When Leaders Struggle

Leaders are always supposed to be strong right? They are the ones who are up in front, leading the pack. Or behind the scenes, pushing us ahead. They are the ones who know best, who are the smartest, the best educated, who have the responsibility to ensure the well-being of those who follow. Leaders are the ones who focus the rest of us on what really matters, who think beyond the everyday to what’s most important. We sometimes think of them as super human. Is it any wonder that they fall? That they fail to live up to our expectations? That so many in recent years have crashed to the ground or into jail?

Leadership, once claimed or owned, is a tremendous responsibility. And these common perceptions and the pressure to maintain them may be so great, that if we ourselves become leaders, we may feel pressured to keep others from finding out our faults and our weaknesses. We may not want anyone to see that we really are no different from anyone else. After all, the least mistake, if it becomes public knowledge, can send us sprawling from our pedestal.

So what happens when leaders struggle? When the company is losing money? What happens when the customers just don’t seem to be there? When a child dies or a wife leaves? What happens when tragedies hit her family or his company? What happens when the building burns down, or the equipment kills an employee? What happens when he or she leads the people into battle, and they fail to succeed, and so there are many casualties?

The phrase, “It’s lonely at the top” comes to mind. The phrase, “We are all human” comes to mind. The question, “Who’s going to be the strong one now, the one to make the decisions while I struggle?” comes to mind. Company presidents, ministers, single parents, school principals – all must ask these questions some times. Maybe that’s why some people just don’t want to take on leadership responsibilities.

But what if we decided differently about leaders? What if we really believed that all of us are supposed to be leaders of someone or something? That we each have a “calling” to fulfill, and that fulfilling that “calling” is so important to someone or some group that it makes us a leader when we are living out that capacity. Dennis Bakke, co-founder and CEO of Imagine Schools and founder and former CEO of AES Corporation, believed this perspective to be so important that he considered Joy at Work (the title of his book) to be possible only when people were in charge of something, when they were decision makers. He built a company around expecting everyone to be in charge of decisions – rather than considering himself to be the main decision maker. The Bible talks about “spiritual gifts,” those that God has called us to live out. When we fully live out these gifts, we are serving a special and important role in the church, a role that no one else can fill. We are “leading” when we are fulfilling that role. But that gift or those roles are God given, God empowered. And because all in the church are “called” to some role, all gifts are equally important if the church is to function as God intends.

Whether everyone shares this spiritual perspective or not, or whether we believe that churches are succeeding at this biblical mandate, might it not be a useful metaphor for companies and other organizations? That is, the person who looks most important, who has the most visible responsibilities, who speaks the most, or who is most intelligent would not be considered more important than the one who keeps the computers running, or the one who ensures that the sick receive their benefits. The whole organization would be made up of “essential functions” or roles that would be filled by people who were most gifted or suited to those roles. And “suited” would mean more than whether we were educated for the role or had held a similar role before. It would mean that we experienced a heart, soul, and mind “calling” toward that role. It would mean that we felt most fulfilled when carrying out that role.

Because everyone’s role would be essential to the functioning of the whole, we would be paying attention to people’s gifts and encouraging them to discover their talents. We would be helping them to develop those talents, and holding their hands when they were discouraged. We would invest heavily in the people around us; in developing their strengths; in asking for their input and support. We would have no justification for considering anyone more important than anyone else, because for the whole organization to operate best, everyone would have to be operating at their best. Or given that we would accept that no one is infallible, we would create systems for filling in and helping out those who were temporarily “dys” functional.

And best of all for the person with the formal title of leader, someone’s role would be “caring for,” supporting, restoring, and “being there” for the more visible leader, rather than the leader having to keep up appearances, trying to look strong when she wasn’t feeling it. The person in the role at the top wouldn’t have to fake it, but would have a coach to continually support him, challenge him to grow and become; someone to lean on when needed. What if, instead of leaders considering themselves better than others, or as having more rights, or as smarter, or more capable, or more responsible, or [feel free to fill in the blank], they instead saw themselves as servants. I remember a book called “Servant Leadership” – I think this was exactly its point.

Send Back Those Gifts!

Are we all so greedy that we want what we want when we want it? So greedy that we are tempted by material possessions to give up our integrity? So greedy that we damage the public trust by creating obligations that hamper the public good?

What am I talking about here? I am talking about public officials accepting gifts. I am talking about corporate leaders who accept pay offs, large pensions, and other bonuses beyond a reasonable salary. I am talking about any of us who accept gifts from those we don’t know, or have a passing acquaintance with, people who want something from us and are, in essence, “paying” us to look with favor on their products or services.

Gifts, at their best, are expressions of caring or gratitude. We give gifts at holidays or on birthdays or other special occasions to people we care about and to people that we have nice relationships with at work. We give gifts to those who have contributed to our lives or our success when we are celebrating our success and recognizing the team that helped us to get there. We give gifts to those that we have meaningful relationships with as expressions of appreciation for the richness that they bring to our lives. These are not the gifts that threaten our integrity.

The gifts that threaten our integrity are really “loss-leaders,” not gifts. That is, someone wants something from us, and they are willing to pay some money to give us a little taste of doing business with them. For instance, a restaurant hands out “free” samples. An office supply store hands out sticky note pads with their name on it. A vacation packages company offers an overnight stay at a resort if we will come and listen to their sales pitch. And we often accept these “gifts.” And companies know that the gifts are effective marketing strategies, reminding the “gift” recipient of the company’s name and services, because companies keep on using loss-leaders.

Loss-leaders are not really free gifts. They are small payments ahead of time to entice us to use the services or buy the products. Perhaps if we are aiming for ethical optimums, we should not accept these loss-leaders if we don’t intend to do frequent their business or store. But when we do accept the loss leader, we end up with a warm fuzzy feeling about the company. That is, the company gains name recognition and a reputation for doing nice things for people, which is exactly their aim.

The fact that loss-leaders work should alert us to other “purchases” of favor. I recently spoke with a businessman about offering him some consultation on ethics. When I entered his office, he had several gift cards in his hand, and after we spoke, he handed me a $50 gift card as a gift, saying he likes giving gifts. Initially, I took the gift card. But the more I thought about it, the more I thought that I might hedge in challenging his unethical behavior if I accepted the gift card. You see, the gift, if I accepted it, created an obligation to look favorably on him and on his behavior. But if my job is to challenge unethical behavior, then my job would be hampered by holding a favorable opinion that wasn’t earned by ethical behavior.

And so goes the behavior of public officials and business and other community leaders who have been in the news lately. You see, ministers who accept personal gifts from wealthy church members may be tempted to look the other way if that member behaves illegally or unethically, thus failing to fulfill their ministerial role in counseling more godly choices. Board members who receive an unreasonably hefty payment for serving on the board ($100,000 for a once a year meeting is not uncommon) may be tempted to look the other way if the company president proposes actions that border on unethical. CEOs whose bonuses and other payouts depend on the profitability of the company may be tempted to “fudge,” if they think they can get away with it, if fudging will increase their bonuses or other payouts. And, of course, government officials who accept free hotel rooms, golf games, luncheons, or charity ball tickets may be tempted to play favorites with the gift givers despite requirements to equitably consider all views and all bids.

So what’s the point here? If we are shooting for optimal ethical behavior and refusing to start down a slippery slope, if we want to invest in a better society, if we want to prevent our own or others’ boundary crossing or inappropriate obligations, then we need to face the facts: loss-leaders are not gifts. Loss- leaders ask us for favors. Loss-leaders hope that we will have a more favorable relationship with the giver than with their competitors. Loss-leaders are given so that we will pay the giver back. And we need to return loss-leaders if they will tempt us to let down our guard, to play favorites, to sacrifice quality, or to simply not perform our jobs or roles to their best. We need to return loss-leaders if we have no intention of purchasing the product or service, if it would be illegal to do accept the item or service, or if it would harm our families, our companies, or the public trust to accept it. So, let’s put raw greed aside and think of the bigger picture. Let’s send back the loss-leaders!