Exchange theory of leadership: engaging

Exchange is the highest expression of leadership. Most humans communicate, but few connect and fewer yet, engage. Yet the greatest leaders of history found real engagement was critical to war-winning alliances.

The majority of communicators engage in telling, not listening. Listening is a tough skill, yet those who master it open many doors, by tapping into the other party’s need to be heard. It can be abused, but astute leaders use it to defer judgment, gain insights, build trust, shift positions and cultivate tradable relational equity.

Advertisers offer the worst example of one-way communication. They push without connecting as they manipulate human insecurity, inadequacy, identity or hunger.

Some leaders transcend basic communication and reach connectedness. They start to resonate with their audiences, which generates a following, not merely a response, in the form of a political constituency, brand identity, market support or loyal workers. If their style is also marked by transparency, opennness and sincerity, they are likely to transcend mere connectedness and achieve real engagement.

Many internet communicators develop sizeable audiences, but connection often lacks glue. Followers are transient, buying in for a while without deepening the relationship, because the communicator does not invite more. That is rhetorical communication involving statements that do not elicit a response other than general affirmation. It is also rewarded with closed-ended replies like, “thank you”, or “good point”, etc. Such rhetoric may present as debate, but rarely allows the debate or the relationship to deepen. To me it serves the communicator not the audience, which is self-defeating and unsustainable.

Engagement is a two-way street. It rarely involves telling, per se, other than a statement that positions their views. It is never closed-ended, but facilitates real engagement. Engagers listen, learn from others and adjust their positions through interaction.

Paul said in Ephesians 4, “Endeavor to keep the unity of the faith in the bond of peace” and later, “until we all come into the unity of the faith”. To him, real oneness was a process not an event. History assumed the sovereignty of priests, but Paul embraced a more realistic model, that induces authentic oneness through engagement. Thus we are described as a shared priesthood, a holy nation, a commonwealth of equal stakeholders sharing one destiny and heritage and that is the end to which the church aspires.

I am not advocating contention, nor did Paul. However, God communicates His own heart through contradictions that force us to search for answers. The process transforms minds and aligns hearts, to His. It is the same when we surrender dogmas and engage meaningfully to build real understanding, using open-ended styles rather than rhetoric.

My wife and I came from different backgrounds that were cast into the melting pot of marriage. Over the years we mutually adjusted to each other’s position, until we found real, not contrived oneness. That oneness provides us with a foundation for broader inclusion of meaningful leadership. That is engagement and it is just as relevant to that great melting pot we call the church, which has to engage diverse cultures and backgrounds, walk a journey together and so enable individuals to exchange personal positions for collective vision and a shared destiny.

(c) Peter Eleazar @ http://www.4u2live.net/