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 Why Follow A Leader?: 1. Constancy

Bennis says, "The underlying issue in leading from voice is trust--in fact, I believe that truth is the underlying issue in not only getting people on your side, but having them stay there."  He goes on to identify four ingredients leaders have that generate and sustain trust.  They are:

1.  Constancy, 2. Congruity, 3. Reliability and 4. Integrity.

Let's take them one at a time.

1. Constancy.  The Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary defines constancy as "a steadfastness of mind under duress."  A number of leaders come to mind when thinking about that quality.  Joshua is a classic.  Moses had died, Joshua was in charge.  No one of military age who had left Egypt was left alive.  God says to Joshua, "Be strong and courageous.  Be careful to obey all the laws my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go."  Joshua did and he was.  That was good for Joshua.  But why should the Hebrew nation continue to follow him?  After all, they did have quite a reputation of murmuring and then doing what they thought was right in their own eyes.

The word, constancy, is not used much today, particularly in reference to leaders.  To me it means, keeping the hand on the wheel, focus, purposed determination.  It's different than stubborn which is more about self than others.  Constancy is a quality of dependability.  Bennis says this about constancy, "Whatever surprises leaders themselves may face, they don't create any for the group.  Leaders are all of a piece; they stay the course."

What makes up constancy?  There has to be courage, which is doing what is right regardless of the circumstances or consequences.  There has to be bravery; doing what is right regardless of personal dangers.  Constancy requires a passionate cause, a sound value system, focus, the capacity to see the big picture and a deep care for those the leader is responsible for.  But the quality can't be just being calm.  Medication will do that.  It isn't even what has been described as a non-anxious presence or serenity, yet that is certainly a quality in constancy.  Constancy, it seems, is not just an internal peace but requires action, like love and compassion, to prove its presence.

When all is blowing up and crashing down the leader who displays constancy simply displays the congruity of past words in calmer times with their present action.  Constant leaders are stable, calming influences in times of crisis who display the soundness and conviction of their deep held beliefs. 

The exercise of constancy models those same qualities to those who follow.  In today's headlines we see what constancy isn't.  It evidences as corruption, lies, broken promises and duplicity.  How long will it take for the people of Illinois to trust state politicians again?  How long will it take for America to trust the captains of Wall Street?  How long will it take before we trust the executives of auto manufacturers, insurance companies, banks and mortgage companies again?  Constancy was certainly not seen in their excessive actions in good times and was reinforced in the collapse of the companies they were hired to be stewards of.  Shame on them for their failure to constantly care for those in their trust. 

We follow leaders first because we believe in their words.  We continue to follow them because we trust in their capacity to lead in tough times because of their actions.

Joshua was constant.  The Hebrew nation knew it.  Though we may not recognize the walls of Jericho they are there and we need to be constant for the sake of those we serve.

Question for Reflection:  What would it take for you to veer from your stated and demonstrated values?  How much emotional or physical pain would you be willing to endure in order to be constant?  People who follow you may be asking that question of you.

Leaders Out of Nowhere

On the road of blogging on leadership, life interrupted me.  I was driving back from a training session in Sandpoint, Idaho when I came on a horrible head-on collision that had happened only a few seconds before.  It was a horrific scence.  A baby had been thrown out of a SUV and the mother and a passenger were pinned inside.  Almost immediately a fire started under the SUV that could not be put out no matter how hard we tried.  It would take 20 minutes for fire trucks to arrive.  Every door had been jammed due to the impact.  As the flames began to reach into the interior both the driver and the passenger were removed through the side windows.  The baby was fine.  The mother is fighting for her life and the passenger died on the way to the hospital.  The other vehicle was a pickup truck driven by an intoxicated man who had his license suspended in 1986 and had 60 subsequent arrests for driving without a license or driving while intoxicated.  He will survive his injuries.

So what does that horrific scene have to do with leadership?  It was heartening to see over a dozen people disregard their own safety and comfort and risk their lives for another by trying to save two people destined to be burned alive.  

An essential quality for leadership is bravery--the willingness to sacrifice your own personal safety for another.  There is no such thing as a cowardly leader.  I did not see managers around that SUV that evening.  Only leaders.  I was proud to have been shoulder to shoulder with over a dozen leaders, many of whom had no idea they had it in them.

Greater love has no one than this: to (be willing to) lay down one's life for one's friends.  John 15:13 (parenthesis, mine)

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?

What we need are healthy systems

Recently I was having a conversation with a friend, who, like me, shares an unbalanced passion for leadership, and we were talking, among other topics, about the election of Barak Obama.  I asked him his thoughts and whether he saw the election through liberal or conservative lenses.  His answer was profound in it's simple truth.  He said he didn't care about labels.  "All I care about is if Obama can create and maintain healthy systems." 

What is a Healty System?  His point raises an interesting thought.  What constitutes a healthy system?  In my experience it would include but not necessarily be limited to the following elements:  sustainable, self-correcting, other/community-focused, self-healing, vision/morality/tradition driven, with a leader who understands and is capable of establishing and maintaining those elements.  And, most importantly, to use a post-modern term, it has a meta-narrative.  There is an ideology expressed through a communicated vision, and members of the community not only understand it, but believe in it because they've learned it through experience and the teaching of leadership and the "elders" of the community.

From a political view then, too big a government isn't healthy but neither is minimal government in times of crisis.  An unhealthy taxing system either creates too little or too much cash flow through a bureaucracy.  An unhealthy military system has either too much asset to be too easily deployed or used in lieu of other dispute resolution tools or creates an unwanted vulnerability and weakness.  A government whose people rely solely on it to be their security and safety net when unexpected crisis and those events brought on by poor discipline and choices occurs creates dependency.  Yet too little concern for its citizens creates unrest, disloyalty, cynicism and even anarchy.  A healthy system is asymetrical.  It is flexible to the moment yet does not lose it's "heart"; the reason for which it formed or was created.

Question for Reflection and Discussion:  What consitutes a "healthy system" when it comes to Christian community and ministry?  What do you think?  How many components make up a healthy system?  How do you know when the system is unhealthy?  What are your thoughts? 

"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-Curiousity and Daring

4. Curiousity and Daring   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.  The fourth is curiousity and daring.

Bennis says, "Leaders wonder about everything, want to learn as much as they can, are willing to take risks, experiment, try new things.  They do not worry about failure, but embrace errors, knowing they will learn from them."  The ability of a leader to ask questions is not an expression of doubt but an unrelenting unwillingness to accept the status quo as an acceptable answer or solution.  This is one of the most telling discriminators between a manager mind and a leader mind.  The manager mind wants to control, create predictability, order and prevent the unknown from happening.  The leader mind is unwilling to accept today's answer as anything more than a reference guide to tomorrow's unknown challenges.  The leader mind knows today's answers are totally inadequate to properly and relevantly respond to tomorrows challenges.

Every good leader has within him the discipline of a manager and every good manager also has the spark of leadership.  Leadership is the capacity to influence others.  Management is the ability to create order.  To be a good leader, you must be disciplined in both.

A manager mind asks "what," the leader mind asks "how" and "why."  A successful spiritual leader's curiosity goes below the surface of "nickels and noggins." The successful spiritual leader wants to know how a successful ministry functions successfully.  The effective spiritual leader wants to know how they  deal with conflict, change, risk, decision making, power struggles and alignment/misalignment issues.  They want to know when ministry staff and volunteers are failing to perform effectively, how do they address the issue?  How do successful ministry leaders plan for succession, build teams that last and frame, form and influence the culture internally and in the community where they minister.  An effective leader is never satisfied with today's answers and is never fully fulfilled--knowing something more and better can be done to make the ministry more effective, more productive, more efficient, more spiritually rooted in their reason for existence.

A successful leader is willing to challenge but not be defient, take risks but not be reckless and ask questions without sowing seeds of doubt.  Curiousity and daring; essential ingredients for leaders of influence.

Questions for Reflection:  When things in ministry are going well, am I satisfied or challenged? 

When things in ministry are not going well do I look for tried and true solutions or am I more inclined to be open for new ideas? 

When is the best time to be curious and daring--when things are going well or when faced with challenges.  In your experience how has your answer proven to be correct or unsatisfactory? 

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?