As I wrote in my last entry, recently I uncovered some ‘Considerations’ that I had noted in November, 2005. Today I offer more of those ‘Considerations.’ I wrote:
Today, more than ever, in almost any organized group of two or more, we are challenged to move from metaphors that are impersonal (the mechanical or the banking), that are personal (the charismatic leader or ‘savior’) to a metaphor that incorporates ‘I-You-We’ – a Community metaphor. Not only must we move toward integrating a Community metaphor, we must move toward being ‘communities of responsibility.’ The organizational and societal challenges we face require people to become more and more connected, require people to become more and more interdependent, and require people to develop powerful learning-working relationships. Greater complexity engenders greater threats and so communities provide those within the community a safe-haven in which to ‘face’ and ‘engage’ these threats. This safe-haven also provides respite from the raging white waters of change that continue to wash over us and that continue to drown us with their tsunami-like intensity.
Communities are composed of individuals and relationships. For Greenleaf these are rooted in his concept of ‘servant’ and ‘servant-as-leader.’ The servant whether leader or follower is committed to capacity-development. Here are a few of the capacities I believe the servant needs to develop:
· capacity to be present
· capacity to be attentive
· capacity to help make meaning (e.g., what one does must, in its self be meaningful)
· capacity for healthy development (PIES – Physical, Intellectual, Emotional, Spiritual dimensions)
· capacity for being trustworthy and for helping to build trust
· capacity for integrity
· capacity for paradox (to understand and to embrace)
· capacity for dilemma (to understand, to resolve or to dissolve)
· capacity to live within both faithfulness and effectiveness
· capacity for commitment
· capacity for high achievement (not competition) and ‘distinction’ (Greenleaf believed that too many organizations sought and settled for ‘mediocrity’)
· capacity for metaphor (P-R-O-S: Personal, Relational, Organizational, Societal Levels)
· capacity to be a continual learner (searcher, seeker, beginner); this capacity is necessary at the P-R-O-S levels. An individual cannot learn enough, fast enough, to keep up therefore communities must transform into learning-communities.
Consider that we are still ‘in love with’ the industrial/mechanical metaphor; we continue to hold onto this metaphor. As a result of our need to hold onto the industrial/mechanical metaphor people continue to be ‘seen’ and related to as if they were cogs, pins and wheels in the machine. People are also seen as cyborgs – part human and part machine. [NOTE: As I have noted in previous postings, our culture has embraced and integrated another inorganic metaphor, the banking metaphor. People are assets, resources and commodities.]
Greenleaf’s metaphor is organic, developmental and communal/relational. It was counter-cultural when he presented it to us and it is still counter-cultural today. Since I was first introduced to his concept in 1975 I have had the privilege of learning about and experiencing a number of organizational cultures and sub-cultures that have committed themselves to transforming to an organic, developmental and communal/relational metaphor. ‘Transform’ is the word for transform means ‘a fundamental change in character and structure. Letting go of an industrial/mechanical and/or a banking metaphor and embracing and integrating an organic, developmental and communal metaphor requires a ‘fundamental change in both character and structure.’
Servant As Leader 