Exchange theory of leadership: us vs them

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.

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.

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.

Exchange theory of leadership: all for one, one for all

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.

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.

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.

Exchange theory of leadership: push vs pull

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.

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.

Exchange theory of leadership: enable vs control

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”.

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?

Well let’s think about what it means to be a gatekeeper as that may inform our response.

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?

Exchange theory of leadership: authenticity for genuine followership

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.

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.

Exchange theory of leadership: right way vs wrong

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.

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.

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.

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.

Exchange theory of leadership: advance vs regression

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. Well, do you think similar principles apply to leadership?

Nehemiah could not start building until he had established a framework on which to build. 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.

The walls were for more than mere protection. 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.

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.

Exhange theory: New for old

I 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.

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.

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.

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.

Exchange theory of leadership: building walls

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.

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.

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.

Exchange theory of leadership: communication

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.

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.

So then, how do we energize organisations?

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.

Exchange theory of leadership: gatekeeping

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.

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.

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.

Exchange theory of leadership: engaging

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

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

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

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

Exchange theory of leadership: trading

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.

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.   

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.

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. 

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." 

Exchange theory of leadership: connecting

I am so often confronted with straightforward, compelling logic which later leads to reflection and a subsequent, "now hold on a bit".

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.

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.

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. 

The exchange theory of leadership

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.

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.