Leadership that Moves
I was listening to a top 100 pop radio station while driving with Anya the other day when I made a comment that anyone who is unfamiliar with what they’re listening to might make: “ew, music just isn’t as good as it used to be”. We switched stations and a song from “our time” (which I know is not that long ago) came on and immediately proved that maybe there are just questionable songs from every generation of pop music. It was the Thong Song[1] (if you’re unfamiliar, this is the actual title of the song) by Sisqo. There was a serious loss of faith in my own judgement that followed. Could it be that I was simply reminiscing inaccurately and romanticizing a past that wasn’t necessarily better? I think so; and my tendency to do so isn’t limited to just music.
That’s why I appreciated Jules Glanzer’s book, The Sound of Leadership. In it, Glanzer uses musical metaphors to impart lessons in leadership that he’s learned. Near the beginning, he distills leadership down to five words: listen, see, learn, do, and love.[2] The center of those five words, in order and in importance, is learn. Learning seems to be set on the foundation of listening and seeing. Glanzer sets out that the most important thing for a leader to begin with is listening, “first to the voice of God and then to people”[3] Immediately following listening is to be prepared to see things differently because eyes can deceive.[4] Only when we listen and see can we answer the questions that Glanzer sets out for learning:
- “What do you want to preserve?”
- “what do you want to avoid?”
- “What do you want to achieve?”[5]
In these three core questions, Glanzer helps leaders to push forward, bringing with them lessons from the past without getting stuck in it. In reflection of our reading last week, I’m curious how we might reframe some of our dialogue around Postmodernism, critical theory, and other experience centric ideology by asking ourselves and others questions like these. The author knowingly makes clear that we’ll still have to sift through all the different voices[6], and assures us, I think rightfully, that simply taking time to ask, making space for responses and caring enough to summarize can provide validation for each one.[7]
It seems pretty easy and straightforward. So why is it that so many bad leaders, even in church settings, are elevated into high positions? I think, at least in part, is that leaders are elevated to fulfill a predetermined set of responsibilities rather than based on their character. And it makes sense. Churches are organizations with traditions and programs that are important to people. Perhaps even more deeply, they’re part of institutions that seek to preserve a romanticized version of the past.[8] But perhaps in that process, we unwittingly build the concept of who leaders are by what they can accomplish. Glanzer insightfully says that “leadership is being that results in doing”[9]. Maybe what we need is to find ways to build a culture and infrastructure that reinforces the idea that what we might accomplish is a result of our identity and not the other way around.
The anecdote that stuck out to me most from this book is when Glanzer writes about legacy. Regarding a campus upgrade that people remember him for, he reflects, “as far as I’m concerned, I was simply there when it all happened… others did the work as I watched and cheered”[10] He goes on to explain that legacy isn’t necessarily what we accomplish, but who we are. “Living it each day creates a style that worms its way into the minds and hearts of the people in your care and cements their view of you down through history.”[11]
In the home stretch of our program, I’ve found myself increasingly worried about what kind of results my project might cede and what kind of immediate impact it might have. The Sound of Leadership has reminded me that our greatest accomplishment during the program is not our research or our project; rather it is the ways in which we have grown as people. Our success can be measured by how we continue to “listen”, “see”, and “learn” and in that we can be assured in the ways we “do” and “love”.
[1] Sisqo. “Thong Song.” Unleash the Dragon. Arista Records, 2000, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oai1V7kaFBk&ab_channel=SisqoVEVO.
[2] Jules Glanzer, The Sound of Leadership: Kingdom Notes to Fine Tune Your Life and Influence, (Surrey: Invite Press, 2023), 24.
[3] Ibid, 25.
[4] Ibid, 26.
[5] Ibid, 27.
[6] Ibid, 43.
[7] Ibid, 42.
[8] Martyn Percy, Talk given in Oxford to DLGP, September 23, 2023.
[9] Glanzer, The Sound of Leadership, 84.
[10] Glanzer, The Sound of Leadership, 92.
[11] Ibid, 95.
About the Author
Caleb Lu
6 responses to “Leadership that Moves”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Great post, it is great to hear that I am not the only person who thinks that the “Thong Song” was ridiculous. Sadly at least once a month I do express that the music these days don’t compare to the 80’s and 90’s. As I have gained quite fond of the music of my parents era and I think that they felt the same way about our music. The point of each song though was to get us to listen. It was the most important task as listening is stated to be in Glazers writing. If we didn’t then the songs would not stay on the charts. With in the spiritual rem if we don’t listen when can not stay on the right path. It would be interesting to know how has your listening (to God) helped you during this program?
Caleb, you touched on something that has been a frustration of mine for nearly 10 years: “Why are jerks [predominantly alpha males] elevated into leadership roles in the church?” It is incongruent with what a pastor is supposed to be: someone who lives in and among the community as an example of godly character. But you pointed out that its because they are not seen for who they are (character, but what they can do (grow a church and increase tithe). What would you say is a critical action step to combatting this pattern within the Church?
I am encouraged by your perspective on your project. Whatever the result may be, the important work is the internal work: how we have been shaped for the better through these three years. I will keep this in perspective as I share in your angst of not knowing if this project I’m pouring myself into will be of any use to anyone.
Caleb,
Considering the legacy that Glanzer discusses, how might we shift our focus from the anxiety of immediate project outcomes to the broader perspective of the impact we have on others through our personal growth and character development during the process?
Thanks 🙂
Caleb,
Great post. I also, found myself thinking of Martyn Percy when I was reading Glanzer. Your reference to his thoughts on institutions and church resonated with me when you wrote, “Churches are organizations with traditions and programs that are important to people. Perhaps even more deeply, they’re part of institutions that seek to preserve a romanticized version of the past.” This is the tension to navigate between preserving the past and advancing into the future. Glanzer’s questions are the perfect way to reveal what should be preserved and discarded. I think these kind of questions are what can shape churches into transformational institutions. In what ways are you able to offer some of these questions in your context? I am considering how I can ask my Board to consider these questions in 2024.
Chad- Sorry to ask you this on Calebs post… But Man… How do you start to have those conversations with your board and then not take offense? Whats the first step to have those conversations… A lot of prayer for sure!
Our success can be measured by how we continue to “listen”, “see”, and “learn” and in that we can be assured in the ways we “do” and “love”.
You are truly one of the kindest people I know! What are ways that you “do” and “love” at your core? How do you keep your amazing composure?