Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does! –William James
The people in organizations are charged with measuring. What are they to measure? What should they measure but choose not to measure? In all organizations – but perhaps particularly in not-for-profit organizations – it is crucial to discern ways of measuring the quality of relationships. Why? Consider that the quality of the relationships determine the quality of thinking, decisions and actions taken. What are some of these qualities that might/should be measured?
The first is the quality of trust. A close second is captured by this: Is the Culture (which includes the sub-cultures, the climate and the environment) ‘safe’ for all (consider physical, intellectual, emotional, spiritual and relational safety)? We are also charged with measuring the quality of communications. And we are also charged with measuring the quality of the behavior of the leaders. There are two types of leaders: Leaders by role and/or Leaders by situation.
When folks in organizations are looking for examples of acceptable – or exemplary or dysfunctional – behavior they look at the behavior of the leaders. Leaders are the walking and talking manuals of behavior.
When the leader speaks the followers, even though they might not be listening to the leader’s words, are recalling what the leader did when there was a problem or a challenge or a crisis. Followers watch leaders just as children watch their parents. They watch and learn. They watch in order to have their judgments about the leader confirmed or disconfirmed. [NOTE: This also leads us to the topic of ‘Loyalty-Commitment.’ A person ‘loyal’ to the leader will be tempted to censor out information that puts the leader in a ‘bad light.’]
Followers measure the behavior of the leader(s). They measure the leader(s) against their own ideals, against their own values, against what the organization espouses (the vision, the mission, the values, the guiding principles, etc.) and what is actually enacted by the leader.
I am now recalling what William Ayot wrote: The Contract – Consider and be Mindful of those who are led: And in the end we follow them — …simply because of who they are: the man, the woman… We give them our trust. What we seek in return is that they stay true.
‘Staying True’ does not mean ‘to be perfect’ it means, more realistically, striving to be consistent. Rather than ‘walk the talk’ the leader is more likely to ‘stumble the mumble.’ The leader will not always be able to bring a ‘clear voice’ and the leader will, at times, stumble and fall. This is why ‘trust’ is so crucial.
The leader is challenged to embrace the following ‘Ways of Being.’
- Be Authentic – Being congruent: Feelings/emotions, actions, thoughts are in alignment
- Be Faithful – What is the leader ‘faithful to’ even though he/she might not be effective or efficient? Think: ‘Core Values’ for example or ‘Acting rooted in Integrity at all times.’
- Be Useful – Being a resource for others. Being a sounding board for others. Being a good thought partner to others.
- Be Present – They live ‘in the now’. When one talks with the leader he/she knows the leader is fully present to/with them.
- Be Vulnerable – The leader is ‘transparent’ (think: is fully human). The leader models taking risks. The leader trusts and models ‘being trust-worthy’. The leader ‘carries the wound with grace’ [‘Vulnerable’ comes from the Latin root ‘vulnus’ which means: ‘To carry the wound with grace.’]; the leader will be wounded and the most painful are the wounds delivered unintentionally (via ‘misunderstanding’ for example).
- Be Trust–Worthy – The leader builds and sustains trust and ‘models’ trust. The leader ‘leads with trust.’ The leader also seeks to re-build trust that is broken via forgiveness, reconciliation and healing.
Leadership is a serious meddling in other people’s lives. –Max De Pree
Searcher-Seeker 