tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9356709412670095482024-03-13T01:05:51.309-07:00God at workBiblical reflections on the workplaceMy profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935670941267009548.post-1088791423193775502010-09-10T02:05:00.000-07:002010-09-10T02:05:23.305-07:00Socio-economic alternatives: a theocratic model founded on divine principles<div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3v5YYfJUSUAEEstO0PMInBDoOP8W5nkXA1FfS801e-Kw7PKpYnOHU863uGlblYcdaoL3Ds5VBHd4yAs4nSPbZ4c_YGfynI5p0b5BV5O5zVEOijn3ei4Cyzta28bIBlmkeUMjjgcrOQ8E/s1600/sunset+over+earth.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" ox="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3v5YYfJUSUAEEstO0PMInBDoOP8W5nkXA1FfS801e-Kw7PKpYnOHU863uGlblYcdaoL3Ds5VBHd4yAs4nSPbZ4c_YGfynI5p0b5BV5O5zVEOijn3ei4Cyzta28bIBlmkeUMjjgcrOQ8E/s200/sunset+over+earth.png" width="199" /></a> The fourth way is maybe a work in progress, something that has to emerge and defend itself, but it is God’s way. Let me explain. I explored the primary socio-economic models of socialism (which has many flaws, but is still making an unavoidable comeback) and capitalism (which has its merits but is too threatening to social and environmental order). The third way was socio-capitalism, a blend of the best of both worlds. But humans are not too good at preserving order, so don’t go looking for solutions in social models.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><hr />The original Mosaic model was the first act of constitutional government or rule of law. It satisfies all the requirements of a constitutional framework. The ten commandments were foundational principles - a constitution is otherwise expressed as a ground rule, so it satisfies that principle. A constitution is also a set of principles that informs law making as the Mosaic law also did in guiding and empowering oral traditions. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a name='more'></a>So what Moses introduced was a framework that removed the subjectivity of near-east political models. It bound all, from the least to the greatest, to one set of guiding principles, thus ensuring that if a slave was killed by a rich man he would get the same justice as a rich man killed by a slave. What a profound step forward in human history.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><hr />The Magna Carta, signed by King John in 1215, albeit reluctantly, was intended to do the same for Britain, but only three of its principles remain in law. Thankfully, Britain is held together by something stronger. Its traditions are so deeply ingrained that the institution has stood the tests of time to emerge as an envious and hallowed model of social order.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">When William Penn left for the new world as a Church of England dissenter, he did so against the background of a British state that was far from ordered or fair. So he introduced a charter that limited his own power and the power of the state, recognized all men as equal before God and defined the rights and responsibilities of all Pennsylvanians. Even Voltaire approved of that. The state was not bound or enclosed inside walls, it was held together by its internal compass, just as Moses once foresaw.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><hr />So part of ensuring what I dare to call a Theocratic model, is not to have God rule amongst us, per se, though that would be good and indeed the government shall ultimately rest of Christ’s shoulders. I discount that option because it is not currently available to us, for all the idealistic clamor for such a state. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Rather, a theocratic state is one that is bound to the laws of God, but not by way of austere and oppressive religious decrees, because that merely replaces physical walls with symbolic walls. Rather, we need a state of existence that is founded on heart-felt agreement on the principles of God’s covenant with men, held together not by rule or even by tradition, but by a covenant of hearts. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">To be continued … </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div><div class="blogger-post-footer">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935670941267009548.post-33057492071579325832010-08-13T03:23:00.000-07:002010-08-13T04:28:04.258-07:00Economic alternatives: Social-Capitalism, a possible compromise<div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifgo_PN4MGBaVo67A4HjIAVMJihvgcy8DUuPxe850rqOzGyfmBVvwOJEuBwzffk3k-ESxiEutPGDYhWtDCzNJxd8CwNl2U1x_C2O6shdafn4cRSH-aPTsuCXg1xWHhJY5N6WO-CJndVcc/s1600/officially_joint_recession_bernanke_rate_cut.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" ox="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifgo_PN4MGBaVo67A4HjIAVMJihvgcy8DUuPxe850rqOzGyfmBVvwOJEuBwzffk3k-ESxiEutPGDYhWtDCzNJxd8CwNl2U1x_C2O6shdafn4cRSH-aPTsuCXg1xWHhJY5N6WO-CJndVcc/s400/officially_joint_recession_bernanke_rate_cut.jpg" width="400" /></a>I recently explored the pros and cons of socialism and capitalism and made the point that socialism is inevitable in a global society so desperately in need on standardization. We need a uniform approach to global issues, such as the environment, poverty, disease, the economy and so on. That need is growing rapidly in the present decade, because the issues are so threatening to our collective survival. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">Because the issues have such a collective ring about them a collective response is almost unavoidable, which predicts a return to socialism. </div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">Anyway, there is a third way. I am partially inclined to it too, although I will ultimate argue in favor of a theocratic model. The third way is Social-Capitalism. One of the early economic fathers, Adam Smith, argued that socialism and capitalism do not need to be antagonist. </div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><a name='more'></a>Indeed he argued that a socialist state can benefit from the hidden hand of free market forces. Maybe an example of that is modern-day socialist China, which competes capitalistically in the global economy, a factor that is inducing all the efficiencies that are some of the best virtues of capitalism. </div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">Classical social-capitalism foresees an economic duality, with capitalism defining the tier-1 economy and socialism the tier-2 economy. It means that wealth and other considerations are no longer class distinctions, because the two tiers are defined by the degree of dependence on the state. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">I have actually seen some of this kind of model in working. Malawi is essentially a capitalist economy, although it does not work very efficiently. To offset the negatives of individualism, the government runs large collective farms that preserve national food security and employ local workforces in a reasonable symbiosis that meets a number of needs.</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">Then there is South Africa. It has an efficient first world economy, boasting some of the best banking practices in the world, outstanding communications infrastructure, a world-class resources sector and impressive industrial and service sectors that compete globally. It also has a sizeable third world economy that is not all poor, thanks to healthy entrepreneurship. The third world sector really comprises the informal economy and a large indigent population. </div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">Few countries have such stark contradictions, yet the government regulates its quasi social-capitalist economy to uplift the poor and leverage them into the economy, whilst stimulating the 1st tier of the economy, resulting in collective advantages – a stronger capital market and limited social dependency. </div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">Another example, one I will dwell on more in subsequent articles, is the Moshava or Kibbutsim model of Israel. It is internally socialist and externally capitalist. Moshava members equally share in the risks and rewards of the community and all members are equal, resulting in a rather pure form of voluntary socialism. But each Moshava competes in the economy on a capitalist basis, marketing its products and competing for markets to ensure their survival. </div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">So maybe a duality offers the best of both worlds, if the government is able and willing to play a meaningful role in balancing the forces to ensure the survival, mutuality and progress of both forms of economy. In my next article I will dip deeper into a more theocratic economic model. </div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">(c) Peter Eleazar @ <a href="http://www.4u2live.net/">http://www.4u2live.net/</a></span></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935670941267009548.post-2258667093576697562010-07-30T01:18:00.000-07:002010-08-03T03:13:22.660-07:00Economic options: Capitalism may be better than socialism, but is hardly ideal<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif-DE3gGTeMJ5gLJk8nPLJdUv3fIFCc89fKAsnefgGzB3JiVOlAlWLdWw0EZ8-yNBClLzk-Zv1FaMjlikloe3XexEm_lJ5P5aPzAne23xIed1yE-AuYaiFwCRtTFaq6Fj9JBWTWmmpwl0/s1600/capitalism_kidscomaprison.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" bx="true" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif-DE3gGTeMJ5gLJk8nPLJdUv3fIFCc89fKAsnefgGzB3JiVOlAlWLdWw0EZ8-yNBClLzk-Zv1FaMjlikloe3XexEm_lJ5P5aPzAne23xIed1yE-AuYaiFwCRtTFaq6Fj9JBWTWmmpwl0/s200/capitalism_kidscomaprison.jpg" width="200" /></a>Capitalism has dominated western thinking and significantly influenced a lot of the orient. Today nations like India, Malaysia, Korea, Taiwan and Japan are thriving capitalist states and their people are better off for it. Though China still has a socialist ideology, it has shifted to a form of socio-capitalism that has seen its economy boom, doing far more for its people than Maoism ever hoped to do. </div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">If I had to choose between socialism and capitalism, I would have to choose the former because it is more efficient and it acknowledges the dignity of the individual and teh instruments of regulation predict better governance, accountability and social responsibility. </div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">Socialism did little for the poor, except to reduce the rich to the lowest common denominator. Thus Orwellian swine, in sharing their collective wallow, remained happy as long as no extremists tried to elevate themselves above the excrement. </div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><a name='more'></a><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">A recent case in point was Zambia. Under the leadership of liberal-minded president, the late Levy Mwanawasa, the country lifted itself out of the wallow created by decades of misrule. That brought tangible reform, but only a minority had the resources to capitalize on the opportunities so created, so some rose above the masses, creating an uncomfortable dissonance. Into that discomfort stepped an opportunist who almost stole power from the ruling party, thanks to a groundswell of support from the masses, just as Hitler once did the German economy signaled the need for a champion.</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The point about Orwell’s Napoleon though, is not the hope that one would rise above the wallow to lead others to the light, but that the quagmire should so suppress the will of the people that those who do rise above it can use their advantages to oppress the downtrodden masses, leaving them all worse off than before. That, sadly reflects the worst consequences of socialism: an oligarchic monster that robbed people of their souls. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Capitalism has also had its share of victims. Something is wrong with a system that elevates 5% of the world to the 95 percentile of global wealth, whilst teeming billions suffer in poverty and oppression. Add to that the fact that the capitalist world has severely impaired the global environment, compounded by a rapidly multiplying residue that in so multiplying has devastatingly exploited the earth’s free natural resources.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">There are other dark aspects to capitalism. It has been an underlying cause for all kinds of abuses – the wars of Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan were largely sponsored by capitalist greed and oil rights. The fact that we have moved so slowly to alternative energy solutions, was largely because fossil fuels were still such a lucrative cash cow. The global roll-out of social and environmentally unfriendly products also disintegrated family life, aggravated social welfare dependency and escalated global organized crime. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Unfortunately the biggest concern now is that capitalism represents the greatest single impediment to global reform. In the face of paralyzing serious and survival threatening issues like pandemic diseases, the state of the environment, destabilization of the earth’s crust, global economic recession and a myriad other significant socio-political problems, the world will have no option by to change direction … which is seeding the emergence of new world order, and at the head of it, the darkest of all champions. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</span></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935670941267009548.post-15035720983781339342010-07-14T05:23:00.000-07:002010-07-29T23:05:15.236-07:00Economic options: If global issues need better coordination, is socialism an option?<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiG4-T66JTTcgszEZSnYNtgtvGuc0WuVbBuOvzAFb_Y4xG-FR32IkeU342GUIicNQqviN0Q70f333OzXQRrV603w_0qeLV89dfZDajiVNQ1Bs_x4NHrIzPqYP8qUd7q2K5j1sQZ6jDBtIXj/s1600/socialism.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" rw="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiG4-T66JTTcgszEZSnYNtgtvGuc0WuVbBuOvzAFb_Y4xG-FR32IkeU342GUIicNQqviN0Q70f333OzXQRrV603w_0qeLV89dfZDajiVNQ1Bs_x4NHrIzPqYP8qUd7q2K5j1sQZ6jDBtIXj/s320/socialism.png" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;">There are two major socio-economic themes: socialism and capitalism. Both have pros and cons, but the pros that work such models and exploit whatever advantage they can, are the root cause for most of the cons that now fill our jails. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Socialism has faltered in recent years, but if you put yourself in the shoes of the small cluster of concerned global citizens who have the capacity and resources to influence the future of our planet, you will understand why it is on the way back. The enlightened elite are exceptionally capable and thus, by implication, surpassingly wealthy. I doubt if they even care for wealth anymore as their wealth has no relative benchmark. Rather, their identity vests in their power and the way they can use that power to shape the world. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;">Are they dark minded? Sure they are, so is our more familiar political and business context, who are coordinated and influenced by a power apex. At local, regional and industry level, chambers of commerce and other organisations help to coordinate and protect their collective interests, but they, in turn, submit to global mechanisms. That coordinating elite must reevaluate socialism. How else will they resolve painful issues – like the decimation of rain forests, the demise of rare species, global warming, emission standards and world economic recession? Indeed, many states are already cosignatories to global treaties that translate into national laws. That is how the world is organized. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Global levels of crime and other social deviations like drug or people trafficking, terrorism and environmental crimes, will all need to be better coordinated if we ever hope to stabilize the civilization of humanity. So, a purely pragmatic, non-emotive observation, on my part, suggests that the use of biographical identities and other controlling mechanisms, is inevitable. That would also enable a new world order to coordinate scarce resources and eliminate the forces or tensions that pose the greatest risk to our planet. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In a subsequent post I will explore capitalism and then extend the debate to alternatives, including a theocratic model, but for now stick with me. I am not lauding socialism – it persecuted Christians and propped up a dark, despotic oligarchy of atheistic leaders who brought this world to the brink of self-destruction. Even now the likes of Kim Yong Il of North Korea, the Military Government of Myanmar, or the corrupt leadership of Robert Mugabe, remind us of how bad things can be under a non-democratic, central power. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">However, socialism does have its merits. It tries to remove the disparities between rich and poor and, where voluntary socialism has evolved, as in the Israeli Kibutzim system, it has become a major cornerstone of economic progress. In some African states, collective government farms help preserve food security, whilst reduce the wastefulness of subsistence farming, through a tradeoff that brings work and dignity to ordinary people. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">However, when the coordination implied in such systems becomes a power elite, it devolves into the most despotic of all systems. To me the biggest downside of socialism was that it eroded self-realization and the incentive for entrepreneurship, resulting in a depressed, over-militarized and policed state. Most of all, it proved to be ungodly.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">What do you think? </div><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</span><div class="blogger-post-footer">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935670941267009548.post-61521528369778406472010-07-09T06:15:00.000-07:002010-09-16T01:19:50.069-07:00Economic options: To survive, either we stand together or fall as individuals<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTrtAm2rBdrjM9ldpmj1EJHvqSyn7N5ImdyEEPnshMWa9XoiBCWIPg9GRdkSDlDSBPCK_4r_11xfNJC6Lp6bIzagwHE4ElmqCxbLdBgax6tV79CSlphf9sSmyNg5RkJ2rbkPWEho0vZyS0/s1600/faith.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="199" ru="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTrtAm2rBdrjM9ldpmj1EJHvqSyn7N5ImdyEEPnshMWa9XoiBCWIPg9GRdkSDlDSBPCK_4r_11xfNJC6Lp6bIzagwHE4ElmqCxbLdBgax6tV79CSlphf9sSmyNg5RkJ2rbkPWEho0vZyS0/s200/faith.gif" width="200" /></a></div>Many years ago a Californian purchased London Bridge and shipped it all home, so he could preserve something of London’s history. Others, envious of the traditions and pageantry of the British monarchy, have tried to invent their own dynasties, calling themselves things like “William Gates III”. I too marvel at the richness of their traditions and the grandeur of their ancient places. But, whether we like it or not, it simply takes a long time to create something so rich. America has only had less than 250 years to build its own traditions. It has done well – its military pride, constitution and other great traditions are rich indeed, but Britain has been at it for two millennia and has long since perfected it.<br />
<br />
That ends my introduction to a new leadership series: Economic alternatives. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong></strong>The Queen can trace her line back about a thousand years, but Israel has had kings dating back four thousand years. Many of her ancient buildings still stand, having endured wars and tumults, the comings and going of empires and the rise and fall of nations. That certainly binds the nation together and as such her people will not give an inch of their hard-won legacy for a grain of cheap peace. Peace for the Jew was never about absence of war, but the presence of a God-given identity. <br />
<a name='more'></a>The Brits on the other hand can only stumble in awe at the thought of Jewish history.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Beyond the borders of Israel, the Diaspora are held together as they always were, by strong cultural traditions. Wherever Jews were scattered, they restored their traditions: the unseen walls that separated them from the rest of humanity more effectively than ghetto walls could ever do, resulting in the most enduring culture of history.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Muslims also have a strong culture.</strong> Like the Jews, they look out for each other, observe regular liturgical gatherings and redistribute their resources. They also dignify their faith with conservative dress codes and other symbols. For all the negatives that westerners observe from afar off, Muslims and Jews are sustained by strong chords.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Unfortunately, little of that is true for Christians.</strong> Though we have had two thousand years to forge a unifying culture, and though we have enough history behind us, Christians are culturally poor. Oh sure, most of us observe Christmas and Easter, but we have allowed commercialism to co-opt all of that and transform it into a hedonistic farce. And yes, some Christians observe lent and dignify other holy seasons, but generally our Holy days are neither ordained of God, nor universally embraced and our value systems have been hopelessly compromised by social influences.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>A lot of our differences are a cultural phenomenon, the result of the progressive revelation that has slowly defined the church and her place in the world.</strong> However, there is no excuse for our lack of ethos. We generally don’t care for each other and often harm each other in market places, churches and other social exchanges. We readily do charitable things for the poor and downtrodden, but in so doing we end up serving the social role that society has imposed on us. Yet, we are so uncharitable to our own.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Forgive me for being harsh, but what worries me is that our lack of a unifying ethos, value system, cultural norms, festival calendar or a commonwealth of souls, has reduced us to a scattered heterogeneity that is far too vulnerable to the troubles coming on the world. How will we endure and rise above coming crises unless we regroup and redefine our culture or build upon the solid foundations of our faith? <strong>I am not being critical for the sake of criticism, but because I see trouble coming and fear that we are so ill equipped for that.</strong> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">What do you think? </div><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</span><div class="blogger-post-footer">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935670941267009548.post-18989793823266684022010-07-09T04:06:00.000-07:002010-07-29T23:06:24.475-07:00Exchange theory of leadership: us vs them<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFSjRRqFBO7KDdrg7jYhQ_jD9wfm4X9ZmdniDx1JeqLNDFyVuGXp8hQZO1PCtJfAhyphenhyphenCROGGo90OGqIh5O_eNJnkJ0Kgz6eQluljQi1PHCjIwJQYyQ_jqMNT_Y4WU7rIkBV2GF0R4h0dJE/s1600/flying+in+formation.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" rw="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFSjRRqFBO7KDdrg7jYhQ_jD9wfm4X9ZmdniDx1JeqLNDFyVuGXp8hQZO1PCtJfAhyphenhyphenCROGGo90OGqIh5O_eNJnkJ0Kgz6eQluljQi1PHCjIwJQYyQ_jqMNT_Y4WU7rIkBV2GF0R4h0dJE/s200/flying+in+formation.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I recently listened to a retiring radio show host describe his years in the business. He used the opportunity to tell the untold story of internal shenanigans and even chose to name names. He was also resentful of the series of events that once catapulted him to the top of his game. His bitterness was expressed as something that would stick in his crawl for the rest of his days. Yet the move to a station recently acquired by his employer was only mismanaged, whilst his career benefited immensely. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The presenter went on to describe how the new station thrived under his influence and went to great lengths to describe how “his ideas” had boosted their ratings. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">To be honest I felt nauseas as I listened to a large ego berate employers for decisions that were good for shareholders and which also gave him such a great break, but I almost gagged when he boasted of his personal achievements. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a name='more'></a>Sadly, I have seen this same kind of ego-centrism in all walks of life. Indeed, many leadership commentators seem locked into the idea that the leader is the crux of success. I do not agree. I give limited currency to leaders, per se, but hallow the principle of leadership. Biblical leadership was not supposed to be centered around individuals, but around the greatest stakeholder in the kingdom venture, God Himself. It never was about us or any other individual – it is about Him and the head of the church, Christ Jesus. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">On occasions I have found exceptional leaders who led without being visible. They denounced public platforms or anything that would elevate themselves, choosing rather to work behind the scenes. When asked why their organisations were successful, they typically deferred to the team and turned the attention away from themselves. Churches so run, have the unmistakable evidence of Christ in their midst. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The idea of invisible, team-centric leadership is not pie-in-the-sky. Jim Collins wrote a globally respected book on Good to Great Leadership that celebrates that very position. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I am wary of being contentious, but I must say that there is no biblical precedence for a pastor-leader church model. The only model articulated by Paul was eldership – not senior or leading elder versus other elders, just simply elders. Personally I hate titles, but I also believe that real leadership is about creating leaders, not followers. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I have submitted to elder-led churches, but once presented a seminar at a large Baptist church, which had three mutually co-dependent leaders. Each had a different but complementary skills set that gave the congregation a sense of security – as such, because no individual was elevated but, because the leadership had a collective stature, internal conflict was also minimized and the three were mutually accountable to each other. The model was very analogous to the way geese fly in formation, where a leader is merely a role amongst roles and such roles are interchangeable and self-balancing. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I will explore these ideas further in subsequent posts, but I have said enough to provoke a debate – what are your views on these issues? </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">(c) Peter Eleazar @ <a href="http://www.4u2live.net/">http://www.4u2live.net/</a></span></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935670941267009548.post-29973720425183860782010-07-01T04:31:00.000-07:002010-08-12T04:22:47.621-07:00Exchange theory of leadership: all for one, one for all<div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-CJJAe5nfVxSxInDjcWX82WeCemtHkQcR90rgyHpsk77kinujdj6VosmH4nXnyGWS6iQ9-nMY-1CRS2vy-x0R9bWoEarq6bO_R7Q98ypG9kdQuVvJgbxaiayB2Wxny7SyOwm5IAet894/s1600/all+4+one.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="188" rw="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-CJJAe5nfVxSxInDjcWX82WeCemtHkQcR90rgyHpsk77kinujdj6VosmH4nXnyGWS6iQ9-nMY-1CRS2vy-x0R9bWoEarq6bO_R7Q98ypG9kdQuVvJgbxaiayB2Wxny7SyOwm5IAet894/s200/all+4+one.gif" width="200" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;">We all so readily confess that Jesus is the head of the church, but in practice it is rarely so. I have found very, very few contexts that give practical expression to that idea.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">A friend spoke of their church being without a leader, because Jesus is their leader. That is commendable, but potentially risky. The truth is that leadership and authority is a serious issue to God. Many of our greatest issues stem from a clash of interest between God’s position on authority and the consequential resentment of followers. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Either way we lose if we don’t get a balanced perspective on leadership. Many churches have been suppressed by self-centered leaders, whilst others have been impoverished by lack of leadership, but far too many individuals are in wilderness places because they could not connect with leadership at all. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;">That presents the church with a significant dilemma. Empirically, we cannot defend a dominant-leadership model. I happily concede that good, even great leaders have come and gone, but that was as true of ancient, biblical Israel. Aside from David, Josiah and Hezekiah, Israel suffered a rotten bunch of leaders who led them all astray. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The greatest indictment against sovereign-leadership models was that Israel’s need for a king amounted to a rejection of God. Sovereign-leadership has no New Testament pretext, rather it stems from Catholicism and clergy-laity practices.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">God’s model is more about leadership than leaders. Individuals are of little consequence to the kingdom. If Moses and others had to step aside, modern leaders are as dispensable. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Biblical leadership is plural. Biblical leaders did not operate alone, but they also respected the balance between the pillars of Biblical society, notably Prophets, Priests and Kings. Modern democracies and public companies also honor divisions of power and the related checks and balances. So, why then is the church at odds with a biblical idea that still works in civil society to ensure accountability and limit leadership excesses? </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Until individuals matter less than the whole, we will never know the full implications of Christ’s headship. That is partly because the church was made for its members, not for its leaders. Leaders are, at best, midwives of the emerging church. The proof of that is in Ephesians 4, which says, “(the ministries) must continue until we all come into the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man”. Thus, church is not about organisation and the careers of professional priests, for leadership is a stewardship function designed to facilitate the emergence of a believer-priesthood. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Leaders are vital to church governance, but if they were plural and mutually balanced, there would be fewer conflicts of interest. It would also ensure real stewardship. Further, if individuals deferred to the greater thing that God is doing, individual members would be more effective in doing what they were designed to do. If that happened, we would see Christ revealed through the church and hear the shout of His kingship amongst us. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">(c) Peter Eleazar @ <a href="http://www.4u2live.net/">http://www.4u2live.net/</a></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Image source: <a href="http://revsmilez.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/arms-and-legs-by-quasimondo.jpeg">http://revsmilez.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/arms-and-legs-by-quasimondo.jpeg</a></span></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935670941267009548.post-4409090512062160942010-06-21T05:03:00.000-07:002010-06-21T05:08:42.733-07:00Exchange theory of leadership: push vs pull<div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsC4AuqcpZS02H1l5UJ1x66CiCOCgr2r-kiMse9HEa_ogTfxeS-eZ3OvFcH58nB19X-FUccv6pKXGg0wXIOpVN8igQkY-pkm25KUY-5V8eNUNL9PnChrjLeKVZBzipo5aCrBNUQQvcbvw/s1600/sailboat_on_ocean.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" ru="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsC4AuqcpZS02H1l5UJ1x66CiCOCgr2r-kiMse9HEa_ogTfxeS-eZ3OvFcH58nB19X-FUccv6pKXGg0wXIOpVN8igQkY-pkm25KUY-5V8eNUNL9PnChrjLeKVZBzipo5aCrBNUQQvcbvw/s320/sailboat_on_ocean.jpg" /></a>Contemporary leadership theory is substantially about driving. It presupposes that the energy of the leader can energize the organisation, whether that energy is nervous, vital or passionate. The bible does not support that perspective. </div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">In Romans 8, Paul compares the leading of the flesh to the leading of the Spirit. The former refers to carnal or hedonistic pursuits, including drivers like instinct, nervous energy or the ego. Such forces do drive behavior, the way that empires were built around the impulse of great leaders. Unfortunately, whatever they built failed to stand up to another, irresistibly greater force. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><a name='more'></a>In 1 Corinthians 3 Paul compared wood, hay and stubble with gold, silver and precious stones. He argues that building with either will be tried by fire – a metaphor for human struggle. Gold, silver and precious stones will stand as they are all products of great heat, will stand, but wood, hay and stubble will be consumed. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Sailing illustrates these points. A sail set to capture a tail wind, exploits the brute force of the wind, but that is rarely where sailing comes into its own, for tailwinds are transient. It takes more skill to tack the boat across the wind and trim the sail so that the wind can pull the boat along. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The aerodynamic principle involved is analogous to being led by the Spirit, for good leadership of our own lives and the lives we influence is more about tapping into the compelling energy of God. His creative will formed the earth, drew history towards the climax of Calvary and now draws this age to its own climax. That same energy founded the church and sustained it, as kingdoms came and went and empires rose or fell. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Leaders who harness that force and shape their followers to engage the forward momentum of God’s kingdom, will build on rock and use gold, silver and precious stone to achieve outcomes that will transcend the course of humanity or history. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Time and again I see leaders sweating and toiling to build churches, organisations or their personal legacies, but that will never compare with the unforced approach of Jesus who built the church on relationships not resources, shepherding not cow-herding, humility not grandstanding, drawing not shoving, and discipleship not instruction. He single-mindedly built according to the patterns received from His Father, as Moses did when he descended Mount Horeb. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Part of my argument relates to the need for individuals to respect that the organisation is always bigger than the individual and is endowed with a life and momentum of its own. It pays to engage that and not work against it. I once had a boss who insisted that his department should be guided by market share, whilst I insisted that it be guided by the need and stimulus of the organisation. I argued so, because I believe in stewardship and the value of the whole, the team. However, there will always be those who believe that leadership is more about individualism and heroism – which, sadly, has hurt many lesser and greater leaders, including giants like Moses and David. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</span></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935670941267009548.post-21694841887811833802010-06-14T05:33:00.000-07:002010-08-12T04:23:11.018-07:00Exchange theory of leadership: enable vs control<div style="text-align: justify;">The sons of Korah comprised a praise choir, established by King David. They wrote the famous words, “I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of God than enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season”. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLihP91iD9k1NzrYimpd6KQt3p6u1N3x00v1FKjZKKLLSVESwA1dGC94thcRbLlNdyFLe936Bubk_DfUdwtVQnCypYQgiF6V00aQ4NFkI_BaqRKVieTYEvvSuLpUWmGCT6k9V1sXZbhx0/s1600/battlements.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="133" qu="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLihP91iD9k1NzrYimpd6KQt3p6u1N3x00v1FKjZKKLLSVESwA1dGC94thcRbLlNdyFLe936Bubk_DfUdwtVQnCypYQgiF6V00aQ4NFkI_BaqRKVieTYEvvSuLpUWmGCT6k9V1sXZbhx0/s200/battlements.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I got to thinking how relevant that was. Were they choosing the least of all kingdom roles? Were they demeaning themselves? Were they accepting the worst that the Kingdom of God could offer in exchange for the best that a corrupt world could offer?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Well let’s think about what it means to be a gatekeeper as that may inform our response. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">A gatekeeper defends his city … should a good leader not defend kingdom values, the integrity of a kingdom culture, the authority of God’s word and the deity of Christ?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a name='more'></a>A gatekeeper enables the city to do what it does best … the way that good leaders enable followers to find their own rhythms and fulfill their own callings, because they should be able to do what needs to be done, better than the leader can do. Thus a good leader should preserve the framework or context that maximizes organizational effectiveness. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">A gatekeeper patrols the boundaries … the way a leader should define the patterns and doctrinal parameters of the church. People need such clarity, lest they go astray, but a church with good ground-rules is inevitably also a contented, fulfilled church.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">A gatekeeper mans the gates … the way a good leader should decide which influences flow into church life and which expressions flow back into the world. He also wards off distractions that will cause a group to deviate from its primary goals, whilst protecting the team from undue pressures and demands from outside. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">A gatekeeper is vigilant, watching for trouble … the way any good leader should be astute and perceptive enough to see coming threats and the impact of what is happening beyond the walls. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">A gatekeeper regulates who comes and goes … the way a good leader should regulate and not impose. Regulation is merely about making relevant adjustments to the rate of flow or to the degrees of emphasis in the church. Managers direct, but leaders manage exceptions, without imposing their own character on what is, after all, the image of Christ.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">A gatekeeper is first to arms … they rotate their watches day and night and are always in the line of attack, just as any good leader must be willing to ultimately risk all, including their popularity, position or life, for the sheep. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">A gatekeeper never sleeps … unlike the time when I was caught sleeping on guard duty. Good leaders are also ever alert to what is happening, what God is doing and how the church is being influenced by the parade of life. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">So, with just a few ideas I have sketched something that casts gate-keeping into a very noble role. Now I ask … would you a gatekeeper be? Or do you think a directive approach to leadership still has relevance? </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">(c) Peter Eleazar @ </span><a href="http://www.4u2live.net/"><span style="font-size: x-small;">www.4u2live.net</span></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="blogger-post-footer">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935670941267009548.post-52683577543633095102010-06-09T22:37:00.000-07:002010-08-12T04:23:30.067-07:00Exchange theory of leadership: authenticity for genuine followership<div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_hFNE7RGPS4wYDq2qQEiq56EMHH3j2JtqPFLfXaEqI4vbyu7JOctStg04T54f_YYOQ-CbrNsK12RNF8brRBx3CxoRjLptgHI67pk301dyEJwt8uKiYFMnuVpQmVoEcmzxZf-DAa6hgJY/s1600/schwab.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: right; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="159" qu="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_hFNE7RGPS4wYDq2qQEiq56EMHH3j2JtqPFLfXaEqI4vbyu7JOctStg04T54f_YYOQ-CbrNsK12RNF8brRBx3CxoRjLptgHI67pk301dyEJwt8uKiYFMnuVpQmVoEcmzxZf-DAa6hgJY/s200/schwab.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">I am sure you have had one of those horrible moments when someone smiled at you, briefly lit up your heart and then replaced the smile with a cynical smirk. It’s worse than a smirk on its own, because our instinct is to warm to a smile so by the time the smirk comes we will have smiled back, only to then be shamed by their real motive.</div></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Many marketers do the same thing, throwing out the welcome mat and then turning on us with all the coldness they can muster as soon as it becomes evident that we are not bankable. That is so dumb, because prospects could so easily on-refer the firm and its products, based on positive experiences. They could also have a subsequent rethink or a change of circumstances that would bring them back into the market.</div></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
<a name='more'></a>When I was in the army, a sergeant spent some time in our tent just chatting warmly to us. Later I saw him again in the mess hall and I greeted him warmly, which embarrassed him in front of his peers. He pulled me aside and threatened my life if I ever dared to be so familiar again. I know I overstepped the mark, but he created the expectations. Though I respected his need to manage boundaries, his approach was about self preservation. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Charles Schwab, whose management style formed the basis of my Master’s thesis, is renowned for his warmth. Its not just in his heartbeat, it is also plastered all over his warm, handsome face, which belies a personal struggle against dyslexia. Schwab built a network, which at one time processed more dollars than any other financial services firm in America, yet the firm only “owned” one thing – a fiercely loyal customer base. That gave him a very tradable currency with which to leverage superior products from third party product companies and superior referrals from independent financial advisers. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Schwab said, “My ability to arouse enthusiasm in employees is my greatest asset. The way to develop the best in someone is by appreciation and encouragement. Nothing kills ambition like criticism from one’s superiors. I never criticize anyone. I believe in giving people the incentive to work. So I am anxious to praise, but loathe to find fault.” </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Now, there is a man whose smile stays there. His authentic leadership style is worth its weight in gold. Neil Cole said it well: "Today authenticity is valued more than excellence. People have found that it is possible to have excellence yet not be real." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I have known many times when leaders have generated certain expectations and aroused interest only to then stumble at the first pass, failing even in the most basic test of the relationship. Maybe that is why I find no problem in shaking things up a little to test how real a relationship is, before investing my hopes and energies any further. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">You can theorise about leadership until the cows come home, but successful leadership is always about relationships and relationships still rely, even in this cold age, on human touch. That is why authenticity will always separate great leaders from the also-rans.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</span></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935670941267009548.post-29438203434703866752010-06-09T00:23:00.000-07:002010-06-11T02:45:24.546-07:00Exchange theory of leadership: right way vs wrong<div style="text-align: justify;">The idea of building walls, as Nehemiah did, describes repentance. However, repentance in western thought is an event, whilst for the Jews it described a journey or process. Thus, in leaving Babylon and heading for the burnt out mound of Zion, Nehemiah enacted repentance. The entire journey, including the building of the walls reflected a determined turnaround and commitment to a new future. Just as Israel once did at Gilgal and Jacob did at Mizpah, Nehemiah drew a line, stone by stone, to define his point of departure.<br />
<br />
We understand repentance as an act of turning around, but do we apply that to leadership. I have quoted before that we cannot expect a different outcome whilst persisting in the same things. Well that describes repentance. If you want something to change in terms of outcomes, change your inputs, review your methods and redirect your energies. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCkblMVjdTiuXiA9xmCot_T_uCoCoY8A_7M84wcRr3initY0kdBUuJRPyZp3Z_uhRWvayckZ1qmUZNhlypvVTQdvjajThyphenhyphenkPjuZ47cKOtIato12rl8ydTdgvftQ8mnWv5or7qzkP_777o/s1600/stoneMound.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; cssfloat: right; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" qu="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCkblMVjdTiuXiA9xmCot_T_uCoCoY8A_7M84wcRr3initY0kdBUuJRPyZp3Z_uhRWvayckZ1qmUZNhlypvVTQdvjajThyphenhyphenkPjuZ47cKOtIato12rl8ydTdgvftQ8mnWv5or7qzkP_777o/s320/stoneMound.jpg" /></a></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">This is possibly one of the defining roles of leadership. A leader will often sense the need for change and see what that change should look like, because the very fact that they are in leadership, implies a certain perspective. Followers generally lack perspective and tend to follow their own emphases, but a good leader develops a sense of new direction through consultation, listening, praying, reflection and the voice of many counselors. </div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div>The mandate to move in a new direction is either enshrined in the leader’s terms of reference or in a prophetic impulse or it is a response to some stimulus – changing demographics, declining performance, new threats, a shifting environment, etc. When God wanted Israel to change, He also stimulated various aspects of their environment, speaking through prophets, discomfort, warnings, preludes to disaster, etc. <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Had the kings of old been sensitive to their God, they would have responded and led their people through change. Hezekiah did just that, as did others. Their zeal saw the dismantling of high places and a return to divine order, but too many leaders (I suspect the ratios are no different today), chose to ignore the megaphone of God that spoke into their deaf worlds. Great tragedy followed as God’s people fell to their enemies. <br />
<br />
So when Nehemiah started building his wall, he made a clear statement to his gainsayers and his motley followers – “We are going that way and will not be deterred from our objectives. We will not turn back from what God has called us to do.”<br />
<br />
That is leadership 101. It is almost always fraught with gainsaying. For numerous reasons, critics will question what is happening – such is life. Leaders should expect no less, but they must act in the spirit of repentance, by persisting until the change process has run its course. I am not suggesting bull-headedness. It’s a stupid leader who does not consult or include others, for how else can we win support for a new initiative and how can we have any certainty about the veracity of our decisions? <br />
<br />
I am merely saying, on the assumption that the process is inclusive, that a leader has the tough task of pushing until change becomes reality – that may be the limit of his role, for it is not what he says, but what they do that ultimately matters. Thus leadership is a vital, albeit limited role (not a title or position), which clarifies and redirects through the process of wall building.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</span></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935670941267009548.post-85805559774719453112010-06-05T23:50:00.000-07:002010-06-11T02:46:32.448-07:00Exchange theory of leadership: advance vs regression<div style="text-align: justify;">Ice must first thaw to water before it can turn to steam and if a pot of water has even a small block of ice in it, it will not come to the boil or even attempt to come to the boil, until that last block of ice has thawed. Similarly, a tree will not produce fruit in its first few years. It must first establish roots, achieve height and spread its branches. Once the framework is sound enough to support the longer-term objectives, it will bear fruit. <strong>Well, do you think similar principles apply to leadership?</strong></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><strong>Nehemiah could not start building until he had established a framework on which to build.</strong> He understood the need for the priesthood and civil comforts, but none of that could happen without the walls. Good organisation had to lay the foundations of their future and that meant a new social contract and a new model or way of doing things. </div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghzC0A_vc2308wP4TVO3v8PX8jW_-fk3tDz6oHgsATmaL-MUPlrfq95g-kmThTxyDKmnGNDLJSUDI2soYL9YIvY3XdJU7kSHcJ08Bg9j0zJFAQD8Sc-JTZdGwrgHQf219R0W8wFOGHvKU/s1600/FruitTree1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" gu="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghzC0A_vc2308wP4TVO3v8PX8jW_-fk3tDz6oHgsATmaL-MUPlrfq95g-kmThTxyDKmnGNDLJSUDI2soYL9YIvY3XdJU7kSHcJ08Bg9j0zJFAQD8Sc-JTZdGwrgHQf219R0W8wFOGHvKU/s320/FruitTree1.jpg" /></a><strong>The walls were for more than mere protection.</strong> They gave the people a center. They also symbolized their restoration and gave them a beacon of hope, whilst sending a very clear, unambiguous statement of intent to their detractors. </div></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Someone recently described a prophetic picture of a bird flying backwards, and added that if we are going on with God, we must turn around and face that future, move into it with conviction and never look back. When Israel crossed the Jordan they heaped up stones as a reminder that they had left their past, with all its wanderings and related struggles, behind them. When Jacob returned to Shechem, he set up a pillar of stones as a sign that he would never go back to what he had left, but also as a sign to his past that it would never be a feature of his future. </div></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong><a name='more'></a><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Good leadership must involve similar walls or heaps</div></strong>, to separate us from the past and make a fresh start. “Unless the call is clear, how will the people know to follow”, stated Solomon. Well, when leaders take their people into a new way, they too dare not look back or allow the past to define the future. People like to hold onto the past for reasons of security and sentiment, but they dare not stay there else they will simply not progress. </div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">I am not alluding to the lessons or legacies of the past. Of course we learn from what went before and we honor the examples left to us the way Nehemiah built on their heritage: teh ancient mound of Jebus. However, to build into the future we must create a new wineskin if we ever hope to contain new wine. We need walls so we can move forward without watching our backs. </div></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><strong>Help me here.</strong> Many would argue for the need to breakdown walls, but that may have a different connotation. What do you think? Can we progress without first building walls and should the framework precede other things like relationships, functions and so on? </div></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">(c) Peter Eleazar @ <a href="http://www.4u2live.net/">http://www.4u2live.net/</a></span></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Image courtesy of: http://www.socialearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/FruitTree1.jpg</span></div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935670941267009548.post-84713154399267195072010-06-04T01:55:00.000-07:002010-06-11T02:47:01.848-07:00Exhange theory: New for oldI have been making a point in recent blogs about how the building of walls relates to leadership. One of the most biblical arguments for this is the parable of Jesus, about the wineskins. He argued that you cannot put new wine into an old wine skin.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsepKyPohw830j1v91-9dIxDTCmfQDhVbJ0Y4ksYaEx_-y6PentAjrrW_llMmxFo4CP_bRBsnqbY9gmwWDIbyw1ynIgMZWNgpiXXMEL5lx5dLJK0wTH4j1kCKAtbLULH37hlLcd32obGs/s1600/rural+scene.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" gu="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsepKyPohw830j1v91-9dIxDTCmfQDhVbJ0Y4ksYaEx_-y6PentAjrrW_llMmxFo4CP_bRBsnqbY9gmwWDIbyw1ynIgMZWNgpiXXMEL5lx5dLJK0wTH4j1kCKAtbLULH37hlLcd32obGs/s320/rural+scene.jpg" /></a>Someone once asked, “How can you continue doing the same thing and still expect a different outcome?” That is what Jesus implied. He was of course referring to the kingdom of God, but the implication was that the weight of revelation would strain old models and established worldviews. It needed to be contained in a new fabric, lest it burst. I suggest we are facing similar painful transitions in this era. <br />
<br />
The transition from an Old Testament law-based religion to a New Testament faith and grace model was disruptive, though nothing new. Before he could start building the heart and soul of the post-exilic community, Nehemiah first built walls to separate the remnant of Israel from external influences and gainsaying. He had to change the outer fabric or framework, before trying to build the heart and soul. <br />
<br />
The point about Nehemiah’s approach was that structure preceded function. It was true of Moses too, who first had to acquire divine patterns in the mount, and implement those patterns, before he could institute the priesthood. <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>I so often see churches trying to sustain some form of status quo, holding on to what has been. I see that play out in the corporate world too, but the influence of stakeholders is more direct and robust, so change does tend to happen more readily – that said, many firms found it very difficult to adapt to recent economic shifts, preferring to live in denial. Others are ignoring broader mega trends and slowly falling behind. <br />
<br />
Today the church stands at a crossroads. The world is becoming increasingly hostile to our posture and it is also becoming tougher to sustain congregations. Some are responding to a changing world by becoming contemporary, but that merely papers over the cracks, whilst doing nothing for the underlying fabric or model – thus we cannot expect a different outcome. Indeed, one of the underlying motives of such trends is the need for popular leaders to protect their power bases and sustain their platforms. Unfortunately, as in Jesus time, we may find many so busy holding on to what they have that they may in be offended by the essence and heart of the faith, Christ our King.<br />
<br />
Many other churches are responding by shifting to various levels of organic church life, which is both biblical and better equipped to endure coming contradictions. Ironically, the corporate world is also becoming more organic, with matrix organisations and networked firms. Individuals are also connecting via social networks. <br />
<br />
However, to get there, we must review our framework. We must also be biblical, for therein is our equivalent of Nehemiah’s royal seals, and we must restore our ancient ruins for that is what Isaiah 61 says will be our end of the age mandate. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">(c) Peter Eleazar @ </span><a href="http://www.4u2live.net/"><span style="font-size: x-small;">www.4u2live.net</span></a> <br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Image source: bradbeaman.wordpress.com/</span><div class="blogger-post-footer">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935670941267009548.post-62194886466305312362010-06-01T00:18:00.000-07:002010-06-11T02:47:27.648-07:00Exchange theory of leadership: building walls<div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I wrote a blog yesterday relating to the walls that Nehemiah built and how that experience relates to everyday human crisis or crisis recovery. However, it is also a useful metaphor for work-life.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The leadership series relating to the exchanges that take place between leaders and their followers also has relevance here. One of the great things a leader does is to build walls. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigDQ_8UaOecyEkeNc2czFVz_Ran3N8Yi_HUDxO78CK7gAOV3dPqAI-IQmkhIoxZICDSDCQ9B5pmBGHpx_zfcaqQOUQvqDUAV3NfRJLDQbD13gP-ORaVGhGoyZKiOW_qFKAv-UypQiZ9AQ/s1600/dubrovnik_city_walls.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" gu="true" height="143" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigDQ_8UaOecyEkeNc2czFVz_Ran3N8Yi_HUDxO78CK7gAOV3dPqAI-IQmkhIoxZICDSDCQ9B5pmBGHpx_zfcaqQOUQvqDUAV3NfRJLDQbD13gP-ORaVGhGoyZKiOW_qFKAv-UypQiZ9AQ/s200/dubrovnik_city_walls.jpg" width="200" /></a>When a leader takes up a new role, there will always be gainsayers like Sanbalat, notwithstanding the seals of the king (management), the favor of God and the resources placed at our disposal (the king's forest and quarries). Gainsayers stalk corridors and market places, looking for ways to vent their personal identity crises against emerging leaders. The reason socialism or collectivism worked at all is thanks to a human need to reduce everyone around us to a common level of misery. However, it also happens in the first world, albeit with a degree of subtlety. Indeed marketing works because we tend to manage our identities through symbols, like visibility, posturing, cars, houses and other meaningless tokens.</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><a name='more'></a>Emerging leaders also face rearguard struggles against organizational uncertainties, doubts, the insecurity of their workers and the fact that their roles are always under scrutiny. Initially, their followers are also comparable to the bedraggled bunch of post-exilic souls that returned to the burnt out ruins of Jerusalem. </div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">So, the first role of the leader is to build walls. For Nehemiah that was necessary because without walls they really could not tackle other projects as long as they remained vulnerable to attack. The walls also gave them a symbolic centre, a rallying point for their aspirations and dreams, and an identity. Of course the greatest reason was that the walls laid foundations for their long term recovery and symbolized real progress.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The African Lion is immensely powerful but limited, because his intimidating presence is not for hunting or other pride activities, but to ward off challengers. They are wall builders, who spend every day patrolling the pride “walls” and marking their territory, so that the pride can survive and get on with what it does best. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In the same way, leaders must build walls, to provide a vital refuge for their followers so that they can get on with what they need to do, but also so that they can trade on the emerging stature and identity of those walls. The leader’s role is not to do, but to defend and instill the means to do – to create opportunities, empower people and “lead” them to do what they do best. Equally important is his value in keeping them within the pride boundaries, so that they don’t stray from their collective objectives or lose their way. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The exchange aspect comes in when, like the African Lion, the leader must defend followers from outside interference, distractions, pressures and threats – even to the point of laying his own wellbeing on the line. Leaders meaningfully exchange when they trade protection and empowerment, for the commitment and initiative of their followers - a reasonable exchange.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</span></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935670941267009548.post-50740362697327254512010-05-28T00:52:00.000-07:002010-06-11T02:47:51.718-07:00Exchange theory of leadership: communication<div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;">A view of leadership is that we must sustain a certain image of confidence and competence. To me that is more of a hygiene factor than a defining factor. A sloppy, ineffectual person is not a leader to himself, so how can he lead others, but the maintenance of a certain image is not the preserve of leaders – if it were so, then Churchill, a depressed chain-smoker and drinker, would never have been a great leader. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZ9RGG8tz61ngQV-nT00bax8KGUMv4xbjqcbIhv2VxDTiF-B-MmLNsAAspgaBb7rkXd-Cxutkai2tdZ-lNj1RfuVrX9pBMzo4aE3FZ2OcjE47mjWeJ7RxCTCyVZCA4-qydp3aWm8TztpI/s1600/cross-roads.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" gu="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZ9RGG8tz61ngQV-nT00bax8KGUMv4xbjqcbIhv2VxDTiF-B-MmLNsAAspgaBb7rkXd-Cxutkai2tdZ-lNj1RfuVrX9pBMzo4aE3FZ2OcjE47mjWeJ7RxCTCyVZCA4-qydp3aWm8TztpI/s320/cross-roads.jpg" /></a></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">It is a misnomer that a leader’s presence energizes organisations. That misnomer is rooted in clergy-laity thinking, which has come to mean that contemporary churches cannot do church without the presence of their leader. To my mind, that invalidates the leader. The real proof of leadership is when others can continue without the leader. God had a dependent following in the wilderness, but never settled there – rather He led them into a codependent state, where they occupied the Promised Land under God. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">So then, how do we energize organisations? </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Nothing or almost nothing deflates an organisation or individuals more than a loss of direction and purpose, which is lost to poor communication, misinterpretations, misunderstandings, wrong signals and rewards for wrong behavior. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a name='more'></a>A man fired a worker for bad workmanship, but then saw him at a ten-pin bowling alley. He was so good at the game that the boss had to inquire why the worker could do this so well, not that. In reply, he simply said, “Here I knew what to aim for”. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">People often either don’t know what they need to do or retreat back to what they know and then end up being irrelevant. I have seen many workers doing stuff that is no longer important, because that is what they know. They fear change and prefer to stay with what they know. I have seen people resort to criticism and negative behavior, because they find solace in others who are equally disillusioned about how they add value. I have also seen businesses waste money on bonuses where regular acknowledgement would do far better.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Bosses try to lift motivation through motivational speeches, team building efforts, incentives, manipulation and by modeling positive behavior, but that only addresses symptoms not causes. People need direction and, where change is happening, they need to be led into that direction until they have enough confidence to get on with it. Once they have direction they need the space to express that without being mothered, but as they start to gain momentum they then need relevant restraints to hold them on course. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The ideal state is one where people know what to do, feel empowered to act, are acknowledged for doing so and know where their boundaries are. That shifts the leader from a close, supervisory role, to a broad, gatekeeper role, where people can do what the leader is not good at doing, so the leader can harness organizational energy to achieve bigger objectives. It's one of reason why my son's best rugby season was under a tough, uncompromising leader - they knew where they stood, but bound together as a team (to draw solace from each other) and then went on to win all their games, losing in the league final by 3 points. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">To be absolutely honest, true leadership is less about the leader than the led, and true leaders would do better to decrease, so that the whole may increase. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935670941267009548.post-51835641277864206112010-05-18T07:19:00.000-07:002010-06-11T02:48:17.380-07:00Exchange theory of leadership: gatekeeping<div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIvHy_kuEhy65OwRmfgozX6dcCqtyrGIR1nRBClUEKMVgo1OiG2qwOp8y_-g8m-PXW68zytlfGXQWYAGlcUbn2Eea4pvgJgiYq13FA-S6-JkNy2jPyHJtHKP72ra3PUAtGm9TVOPnClfM/s1600/ron-kimball-lion-at-sunset.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="158" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIvHy_kuEhy65OwRmfgozX6dcCqtyrGIR1nRBClUEKMVgo1OiG2qwOp8y_-g8m-PXW68zytlfGXQWYAGlcUbn2Eea4pvgJgiYq13FA-S6-JkNy2jPyHJtHKP72ra3PUAtGm9TVOPnClfM/s200/ron-kimball-lion-at-sunset.jpg" width="200" wt="true" /></a></div>In the chronicles of Narnia, the great battle scene after Aslan’s death brings the good forces of Narnia up against the evil queen. Two styles of leadership emerge. King Peter leads from the front and his siblings support from the center. The witch queen on the other hand, leads from the back, sending her forces to face the wrath of battle first. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Alexander the Great, arguably the greatest soldier the world has known, also led from the front, so did Moshe Dayan, the great one-eyed Jewish leader who guided Israel through the wars of independence. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">That poses a great question about the role of modern day leadership. Churchill wanted to join the D-Day armada, but George VI rightfully stuttered, “Me they can replace, not you”. So Churchill stayed where he belonged, where he was most needed – in the war rooms of Westminster. It was his military brain that they needed not his unwieldy frame. So it is not always prudent for a leader to put his life on the line.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a name='more'></a>That brings me to a potentially different kind of model altogether. The African Lion is what I would call a gatekeeper. He is a runaway haystack, hardly ideal for hunting, but a fearsome visage for opponents. He generally eats, sleeps and has sex throughout his adult life. The females are far superior at hunting, raising the next generation, social integration and a myriad other vital things that keep a happy pride, happy.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">So is he just a passenger? No. He maintains the balance of power in the pride and preserves order. When not eating, sleeping or procreating, he patrols the pride-lands to mark territory and keep interlopers at bay. At times he has to even put his life on the line to protect the pride. The first thing a new male does, when he takes over a pride, is to kill the existing cubs and chase off all juveniles. That’s why he has to fight.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Too much is said about the active aspects of leadership. But the greatest role of leadership, and leadership is but a role amongst roles, is to act as a gatekeeper – a regressive role. Leaders are being drawn into the front line, where they are ungainly and less effective at implementing than the rest of the pride is. Leadership, not to be confused with management or doing, is about orchestrating, organizing, enabling and restraining. It’s about being armless and legless, whilst extending the leader’s limited reach and effectiveness through others - a fair exchange of complementary roles. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
Jesus is also the head of the church, from which we are all fitly joined together. We are His hands and legs. Does that imply that vision comes from Him – well not entirely so. The edict of Christ actually came from the Father – He is merely executing that mandate. So what comes from Jesus is analogous to what passes between my brain and my limbs – it’s the impulse or enactment of the Father’s will, translated through you and me.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</span></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935670941267009548.post-8969190593789286542010-05-16T03:11:00.000-07:002010-06-11T02:48:42.635-07:00Exchange theory of leadership: engaging<div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFycgaE8P4EYZs1f7aVeQP8uwoavcAnU7qzqLzVt_jedBLT6yKvzHuvDjFBKh8uvZiHUqBrpsE_r4ynfaJFM0tHaFQm-QRhGrXIbcK6PfAgUnNNTHMlax_3VVzirs0U5TdkOJKTySXIB4/s1600/athens.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" gu="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFycgaE8P4EYZs1f7aVeQP8uwoavcAnU7qzqLzVt_jedBLT6yKvzHuvDjFBKh8uvZiHUqBrpsE_r4ynfaJFM0tHaFQm-QRhGrXIbcK6PfAgUnNNTHMlax_3VVzirs0U5TdkOJKTySXIB4/s320/athens.jpg" /></a>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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">Advertisers offer the worst example of one-way communication. They push without connecting as they manipulate human insecurity, inadequacy, identity or hunger. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a name='more'></a>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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">(c) Peter Eleazar @ <a href="http://www.4u2live.net/">http://www.4u2live.net/</a></span></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935670941267009548.post-84302154294283854932010-05-13T00:41:00.000-07:002010-06-11T02:49:41.660-07:00Stewardship is the greatest hallmark of leadership<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: justify;"><a href="http://www.staugepiscopal.org/images/posters/stewardship1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="93" src="http://www.staugepiscopal.org/images/posters/stewardship1.jpg" width="200" wt="true" /></a></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">Recently I was told of a survey that rated CEO’s based on perceptions. It found that leaders who looked the part commanded an average 7% higher pay. </div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">The biblical King Saul was a commanding presence. Yet he was a bad leader - the unfulfilled perceptions were to be a recurring theme of history. His successor, David, was also striking, but Saul tried to kill him, his son subverted him, he had many enemies and his wives scoffed at him. So much for the idea that appearances matter, not that I give much credence to perceptions, given the sheer number of leaders who never lived up to their images. </div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">What made David such a great king was beyond perception. God saw a heart after His own heart. When he fled from cave to cave, he learnt to listen to the voice of His shepherd. He never became great because he looked the part or was some superhero or had all the answers – his prayers suggest vulnerability and a lack of answers. He was a great leader, not because he could command men, although to an extent he did in spite of so many rejections. He became a great leader because he submitted to God.</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><a name='more'></a>Moses also had a noble bearing, but he too learnt to sit at the feet of his God. He was not an original thinker – he merely implemented the patterns God showed him on the mount. He was not a natural leader – he was shy, reluctant and of few words. He was not a commanding presence – men often challenged him, throughout his life. Yet he was arguably the greatest man to ever walk the earth (aside from Jesus). </div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">My own sense is that just about all our theories on leadership are speculative and manmade. The key distinction of all great biblical leaders was their stewardship. I might add that our model of manhood is also debatable, for the great biblical men were all shepherds: a form of steward. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">Think about it. The modern CEO is appointed to steward shareholder value – that is what he does and, as Jim Collins observed, if he is shy, unassuming and humble that’s okay, as long as he is resolved about what the firm does and doesn’t do – he is the backbone, the gatekeeper, the shepherd. The idea that he must be visionary is moot. Vision is a collective consciousness, distilling from stakeholders and implementers. A good leader needs rather to facilitate a visioning process by building a learning organisation and can achieve more by allowing his followers to participate and engage in that process. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Most of all, a leader will achieve not only by stewarding value effectively, but also by instilling a similar core value in all those who follow him – because if we do what our stakeholders expect us to do, who could want for more. Maybe the church would not have drifted into its secular and commercial wallows if leaders had realized – “this is not our turf”, we are just stewards of “His” kingdom and those He entrusts to us.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">My son played rugby for many years and captained a club team, but then we transferred him to a new, monastic school - with 800 boys, 4 teams per grade and far greater competition. He was selected for the C team, but approached it all as one "who knows the game" and "has little to learn". He was really downcast and directionless, until he changed his stance, humbled himself and listened to his coaches. He also diligently applied what they taught him. Within weeks he was being noticed and was promoted last week. The coaches are delighted with him and thanks to their guidance he is also playing a better game - he is progressing because he is stewarding the mandate of his coaches and it is working remarkeably well - a great lesson.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</span></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935670941267009548.post-16939011785021414522010-05-11T09:35:00.000-07:002010-06-11T02:50:30.252-07:00Not all things are pleasing to God<div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-S74rdYXVvyTdVjjsXYJhqef72iNNR5T0u1hQaqey6YGHZeVe5jd4wZFzvTkf7xRaZBkr-pFkNuF2LPtHyiuh1iYD_PEGG7d1KTscNinGYSoy4a8YDPI7pY5RfAjp5FA-pMLzsX1R39M/s1600/beegeye.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-S74rdYXVvyTdVjjsXYJhqef72iNNR5T0u1hQaqey6YGHZeVe5jd4wZFzvTkf7xRaZBkr-pFkNuF2LPtHyiuh1iYD_PEGG7d1KTscNinGYSoy4a8YDPI7pY5RfAjp5FA-pMLzsX1R39M/s320/beegeye.jpg" tt="true" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;">For the better part of two millennia, leadership models have been informed by the clergy-laity models of the Greek-Roman-Christian era. It was ratified by the steep organizational structures of Rome, which resulted from the unilateralism of Julius Caesar. Prior to his crossing of the Rubicon, Rome had maintained a progressive albeit imperfect Republic based on constitutional and democratic principles. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Greeks also had a steep leadership structure, but both they and the Romans adapted their leadership models from the God-King models of near east kingdoms like Persia and Syria. The result was a world with a strongly centrist approach to leadership. Although developing nations probably needed a more martial approach to government, including variations of slavery and subjugation, the underlying driver was an ancient mystery that John the Divine referred to as “mystery Babylon the great”. It is rooted in what we see in the mountaintop temptation, where the Devil offered to trade all the kingdoms of the world for Christ’s soul. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">At the top of all centrist systems is effectively a devilish throne – and that is sadly true of the church and the world. According to the Book of Revelations, a significant body of churches or ecumenical Christians will subscribe to a false prophet who will endorse the ultimate, one-world, antichrist government. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a name='more'></a>So what is God’s way? Well Paul was rather clear on the subject. The 1st book of Corinthians, Ephesians, Romans 12 and other references, point to an inclusive and participative leadership model. Paul referred to a Commonwealth, implying a shared destiny and an internal economy. Paul also taught on the “Body of Christ”, pointing to one head, Christ, from whom the whole body is fitly joined together and grows into oneness. I don’t have the space to say more now, but it was God’s intent that we decrease or step aside to facilitate the headship of Christ and that we also defer to each other, so that real discipleship can be outworked through a believer-priesthood – until we reach a unity of faith a complete concept of fullness of Christ. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">One of the most enlightened commentaries on leadership has been made by a contemporary thinker, Jim Collins. He effectively validated Paul’s model when he showed that good-to-great leaders are invisible, self-deprecating, humble, empowering and yet still so in touch with the distinction of their roles – namely fierce resolve. The latter role is the backbone on which others build - It is not the sticks on which marionettes dangle as they dance to their master’s voice. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I read an article today decrying the secularization of believers – leadership has become a commercialized platform and is steadily drifting from the heart of God into something that is dangerously at risk of reinforcing the throne of Satan. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</span></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935670941267009548.post-35078528983105936462010-05-07T00:10:00.000-07:002010-06-11T02:51:03.257-07:00Not all things are possible with God<div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQnMEmC3oW_EhGYf7HpZXegBfdqjuI_J8VYRYaLELaWBrS3ImpbgJNzJk3q-HqOCSfPQxQ0rmdzYQzRTJmXWptC1XZu58MtID9ClBkTHFe7mdtnF_NVJRXpYMXlCR6SAOOyZBMQf2BDFI/s1600/baton.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQnMEmC3oW_EhGYf7HpZXegBfdqjuI_J8VYRYaLELaWBrS3ImpbgJNzJk3q-HqOCSfPQxQ0rmdzYQzRTJmXWptC1XZu58MtID9ClBkTHFe7mdtnF_NVJRXpYMXlCR6SAOOyZBMQf2BDFI/s320/baton.gif" tt="true" /></a>We so glibly quote the expression, “all things are possible with God”, which is technically valid, yet practically invalid. God cannot sin, not because it is impossible (He would be a machine if that were so), but because He is righteous. He cannot deny His own (as Paul said), without denying Himself. He will never tempt us. He will never destroy the earth by water again. He will never revoke His covenant with Abraham. I could go on – suffice to say there are a lot of things he cannot or will not do. </div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">He also cannot go to church for you or love your family as you should or go to work so you can have bread on the table. Those things are obvious, but there are things you can do better than He can. He cannot relate to other people as readily and tangibly as you can – He did once, but His mission was to die not to relate, per se. No one can reach or touch the person next to you more effectively than you can. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">So God effectively delegates such roles to us as individuals and, corporately, as the church. The elegance of the church is that it is so self-maintaining. Its mere existence facilitates ongoing connection, support and discipleship – not just through the formal aspects of church life, but almost more importantly through the organic life of the church. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">God is into delegation (wrong term, right principle). The Father has a limited role – He could not bear the cross and also validate it, so He stood aloof of Christ’s suffering, so that Jesus would be vindicated and thus not die in vain. Jesus also has a limited role. He is our high priest, our mediator – He stands between God and us. The Holy Spirit has another, separate and distinctive role. Yet, those roles are so indivisible and mutually compatible that we see the Lord God as one.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a name='more'></a>That expresses something of God’s heart for us. Not to have divisions, departments and hierarchies, but to be an integral part of the whole, stakeholders and fellow heirs of His kingdom, yet distinguished by our different roles. We don’t go to church – that is a clergy-laity throwback to pre-Lutheranism – we are the church and we each have a stake in the advancement and fulfillment of Christ’s restorative mandate on earth. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Not only are these principles valid to church life they also inform our everyday interactions. Delegation is to leadership, what discipleship is to the church – in raising individuals from sheep to stakeholders. Its about equipping, handing over and letting go. Yes there will still be balancing roles, but that does not detract from the idea of empowering individuals to become vital, integrated stakeholders and pillars in the house of God and in the workplace – until we are able to say, “I don’t work the organisation – I am the organisation.”</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">(c) Peter Eleazar @ <a href="http://www.4u2live.net/">http://www.4u2live.net/</a></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Image courtesy of: ScSV.nevada.org</span></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935670941267009548.post-8980407070720214512010-05-02T23:05:00.000-07:002010-06-11T02:52:48.199-07:00Jesus as leader - beyond the man<div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: justify;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglc39bMR1Eyp0shp-AqTTHSIu2FLsqTmNcbBsNB8WMtM57z9C5HkmUy5N6D-XuPPxWbcAOTqnZqweVTSu5ExhpDTvxmcxFzehJScNYXJ3EZS4iP0uxGrteKxN5QMwCAW9cRNHmXPuS_OA/s1600/temptation-of-jesus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglc39bMR1Eyp0shp-AqTTHSIu2FLsqTmNcbBsNB8WMtM57z9C5HkmUy5N6D-XuPPxWbcAOTqnZqweVTSu5ExhpDTvxmcxFzehJScNYXJ3EZS4iP0uxGrteKxN5QMwCAW9cRNHmXPuS_OA/s200/temptation-of-jesus.jpg" tt="true" width="158" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The most telling feature of Jesus’ own leadership and the greatest reason for His impact on the world was because He touched the world where it hurt most. To try and comment on His leadership from any other perspective would be to cast Him into the mold of an icon: the very reason He had to go away again. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">If we remember Him as a man, for all the greatness evident in His life, we will never benefit from His life or death – indeed we will be intimidated by it. He will be to us nothing more than the stones of condemnation that Moses smashed before His people – a standard beyond us. Yet even if we could get past that, we would still veil Him in mystique and miss the very point of His incarnation. He came to die, not to live as a hero.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The golden calf was a depiction of Jehovah, not a throw back to the gods of Egypt. Because Moses had been gone too long they created a replica of their concept of God. Sadly, in remembering Jesus the man and in trying to evoke a visible replica of a savior who never wanted to be remembered that way, many have made another golden calf. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a name='more'></a>Jesus came to earth in the fullness, or ripest moment, of time. He stepped onto a platform established by the witness of all who preceded Him and He stood in an era that provided an ideal environment for His ministry – good communications, a sense of order, etc.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">It took millennia to infuse a sound concept of sin, the real pain of humankind, into the hearts and minds of the Jews. Though sin was an issue, whether they respected that fact or not, it needed to be understood to ensure the relevance of His life and death. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">So although Jesus was not able to achieve His objective independently of what others had already done before Him, in waiting for a time when their real need was most clear to all minds, He achieved maximum impact. Thanks to His grasp of our need and His clear articulation of that issue, enough got the message for the original spark to fan to flame. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">He was a profoundly effective leader, but not because of His stature and good looks (its doubtful if He had either), charismatic presence (He was humble, soft spoken and retiring), His power (He sidestepped Herod and the Romans and bowed to His executioner) or His miracles (which had to do with preparing His sacrifice). He was effective because He resonated with the crying need of humankind – and still does so. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Then in a final dramatic act, that ultimate need met with the ultimate solution, as the savior gasped His last breath on a wooden gibbet. He led from the front, not as a mighty presence, but as a broken, naked man. In His final act, He exchanged our forsakenness for His life, our death for His, our sins for His sacrifice and our need for His provision. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Question:</strong> Was it the man that changed the world or what He represented?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">(c) Peter Eleazar @ </span><a href="http://www.4u2live.net/"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></a><a href="http://www.4u2live.net/">http://www.4u2live.net/</a></div></a><br />
<div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935670941267009548.post-26293628846552045602010-04-20T23:01:00.000-07:002010-06-11T02:51:40.906-07:00Exchange theory of leadership: trading<div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The more I look at life, the more I realise the value of relationships. Clever children often do well at school and not so well afterwards and statistically most fall short of their potential. Yet many average kids do succeed. One of the keys to that success is their ability to develop and retain vital networks. Those networks open doors, provide vital links and oil the cogs of commerce.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Relational people are more likely to succeed because they can resolve the barriers to effective cooperation, win the support of their teams, negotiate with stakeholders and interpret the environment. Its no wonder that God values relationships far above activity, performance, works, buildings, technology, accomplishments, etc. It is through relationships that He shapes the world. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">So exchange is vital to effectiveness. Whatever else you say about leadership is somewhat thin and potentially irrelevant if you do not have the ability to exchange value - I have said enough about the mutually self-eliminating qualities of leadership in Churchill and Hitler to make the point that highly vaunted variables like integrity, honour, credibility, charisma, authority and many others, are not definitive. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_-2Hj87ng6bG4uMxn4PZw2uOy7zWNostTnZuvGuV2zCHx9ejY-sTNliekHbr8YoN9i3yziwZcG6fXKuxSfQCIBiimsFJkHDvPoW_Q5Y6JPeFAhQ5qKdY_gevmhD8EPIBnbyYHtByozUA/s1600/leadership.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_-2Hj87ng6bG4uMxn4PZw2uOy7zWNostTnZuvGuV2zCHx9ejY-sTNliekHbr8YoN9i3yziwZcG6fXKuxSfQCIBiimsFJkHDvPoW_Q5Y6JPeFAhQ5qKdY_gevmhD8EPIBnbyYHtByozUA/s320/leadership.jpg" wt="true" /></a>The problem with exchanging value, is that there must be perceived value in the exchange. If a leader offers a compelling new deal, people will exchange their support for the future benefits he offers. However, if dissonance creeps in due to diminishing credibility or doubts about his sincerity or his ability to deliver, many will subsequently opt out and withdraw their support. Similarly if the leader actually offers much but fails to find meaningful support for his position, he will withdraw the offer and move on. </div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Perception is a very powerful feature of effective exchange. Few people have a sound grasp of reality, but almost all of us have perceptions of reality. Marketers exploit that idea to motivate us to buy for price, quality, brand or some other perceived value. Well, good leaders must also manage perceptions in order to resonate with their target audiences - they must speak their language, be sensitive to cultural dynamics, be relevant and connect with them, else they will not follow. The apostle Paul was skilled at that and argued, "To the Jews I became a Jew, to the Greeks a Greek - so that by any means they might be saved." </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a name='more'></a>The rise of despots in history inevitably resulted from a "what have we got to lose" sense of desperation and a shrewd reading of the climate by dark minds. The people followed, because they had reached a point where they were willing to trade their souls for a better lot. The antichrist will exploit similar social tensions. That places an enormous responsibility on the shoulder of noble leaders - people can be exploited and will trade their souls if need be, but as Oscar Schindler inferred: the power to do (to kill a helpless prisoner in his case), was not comparable with the real power of choosing not to do. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">So, leadership is about exchange and it is more about exchange that many other things we love to cite. However, ethics must guide the exchange if the outcome is to be noble. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</span></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935670941267009548.post-88759332258994751142010-04-19T01:33:00.000-07:002010-06-11T02:53:21.110-07:00To lie or not to lie<div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGJkBP-s7cpIpvPUn4721J4toPQ9mqaCxI7BCSP5zwREB01Y3_miO8XVnQAOydDGE7iwaOkv7uSEizUHkYUp2EYQr2vHmQS7wPTNWpkrOEPqA8mPcxTEJIAh591yLSuSR1C_e2zsV_dro/s1600/lying_game.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGJkBP-s7cpIpvPUn4721J4toPQ9mqaCxI7BCSP5zwREB01Y3_miO8XVnQAOydDGE7iwaOkv7uSEizUHkYUp2EYQr2vHmQS7wPTNWpkrOEPqA8mPcxTEJIAh591yLSuSR1C_e2zsV_dro/s320/lying_game.jpg" wt="true" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Does the bible say anything about lying? Maybe, but the the 9th commandment does not read, "thou shalt not lie", nor is there any biblical grounds for lying to be regarded as some deadly sin. With due respect to our Catholic brethren, "thou shalt not lie" is a catholic interpretation, not a biblical one. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The point is that God carefully chose His words to avoid a law that would have been untenable, namely, "thou shalt not lie", but in so doing He shifted the emphasis to the courtroom and focused on the legal weight or implications of our witness. He was far more concerned with ensuring the integrity of the biblical legal system - thus, the injunction to not bear false witness had similar implications to the modern-day principle of lying under oath. Any violation of the commandments was serious, potentially punishable by death, so God was being very serious when He introduced such a vital ground rule to the biblical legal code. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a name='more'></a>Now I am regularly heard to speak of "perceptions" and that perceptions are reality - to most people, reality is secondary to perception. I have also advocated the idea that management of perceptions is the essence of marketing, The question is, is my position legitimate? Well Paul spoke of "avoiding the appearance of evil" and in another case he admonished believers to avoid drinking in front of weaker believers. Both of those arguments allude to managed perceptions. Paul even manipulated his audiences as when he truthfully confessed to being of the resurrection, to gain support from the pharisees and thus divide his opponents. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Even Solomon made a case for managed perceptions when he said in Proverbs 17:28 that a fool will be deemed to be wise if he keeps silence - or as I have since heard, "better to shut up and be thought of as a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". I have known astute leaders who would deliberately keep quiet throughout a meeting and only talk when the timing was right, to preserve their images.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Empirically speaking, our culture has acquired the ability to lie tactfully - who would tell his wife she is fat, even if she is. What man would tell his employees they are lazy and what woman would want to expose her husband's nakedness before friends. We cannot afford to be so blunt or so honest that we do each other harm, yet the implied subteties do not imply that we have to lack integrity. Integrity also alludes to the 9th commandment, because it goes to the weight of our witness and it gives us credence in the courts of life. It should be a ground rule for every believer, because it undepins every daily transaction. Integrity is a life rule that guides what we do when no one is watching and it is fundamental to our character. So, we cannot conceal vital facts or alter essential truths - we must be ethical in all our daily activities.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">When it comes to managed perceptions, I do things like dressing appropriately for my audience - out of deference to them. I also use a language and humor style that fits their profile, not mine. In my written communication I constantly weigh my words, because that is good communication. It means that I am often not being myself or true to myself - but I am being true to my cause, and that is far more relevant. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I also have found ways to ensure that I maintain connectedness without adding a huge maintenance burden to my life - efficient communications will often require some trade-offs and a degree of perception management. If you take yourself too seriously, you will become irrelevant and ineffective, so you must do what needs to be done in a sustainable way, else you will neglect both your job and your constituencies. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I would love to hear your comments - can Christians lie selectively and what are the implications?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</span></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935670941267009548.post-83618367829422383782010-04-14T01:25:00.000-07:002010-06-11T02:55:29.417-07:00Exchange theory of leadership: connecting<div style="text-align: justify;">I am so often confronted with straightforward, compelling logic which later leads to reflection and a subsequent, "now hold on a bit".</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">John Maxwell has just released a book about connecting versus communicating and my instinct was to say, "amen", as have his many loyal fans. Of course I have yet to read the book, which licences me to be objective around the idea without being critical of the content. That said, let me add that Maxwell is a sound author, worthy of all respect - so do read his book. </div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwDZQeuHcLXp8hoPFS2efIXNCSFA8AZgSJj4ALaJVhQUijrgvsvZMH-9GAlnzxf9RClU4avWtTPmYzPS2zfKdnGzG7QEv9Vq96KLAcfqXVbYHPZCgDF3IhMHFEPzKnUZnXIgap3JlUfWg/s1600/Rowers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwDZQeuHcLXp8hoPFS2efIXNCSFA8AZgSJj4ALaJVhQUijrgvsvZMH-9GAlnzxf9RClU4avWtTPmYzPS2zfKdnGzG7QEv9Vq96KLAcfqXVbYHPZCgDF3IhMHFEPzKnUZnXIgap3JlUfWg/s320/Rowers.jpg" wt="true" /></a></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">Starting with my blog about Hitler and Churchill and the transactions that defined their leadership, I asked the question, "Did they connect?" The truth is that neither did. Churchill was blatantly ignored by parliament and the public, until crisis made his message more compelling. No transaction was possible until the people were ready to hear. His message never changed, but the audience and the climate for listening did. Should he have changed his stance to a more popular, relevant issue? How could he, given his absolute convictions about the impending threat of Hitler. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Actually Adolf also failed to connect. He was douwnright offensive to his own in his emerging years, but once the people perceived that he might put Germany back on the map his cause gained broader support - germans were even willing to shut their eyes and minds to Nazi excesses in return for the new possibilities that Hitler evidently promised - and to the poor, struggling masses that made sense. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a name='more'></a>The prophets of old generally failed to connect and even distanced themselves from everyday society. They were pugnacious, direct, offensive and dressed badly. That never deterred them as they kept up their provocations until their prophecies came to pass or the people humbled themselves. They only connected when their message started to resonate with reality and even then many hardened their hearts, but the message had to be sounded whether they reciprocated or not because such is the nature of a prophet. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Paul was often disconnective. He happily offended the house of Diana and turned the world upside down, regardless of the risks. He did similar things elsewhere. So did Jesus. Yet, with time their message was validated and found its target, but only when individuals saw the value of the transaction - then they traded their souls for truth, a very significant transaction that often cost their lives. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Indeed God breaks all the contemporary rules of connectiveness - He never amplifies His message, but speaks through a still, small voice. He never instructs, but influences. He generally tells it how it is and we generally reel back until we come to terms with His truth. He often leads people into wild desert places to reach us, rather than popular forums or auditoria. He is generally silent, His ways are hard to find and He is shrouded in mystery. Yet countless souls have reached out hungrily for Him and followed Him to the ends of the earth, not because He is chic, popular or relevant, but because He is so compelling. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Many firms use negative advertising to get attention. They deliberately disconnect and provoke controversy then feed on all the negative publicity to gain traction with their target audiences - in doing so they apply a lesson that harks back to childhood, where strategic withdrawals and sulking are often rewarded with positive attention. Is that all healthy or good? No, yet when he offended the followers of Diana, Paul effectively fed on the resulting negative publicity, whether his strategy was deliberate or incidental. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">All leaders communicate. In doing so they channel their energy towards people, the way a power station channels its power to consumers. Electricity not used is lost forever, just as a leader's words can fall on deaf ears - for until the respondent switches on and transacts no meaning will be traded. Yet even then, if they connect for the sake of amusement or interest, the connection will yield little or no change. It is only when the audience is ripe for the message that a true transaction will happen. Sadly, many charismatic leaders feel that their job is done if they are there and if they also successfully ra-ra, amplify, haul out the dancing girls and make a spectacle, yet all they achieve is bemused detachment, not sustainable action.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Can we connect and get a response? Yes, but lets get into that later. </div><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">(c) Peter Eleazar @ </span><a href="http://www.4u2live.net/"><span style="font-size: x-small;">www.4u2live.net</span></a><div class="blogger-post-footer">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935670941267009548.post-27818655202203421442010-04-12T23:10:00.000-07:002010-06-11T02:55:59.059-07:00The exchange theory of leadership<div align="justify"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyzl1t8bHKS_6BCyO4KjrRmIvhMFPXjAbfgBzlN74DRXGNG6Mgd9DFJCmgxnqtS6sd5r3KN_vju1A6_qHlcT-NofD6FjXvF9c9YVO6wFja3wRf-Rx1ZeyieGMGNfFpa-G85NSVt197gfI/s1600/winston_chruchill_adolf_hitler_scissors_beat_paper.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5459505011650253330" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyzl1t8bHKS_6BCyO4KjrRmIvhMFPXjAbfgBzlN74DRXGNG6Mgd9DFJCmgxnqtS6sd5r3KN_vju1A6_qHlcT-NofD6FjXvF9c9YVO6wFja3wRf-Rx1ZeyieGMGNfFpa-G85NSVt197gfI/s320/winston_chruchill_adolf_hitler_scissors_beat_paper.jpg" style="cursor: hand; float: right; height: 211px; margin: 0px 0px 10px 10px; width: 320px;" /></a>There is so much theory about leadership that sometimes we miss the obvious for all the looking. Why is it that good and bad people still have the potential for leadership? Hitler and Churchill had little in common, yet is that not the point? We could argue in favour of integrity, vision, honesty and all kinds of other virtues, but finding them in one not in the other is self-defeating or at least self-neutralising.<br />
<br />
Let me explain. Both Hitler and Churchill were great leaders and great communicators, by all standards. They stirred significant followings and uplifted whole nations to their cause. Yet the one was honourable, the other offensive. The one was integrous, the other anything but. The one had a righteous cause, not so the other. The one had a warm, open face, the other had a dark, malignant expression. The one was imposing, the other short and ugly. The one spoke with rhythmic cadences, the other with vitriole and intensity. So what do we make of that? Do the comparisons inform us on how we ought to live, lead or communicate? I think not.</div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><a name='more'></a>So what common features made them comparably effective? It was a simple reality of human exchange. Their followers exchanged their support for a reciprocal benefit. Hitler offered Germans the hope of restoring lost glories, Churchill was a rallying point for victory. </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify">Is that empiracally sound reasoning? Well, why is it that many bosses lead, with degrees of effectiveness, in spite of themselves. Could it be that they have something to trade - be it a salary, promotion or other priveleges? Why do politicians command their followings - because of their sexy hairstyles or scintillating rhetoric? I think it is because their followers perceive a viable trade to be in the offing.<br />
<br />
Many church followers will bring acts of service to influence their positions rather than for the love it. Many workers in the workplace will trade personal sacrifices and after-work socialisation for perceived benefits, with success, whilst the real work-horses remain mere Cindarellas. Heck some would go to hell and back to enhance their lot and all the above would enhance perceptions about the leader in the middle of it all. Yet their followers will as readily defect to another leader if the perceived benefits of their support are diminished.<br />
<br />
Enough said for now ... what do you believe? I will explore this theory further, later. </div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify"><span style="font-size: 85%;"></span></div><div align="justify"><span style="font-size: 85%;">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.com </span></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">(c) Peter Eleazar @ www.4u2live.net</div>My profilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17566494897095845350noreply@blogger.com0