a leader is never out of context.  You can shift functions from ministry manager to pastor to preacher, resource and staffing allocator, encourager, back to pastor, preacher, spiritual warfare battler and friend.  But you are a leader in all roles, all the time, 24/7.  Leadership is not a function.  It is a state of relationship. 

There are several reasons for this.  First, there are no leaders without followers.  And a follower's perception of a leader does not change throughout the day, at the end of the day or become different on weekends or days off.  A leader simply is, in the eyes of the beholder.  As a result, every thing you do is perceived through the leader focused lens of the follower.  The perception of the person being influenced is, "this person is my leader" no matter what they do.  A leader is never out of the context of the total role they play, even when they are at play.  

This leads to the second point.  Managing is about doing things.  Leadership is largely about conveying symbols and messages and stories to explain and demonstrate who we are as a team/group/people and where we are going.  The heavy mantle of leadership is that everything you do carries a symbolic message with it--a message much bigger than the task itself.

There is a common misconception that leadership involves the ruling of many.  In reality, leadership boils down to nothing more or less than influence--whether it be to one or one thousand.  There are leaders with positions of authority, but there are also many, many more leaders who simply influence others, as Warren Bennis points out, by their ability to create a shared meaning, through their distinctive voice, their integrity and their adaptive capacity.  

Questions for Reflection:  Who do I influence?  How has my influence as a leader made a difference in the lives of others--who they are and how they see themselves, and how they see God and reflect Christ to others?

On Becoming a Leader--Warren Bennis Four Ingredients-Integrity

3. Integrity  Bennis previously talked about four essential competencies—1. engaging others by creating a shared meaning, 2. having a distinctive voice, 3. having integrity, and 4. having adaptive capacity.  He now adds to that with four ingredients that constitute an effective leader.  The first is a guiding vision.  The second is passion.  The third is integrity.

Interestingly, Bennis lists integrity twice--as a competency and as an essential ingredient.  Did he forget and mindlessly repeat himself or was there something more there?  I'll give him the credit of having a point to make.  When he talks of integrity as a competency he's talking about doing integrity.  Now, when he talks about it as an ingredient he's talking about being integrity.

What's the difference?  Bennis doesn't make a significant distinction in the book.  So here's my take.  The Apostle, James, asks in the second chapter of his epistle, "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?".   In the same vein we can ask, what good is it if a person knows the right thing to do but fails to do it?  James concludes the thought by saying, "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." (NIV)  In other words, the being without a corresponding evidence of doing is evidence of death. 

While it appears that Bennis' order of competencies before ingredients seems reversed, he's actually consistent with James.  In essesnce, what Bennis is saying is, show me the consistent competency of integrity and I'll show you the ingredient of a core of integrity as well.

What is integrity?  Wrapped up in the meaning includes a soundness of moral character and separately a state of being whole.  Merging those two meanings gives us a sense that integrity is having our "stuff" together.  The opposite is being in a floating state of disarray when it comes to having an understanding of who we are, what we do and why we do it and then the discipline to actually act on our beliefs.

What drives integrity?  I believe the capacity to consistently display integrity in our life requires the supernatural engine of Christ's virtue within us.  Anything less results in sincere intentions with inconsistent and situational success.

A simple fact; bad leaders lack integrity.  Poor leaders lack the personal discipline to allow the virture of Christ to overtake the "old man."  Evil leaders intentionally devise strategies to manipulate an impression of integrity but purposefully have none.  Integrity, the active expression of good character must be the DNA of good and effective leaders.

Question for Reflection: How is my integrity reflected in the little acts of my life? 

What keeps the virtue of Christ within me from bursting through the "old man/woman" that are my carnal thoughts, fears, ambitions and desires/lusts?

On Becoming a Leader--Warren Bennis Competencies Part 3

In his book, On Becoming a Leader, Bennis identifies four key competencies a leader must have.

1.  Leaders are able to engage others by creating shared meaning.

2.  Distinctive leaders have a distinctive voice.

3.  The third key competency all effective leaders have is integrity.

Character has been defined as what you do when no one is looking.  And while character has two faces, good and bad, integrity has only one.  No one has “bad” integrity.  If you don’t have integrity you are bad.  Integrity is like humility.  You either have it or you don't.  Put another way, integrity is the inclination to don’t right without thinking about it.  It is the ability to override our sin nature--most of the time.  While Bennis doesn’t posit this, integrity is an expression of virtue which is the mind of Christ.

Bad leaders don’t have a problem with integrity.  They don’t have it.  Good leaders have the capacity and the knowledge to do right and do it frequently without having to go through too many sleepless nights to come to the right decision.  A little twist on a Bennis proverb, The manager does things right.  The leader does the right thing.  This is not to imply that managers don’t have integrity.  It does mean effective leaders MUST have integrity to have a lasting influence. 

Speaking later in the book about integrity being the basis of trust, Bennis says, “A major challenge that all leaders are now facing is an epidemic of corporate malfeasance, as we read nearly every day in the news.  And if there is anything that undermines trust, it is the feeling that the people at the top lack integrity, are without a solid sense of ethics." 

There is a reason why there appears to be more of a public outrage when a spiritual leader experiences moral failure.   People are disillusioned with those who proclaim themselves to be leaders having a concern for all yet making sure their power base has been taken care of first.  Leaders have a great influence over the quality of life of large numbers of people it is no surprise to see the level of cynicism to those leaders by the lead.  And then when the last hope for good decent people as leaders seems to erode away by the moral failures of spirtual leaders, even the unbeliever feels violated and experiences an anxiety regarding is there any leader they can really trust.  Leaders, and especially spiritual leaders, above all else must be trustworthy.  Others eternal lives are dependent in a large way by how true they walk the talk.  They are worthy of trust if the core of who they are, transformed creatures, rings true.

Next Post:  Essential Competencies -- The key is Adaptive Capacity