{"id":2501,"date":"2014-09-19T14:49:07","date_gmt":"2014-09-19T14:49:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/?p=2501"},"modified":"2014-09-19T15:02:42","modified_gmt":"2014-09-19T15:02:42","slug":"unwavering-resolve","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/unwavering-resolve\/","title":{"rendered":"Unwavering Resolve"},"content":{"rendered":"

Almost exactly a year ago, I took a trip to Kiev, Ukraine. I went there to begin my research on an organization that taught \u201cServantLeadership\u201d curriculum in several international universities. My mission was to discover how the teaching of the curriculum was impacting the university and the community around the school. The training had been going on for several years, so I assumed that there would be plenty of information to gather and evaluate. To my surprise, what I discovered was a large group of people, both faculty and students, who were disillusioned, discouraged, and confused. You see, although the curriculum was fine in theory<\/em>, it did not transfer into practice<\/em> \u2013 not with the leadership of the university, and not with the leadership of the organization I was there to research. Talk is easy; application is another thing altogether. So I too came home disillusioned, discouraged, and confused. And it was only a few days later that Kiev burst into chaos. Ukraine\u2019s national leadership was exposed for what it really was, corrupt and disingenuous. And then the country was plunged into civil war and is still making headlines a year later.<\/p>\n

Leadership. This is a loaded word. One\u2019s definition all depends on one\u2019s experience. For those who have worked with good leaders, the term brings warm-fuzzy feelings. For those who have experienced poor leaders, the word triggers painful memories and negative feelings. In this week\u2019s reading, Jim Collins adds his input into the leadership conversation. His work is based of solid, thoughtful research. Collins coins a new term, what he calls \u201cLevel 5 Leadership.\u201d I am not so sure I like the term, but I do like what his research uncovered, particularly what I see as balance in his work. After my disillusionment with \u201cservant-leadership\u201d theory, I was heartened by Collins\u2019 input:<\/p>\n

It is very important to grasp that Level 5 Leadership is not just about humility and modesty. It is equally about ferocious resolve, and almost stoic determination to do whatever needs to be done to make the company great.<\/p>\n

Indeed, we debated for a long time on the research team about how to describe the good-to-great leaders. Initially, we penciled in terms like \u201cselfless executive\u201d and \u201cservant leader.\u201d But members of the team violently objected to these characterizations.<\/p>\n

\u201cThose labels don\u2019t ring true,\u201d said Anthony Chirikos. \u201cIt makes them sound weak or meek, but that\u2019s not at all the way I think of Darwin Smith of Coleman Mockler. They would do almost anything to make the company great.\u201d<\/p>\n

Then Eve Li suggested, \u201cWhy don\u2019t we just call them Level 5 leaders? If we put a label like \u2018selfless\u2019 or \u2018servant\u2019 on them, people will get entirely the wrong idea. We need to get people to engage with the whole concept, to see both<\/em> sides of the coin. If you only get the humility side, you miss the whole idea.\u201d[1]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I am all for humility and servant-heartedness, but I also believe in the values of commitment and decisiveness, what Collins refers to as \u201cunwavering resolve.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"images\"<\/p>\n

In the Ukraine, a former Soviet state, the phrase \u201cservant leadership\u201d is not easily translated into Ukrainian. It is misunderstood. As Collins stated, it feels like weakness. And weakness is not tolerated well in an Eastern European setting. Even my translator was puzzled by how to translate the concepts. Recently, she left the university and the servant-leadership organization, looking for a healthier workplace. I don\u2019t blame her. I left too, to look for a better subject to research. And, through the help of my advisor, I changed my research topic at the end of 2013 to Traditional Native-American Leadership Practices. To my surprise, a lot of what Jim Collins speaks about in his book is true of Native leadership.<\/p>\n

Traditional Native-American Leadership is much more about practice than about theory. In an interesting article on the contrast between Western and Native leadership styles,[2]<\/a> Miles Bryant points out that Native leaders have several values and practices that might seem odd to the Western mind (at least to an American leader\u2019s mind). These particular values\/practices are as follows:<\/p>\n