P.K.D. Lee
Vice President,
International Advancement

Introduction:

The term Leadership Development is misleading as it assumes that Leadership is a skill, which can be learnt. Management is a skill and can be learnt. Leadership is a lifestyle and need to be grown. It is created by living with the disciple and challenging him with your lifestyle and not by lecturing in a classroom.

Leadership comes from people trusting you and listening to your suggestions, advice and guidance. This trust comes from trust in one’s knowledge and trust in one’s motives. Thus the essential qualities of a leader are – knowledge in one’s subject or discipline and character. These qualities are inextricably linked with a passion for excellence. It is because of a passion for excellence that one lives by his values and has character. It is because of a passion for excellence that one acquires as much information as he can on his field and discipline. Without this passion for excellence we tend to be mediocre in our knowledge and life leading to people distrusting our abilities or motives or both.

The question comes then, can a passion for excellence be taught in a classroom or is it a lifestyle that comes from living in an environment of excellence? If leadership is no a skill but rather a lifestyle, what then are the traits that need to be cultivated in the person being developed as a leader?

Qualities of a Leader:

Obviously the first quality is character. But what exactly is character? Is it “goodness” or “holiness”? It is “morality” linked with “honesty” and “integrity”? Frankly it is none of these. Character is the ability to love others. Love as defined in Mathew 5:20 is the commitment to do good to others irrespective of what they do to you. It is this commitment to do good to others that make people trust your words of guidance.

In other words the quality we are trying to develop is the ability to love people in the true sense of the word. I use the qualification “true sense” as many people understand love as looking after people. That is no true. Love is enabling people to fulfil the potential that is within them. So it is in the sense of a commitment to help people fulfil their potential that makes people accept your leadership. Looking after people comes from a low opinion of others or from a high opinion of self. True love looks after people while giving them a full opportunity to grow and become independent.

The second quality is a passion for excellence. This passion for excellence leads to wanting to do everything with the best possible effort. This leads to adequate effort being made to study situations and to learn skills, so that when an opinion is given people know that is it not an off the cuff remark but the word of a prophet.

I break this passion for excellence into its two major components:-
The first is the attitude of doing everything with an understanding that this responsibility is from God. That way we are not frivolous or careless in what we do but do it with seriousness and care worthy of God.
The second is a passion for information. It is a deep desire to study subjects, situations etc so that any decisions made are based on true knowledge and are not intuitive guesses.

The third quality that a leader needs to develop is trust in God. It is impossible to have total information on all situations and therefore decisions have to be taken on less than perfect information. In this, the leader needs to trust the guidance that God gives and be willing to believe in Romans 8:28 that God would work all things for our good. This helps people in avoiding dithering in situations where any decision is better than no decision. It is this decisiveness, which makes people look up to your leadership and look to you for guidance in difficulties. This decisiveness does not mean a dictatorial attitude, but rather a willingness to cut the Gordian knot every time one comes up. The ability to live in ambiguity comes from what some authors say a willingness to take risks. I see it as a willingness to trust God in ambiguous situations.
How do these qualities translate in to the workplace and home? In both there are two different aspects, which need to be considered. One in terms of the purpose of the organization and the other is in terms of the relationship between the leader and the people.

Because of his trust in God, the leader does not see any role for chance or accidents in his/her life. Every situation is from God and permitted by God. So his or her presence in the organization is not just chance but with a purpose. Further, Colossians 1:16 says that all power structures were created by Jesus and for Jesus. That means the organization we are working in was created by Jesus and for Jesus. Today we see many of these organizations failing Jesus. When we work in them we try and understand the purpose for which Jesus created the organization and see how this purpose can be fulfilled.

Understanding Motivation:
For a leader to be effective, he has to be capable of motivating people to perform tasks required to fulfil his plans. The approach he takes to people depends on his basic assumptions of people. In management two extreme assumptions were defined by Douglas McGregor. He called them the X type manager and the Y type manager.

The X type manager has the following assumptions:
1. Most people have an inherent dislike for work and will avoid it if they can.
2. Hence most people must be forced, controlled, directed or threatened to get them to put forth an adequate effort to achieve the organization’s objectives.
3. Most people prefer to be directed and wish to avoid responsibility. They have little ambition and want security instead.

The Y type manager works on the following assumptions:
1. It is as natural to exert physical and mental effort at work as at play.
2. People will exercise self control in the service of objectives to which they are committed.
3. Commitment to objectives depends on the rewards people get when objectives are achieved.
4. Most people can be taught to accept and seek responsibility.

Who is right? Examples can be produced to support both views. The Bible also provides evidence for both views of man. Man being created in the image of God (Genesis 1:28), finds works natural to him as it is God’s nature to work. “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working” John 5:17

Because of the fall of man, work now becomes a frustration. ‘Then to Adam He (God) said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you shall return.” (Genesis 3:17-19) Because of man’s sinful nature, he rebels against work.

Depending on where we stand on the line from X to Y the way we relate with people will vary.
The X type manager will try and exert control over every minute detail of his men’s work. Well defined procedures would be laid out with acknowledgements that each step has been carried out. Little responsibility is delegated down the line and no place is provided for showing initiative. Mistakes are not permitted, and when they occur, are used to bludgeon subordinates.
The Y type manager trusts his men. He permits them to develop their own systems and display initiative. Mistakes are permitted as a part of the learning process. There is good delegation and distribution of responsibilities.

Sounds nice. Does it work? Yes, with some conditional clauses. Because of the fallen nature of man, certain amount of supervision and control has to be maintained.

How are people motivated? The X type manager says ‘FEARS and REWARDS’; the Y type manager says ‘FULFILL HIGHER EMOTIONAL NEEDS’; the leader says ‘VISIONS’.

Fear motivation was the oldest form of motivation and worked as long as there were surplus labour conditions amongst a disorganized labour force. With the beginning of modern industrial systems, the mode of motivation changed more and more to money with incentive schemes, but both fear and money went hand in hand; fear to produce quality, and money for quantity. In a way ‘money’ is also a fear motivation since the threat is: no product no money!

The disadvantage of this approach is that it encourages people to produce the minimum level of acceptable quality so that they could escape the threat and gain the reward. There is an unused potential within them to produce more. If one wants to tap this potential, he can only do so by ‘Faith Motivation’ or motivation by commitment to a vision or cause. If the people have a commitment to the work, he will work to his full capabilities, and not to avoid the threat. Hence the Y type manager can succeed best, provided he can sell his vision or cause to the people.
The leader seeks the commitment of his people; he is not satisfied with mere obedience.

THE LEADER USES ALL THE MOTIVATIONAL LEVELS
Abraham Maslow had made a hierarchy of needs which people have. He postulated that unless the lower needs are met, the people will not be motivated by fulfilling higher needs. This hierarchy can be summarized under six levels as listed below.

SELF ACTUALISATION
AUTONOMY
SELF ESTEEM
SOCIAL
SECURITY
BASIC BIOLOGICAL NEEDS

It is seen that while there is a lack of interest in the higher needs when lower needs are not met, this is not absolute, and people can pursue higher needs even though lower needs are not met.
The X type manager uses the lowest three needs to motivate his people. However, these needs do not motivate but rather satisfy. If these needs are not met, the people are dis satisfied and complain. If they are met, the people stop complaining, BUT ARE NOT MOTIVATED TO WORK. Rather, they work out of a sense of gratitude, and not commitment.

It is only the upper needs that motivate when they are met as a result of the work they need to do. If their functions do not satisfy these needs he gets demotivated.

In this hierarchy, the highest motivational factor is self actualisation. This means that people work because they believe in what they are doing. It is because of a motivation within him rather than outside him. This comes through understanding the meaning behind the activity and sympathizing with it. This requires that the workers see the vision of the management and accept it.

Mathew 6:25-33 shows how Jesus keeps the lower levels of motivation in perspective even as He uses the vision of the Kingdom of God to motivate His disciples.
“Therefore I say to you do not worry about your life, what you shall eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? …seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you.”

It is a mistake often made by voluntary organisations to motivate only with the higher levels and to ignore the lower levels because of the inspiring power of their vision. Blake and Mouton in their well known Management Grid have also stressed the need to use the two groups of motivational levels. They said that some managers were excessively concerned about the task and called them 9.1 managers, 9 indicating the emphasis on the task and 1 on human relationships. Others emphasize relationships and do not stress the task. These he calls the 1.9 managers. The ideal they say are the 9,9 managers who stress both in their supervision.

A leader makes work exciting. Apart from giving meaning to his work, an effective leader must give his people a sense of pride in his work. This sense of pride can come from a degree of autonomy in decision making or from utilization of his skills in the job etc. Where standards are high, people are happy with their performance and involvement with the organization. Where standards are low people are frustrated and unhappy. To achieve this sense of pride or self esteem in our people, we have to build into our style of leadership a certain amount of freedom to the individual. We must with this, set very high standards for the people.

THE LEADER IS TRUE TO HIS VISION.
The leader has to ensure that all decisions and actions are true to his vision. They must reflect faith and commitment to the vision. If it does not, people will immediately give up their commitment to the vision, as they find the vision to be a motivational gimmick and not a fact.

THE LEADER GIVES DIRECTION WITH HIS VISION
A team can be defined as a group of people working towards a common objective. While the functions of each could be different, the synergy of their efforts is toward achieving an overall objective.
It is the function of the leader to provide this clear objective or vision for the team. It is this overall perspective or vision that ties together the activities of each individual in the team. If this is not there, the team cannot function, and you have individuals pulling in different directions, neutralizing each other.

THE LEADER SETS THE OVERALL PERSPECTIVE FOR THE ORGANISATION.
To be able to motivate by a vision, and to build a team around a vision, the leader needs to have a vision for his team. As a leader we must be clear what the reason for the existence of our organizations is. What does it contribute to society and to its members? How is it unique and different from others? Once this is crystallized, either by consensus within the team, or by the special gifts of the leader, it is written down in an easily understood format. Every member of the team must know this overall objective by heart and evaluate his decisions and actions by it.

THE LEADER SETS THE ETHOS OF THE TEAM.
The vision which the leader shares with his team not only explains the goals or purposes but also the ethos or values of the organization. This is very important but not realized by many leaders. There are many styles of achieving objectives aggressively, politely, no holds barred approach, with an air of service, with an air of arrogance etc. If the ethos of the organization is not clarified, it leaves the team pulling in different directions and in disarray. Each follows his own method, the organization.
which may not have the approval of others who follow their own approach.
Ethos also gives a value system, which members of the team can identify with and take pride in. It motivates their self esteem and their self actualisation. Failure to develop an ethos is one of the key differences between unsuccessful and successful leaders.

THE LEADER SETS INDIVIDUAL GOALS
The functions of different members of the team are different. Therefore the leader has to work out the application of the overall objective for each team member’s function. So goals for his function will need to be clearly specified for him within the framework of the overall objective.

Clarity of the individual’s role enables him to perform his responsibilities to the team better. It is important that every individual goal is linked to the overall objective or vision.

It is this vision, which keeps the team together. With this overall objective in mind we then need to work out what activities need to be done to fulfill the objective. These activities are framed out to the different departments or team members with the goals to be achieved in each of the activities.
The team members or departments then need to work out the resources required to achieve these goals and to prepare an action plan with time and resource requirements for each step in the action plan. Based on these projections the budgets and other resource management are done.

THE LEADER GIVES CLEAR DIRECTION TO FULFILL THE TASK.
However much we try and sell the programme, all will not be convinced. Some may be convinced but do not want to pay the cost. They have other interests which conflict and are not willing to give these up. Another fact which the extreme Y type manager ignores is the fallen nature of man. As we read in Romans Chapter 7, man is a divided personality. His spirit wants to do that which is good, but his flesh makes him do evil. So this means that our management style has to be a combination of X and Y.

THE LEADER ADAPTS HIS LEADERSHIP STYLE.
There is no universal, ideal leadership style. The theories of both McGregor, Blake and Mounton have been challenged. The leadership style, which we should use, depends on the nature of the job, the environment, and the nature of the work force.

WORKERS: If the group is basically unskilled, with little knowledge, ambition or motivation, the leadership style has to be more directive and authoritarian, with less freedom for the workers. Closer supervision and detailed programming of jobs is needed and appears more X oriented though it is not so. It is a recognition of the need of the worker for direction. Experiments have shown that people who are less educated or with lower intelligence prefer authoritarian leadership over them and resent a participative leadership as putting unnecessary strain on them. On the other hand if the group is well educated, and can comprehend the vision of the organization, the style has to be more participative and less authoritarian. More consultation and delegation should be there.

TASK: If the task is extremely critical, where an error is fatal or of enormous consequence, the supervision will be close, with little room for initiative or innovation provided. On the other hand, with less critical and less delicate tasks more freedom is given.

ENVIRONMENT: The environment are factors outside our control, which we inherit. This includes the ethos of the organization, attitudes of the people on the top, the market situation, laws etc. At times we have to conform to the environment, and cannot have a style that goes against the ethos of the management or times.

THE LEADER KEEPS CONTROL OF PERFORMANCE.
However favourable be the conditions for delegation and participative working, there cannot be a total abdication of control. While we delegate authority and responsibility, our accountability is not taken away. Hence there has to be a carefully planned control of those below us. The control should be reduced to just those parameters, which enable us to see whether we are on course, or not.

The ability to develop control parameters and its monitoring systems depends on the experience and knowledge of the manager. These also are not static, but may be changed as the men try to beat the system. A common parameter of health is body temperature; of direction is the compass reading; and of a church may be income or baptisms. We have to decide as to what is the best barometer of our performance. A common mistake is to monitor methods rather than results. When we monitor methods and not results, we become responsible for the success or the failure of the system, as we are the ones who decide on the methods. So if the worker is not motivated, or the failure is due to some fault of his, he only blames it in the method. As a result there is a lack of clarity in trouble shooting and diagnosis of failures. Controlling methods is an X oriented approach; but when we encourage results we become vision oriented.

THE LEADER BUILDS TRUST
One of the problems with X type leadership is that it leads to a cycle of distrust so that the working atmosphere and confidence or trust between management and labour is destroyed. This cycle starts with management looking at or dealing with workers with suspicion. So the staff begins to look at and deal with management with suspicion. This confirms to the management that the staff is untrustworthy. This in turn confirms to the staff that the management is untrustworthy. We see the same idea in Psalm 18:25 26, where God appears to be of the same nature as the beholder: “To the faithful you show yourself faithful, to the blameless you show yourself blameless, to the pure you show yourself pure, to the crooked you show yourself shrewd”
Breaking this spiral of distrust is exceedingly difficult, but is a must for a healthy organization. Due to the fallen nature of man we cannot avoid a X style of leadership to some extent, so we must learn how to avoid the cycle of distrust.

As supervision and control appears to workers to be lack of trust, we need to send compensatory signals that show trust from our side. Thus trust is seen in delegation of responsibility and absence of nagging or of a management which breathes down one’s neck. Provision of resources and means to fulfil the vision is leadership which builds trust. If trust is not there, supervision is seen as attempts to find fault. Where trust is there supervision is seen as help to enable you to do the job better. Thus the perspective of the same action changes because of trust.

To develop trust, the leader has to initially practice trust. There must be a transparency of relationships between leadership and staff. There are no unnecessary secrets. If there has to be a secret, it must be explained why it is secret i.e. formulae etc. This means all decisions are explained to the people and not dictated. No decisions affecting any individual in anyway are taken without discussing with him, consulting with him and informing him. This involves a high level of communication between management and the staff. They must continually talk to each other with honesty and trust.

THE LEADDER GETS PEOPLE INVOLVED.
One of the slogans much used by political parties in India during election time is ‘labour participation in Management.’ To fulfil their electoral promises, they appoint one union leader to the Board of Directors, and there he is isolated both by the labour and Management.

We cannot get labour to participate in Management by foisting a labour representative onto boards. But when we have an openness in relationships with good communication, automatically people are drawn into the routine decision making process. As we discuss all issues, no decision is taken without the people being involved. This help to build an excellent rapport and what is more important, excellent morale among the people. This is very important when changes are being implemented in organizations. For when the people have not been consulted or been allowed to share their views, resistance to change is maximum.
In the discussion change takes place in both the thinking of the management as well as the staff. So the staff has begun influencing the decisions in the organization. If I can influence the decisions within the organization I am a part of the team. If cannot then I am not a part of the team.

People resent change because of the following reason:
1. They do not know why the change is required.
2. Because they were not consulted, and so made to feel unimportant.
3. Fear of the unknown – well they be able to handle the new systems? Would it cause redundancy? Would their skills be no more required?

All these can be solved by effective communication from the beginning of the contemplated change, so that they know why the change is necessary, and what its implications are. In case they are affected in any way, what the leadership intends to do with them is known or settled beforehand. To do so our organization must genuinely strive to be the best in what it considers important and in its points of differentiation.

THE LEADER UNDERSTANDS PEOPLE
Even with all this openness, there will be conflict. This conflict arises due to differences in perceptions. Each individual’s sense are conditioned by his past experiences, his present circumstances and his future aspirations. Taking an example from Fr. Anthony D’Souza’s lectures, a cat is seen as a destroyer of pests by a housewife, a destroyer of pets by a bird lover, as a friend or a rival by another cat, or as an enemy by a mouse. The object under consideration is the same; but perceptions differ.

To get over these conflicts, we must put ourselves in the other person’s shoes and understand from his viewpoint. When we know why a person thinks as he does, we can sympathize with him and often this by itself makes him more amenable to reason. Often in leadership the differences in perception are caused by bad communication. Thus there can be a vast gap between what the leader expects from the people and what the people think the leader expects from them. Good and effective communication of the leader’s goals and expectations are a must for building trust. These should be communicated both verbally where there is good feedback or interaction and in writing to ensure that there are no misunderstandings.

We would help resolve a lot of distrust and conflicts in organizations. To be able to do so we must develop listening skills so that we can genuinely hear what people are saying. One of the greatest hindrances to effective listening is that we begin to react before the message is over. The typical reactions are to:
1. Evaluate what is being said on the basis of our past experience.
2. To categorize on the basis of our past experience and to begin to suggest solutions.

We must discipline ourselves to avoid this and only react after the other person has finished speaking. This would ensure that we hear all that is said.

Difference in viewpoints exist over value systems, performance rating, goal etc. Unless these are kept well defined, and communication channels for feedback kept open, we find ourselves in conflict. For instance, if we feel that our subordinate’s work is inadequate and we do not tell him so, he may have the wrong perception that his work is satisfactory. That is why openness and frankness is necessary.

THE LEADER CREATES CHANNELS FOR LISTENING,
In large organizations, it becomes necessary that the leader creates some forum where he can listen to the people and understand their perceptions. Unless he does that, he will not be able to effectively present his views to the people.
This is done in a variety of ways in actual practice from the simple MBWA to the more elaborate monthly teas.
MBWA stands for ‘Management by Walking Around.’ The leader moves among the people and listens to them. This is done mostly at work so that their perceptions of the work can be seen. More elaborate methods consist of selecting the names of people at random and the leader spending a meal with them and listening to them.

When we listen it is usually done in a one to one situation or in small groups. This is necessary as people may be afraid to speak in the presence of the other people. So while communication downwards is done in large groups, communication upwards is done in small groups.
Because of this we need to be careful that when we are listening we do not convey any information, as it would demoralize supervisors who are by passed when you pass on such information directly to people.
We must not use listening to be a spy network, but rather management’s method of getting to know the people’s concerns and problems.

THE LEADER SHOWS TRUST BY DELEGATING.
While delegating we should ensure that we delegate with enough authority for him to take the required decisions to do the job. Certain amount of trust and freedom must be given, otherwise delegation becomes slave driving. Just as the slave has no choice, the employee also has no choice.

THE LEADER HAS A CONCERN FOR PEOPLE.
Even when we practice an open and participatory leadership style, there is a suspicion in the minds of the people that you are doing it not because of a genuine regard for them, but so that they would trust you and commit themselves to you. This suspicion gives the people the feeling that they are being manipulated for your benefit.

As Christian leaders we should have a pastoral concern for people. For this is the teaching giving by Paul, that we should look after the interests of other and not of ourselves, I Corinthians 10: 24. We have to be parents to our people. Just as we assist our children in planning their careers and future, we should do the same for our people.
I define love as “empowering people to become what God wants them to be”.
So love is no so much ‘looking after’ as nurturing growth. In general people look for promotion and advancement in their careers. They expect some security and certainty in their jobs. Realizing this, we should, as leaders plan their future and do all that is necessary to achieve it. We must let people know their future in advance, so that they can take necessary decisions accordingly.

THE LEADER KEEPS HIS COMMAND.
In spite of excellent communication, there may still be differences over basic philosophical assumptions and beliefs, which cannot be bridged. In such cases, the leader has to assert his prerogative as the final decisive authority and demand obedience to his directives. But this is the last step, after all discussions have failed.

THE LEADER USES CONFLICT
Conflicts are not necessarily harmful. While most management labour conflicts are over work privileges, conflict among managers are often over how work is to be done and not for personal gain. Such conflicts can be due to interdependence among sub units, differences in gaols of sub-units, competition for resources etc. These conflicts can be reduced by a strong authoritarian structure, surplus resources, a homogeneous environment and making decisions appear unimportant.

However this form of conflict is a sign of health, showing that the people are emotionally involved with their work. Such conflicts, if handled well, bring many improvements in practices and procedures within the organization. Recognizing this, some organizations so structure themselves that conflict is built in and inevitable, forcing a thorough investigation of all factors before a decision is taken. As mangers we should encourage frank sharing of views without permitting the exchanges to become personal.

THE LEADER LOOKS FOR THE WIN/WIN.
In conflicts we should have an approach that looks for a genuine benefit for the other party, so that both win. In effect, keep seeking a solution that makes both happy and satisfied and not a compromise that makes both unhappy. Avoid a Win/Lose or Lose/Win attitude, except in special situations, which may call for it.

Unfortunately the value system in the world around us is Win/Lose, and it is difficult to get people to change their paradigm. Similarly, many Christians believe that Lose/Win is the Biblical example e.g. Abraham and Lot in Genesis Chapter 13. But a true Win/Win is more beneficial to the kingdom of God than either of the above. It often happens that while we may go into the negotiation with a Win/Win attitude, the others are too steeped in a Win/Lose paradigm to change. In such cases, it may be better not to strike a deal, than to accept a Win/Lose or Lose/Win or a Lose/Lose compromise.

***