Along with being a pastor, my dad was a bi-vocational contractor. He mostly worked laying floors, but he could do anything, as was evidenced by the fact that he built\u2014by hand\u2014one of the houses I lived in when I was young (yes, I know it sounds like I grew up on Little House on the Prairie, but this was only 1972 Oregon). He was, and still is, incredibly handy!<\/p>\n
But it turns out that I didn\u2019t inherit a single one of his \u2018handy\u2019 genes. I did learn the difference between a Phillips and Standard screwdriver, and I do know which side of a hammer drives in a nail, but that\u2019s about the extent of it. Seriously. Unlike some of my pastor friends who have learned (and excelled at) things like woodworking, laying tile, and fixing stuff around their house, thinking of doing any of that gives me cold sweats.<\/p>\n
Even though I am not at all handy…AT ALL (are you picking up what I\u2019m laying down here?), my dad made sure that as an adult I had a working toolbox, and that I at least knew what those things in the toolbox were to be used for. First, he bought the box, then he started to buy the tools, and explain them to me. I may not know how to make the best use of a screwdriver, but I sure know where to find one if I ever need it.<\/p>\n
In Leading with Nothing to Lose: Training in the Exercise of Power (The Undefended Leader, part 2) <\/em>Simon Walker seems to be concerned with making sure leaders understand how to access the power-tools they will need to pursue their calling.<\/p>\n But let\u2019s stop right there. Power? Some would say power is a dirty word when talking about leadership (but not when talking about tools: give me a drill over a screwdriver anytime). It seems to be widely accepted that the more a leader learns to exercise power, the more of a corrupting agent it will become.<\/p>\n That\u2019s the reason Walker makes it clear that the use of power in any form is not for the purpose of promoting the leader, but with the objective of serving the true needs of the follower.[1]<\/a><\/p>\n Like a surgeon handling a scalpel, power can<\/em> be dangerous if used improperly or with ill intent. But, as a surgeon can\u2019t help people without<\/em> the scalpel, a leader must use power responsibly if she or he is to serve others.<\/p>\n In the interest of training leaders to correctly utilize power, Walker has developed (or discovered) what I was calling a \u201cthree letter scheme\u201d that pointed to the different kinds of power leaders might use. The first letter indicated whether the kind of power was used on the frontstage (P-presenting) or backstage (R-reserved). The second letter had to do with whether it was strong power (S) or weak power (W). The third letter considered whether the power was consolidating (C) or expanding (X).<\/p>\n Though not as complicated to me as Eve Pool\u2019s leadership deck of cards in the helpful book Leadersmithing[2]<\/a>(I learned a lot but gave up far before learning all 52 \u2018cards\u2019), it took me about half the book to finally \u2018grasp\u2019 this principle… but when I did, I realized something quite important: Power comes in different shapes, and sizes; diverse forms of power have various impacts, and leaders are wired in such a way that they will more naturally gravitate towards one form of power over another.<\/p>\n A competent leader will learn to both intellectually understand and have a basic practical knowledge of how each form of power can best be utilized in dissimilar situations to best serve leadership\u2019s purpose, which, importantly, is never about serving the leader themselves.<\/p>\n In other words, I might be more naturally inclined towards using a hammer, and it may be one of the only tools I know how to use well, but as they say, to a man with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And even I know that it\u2019s a bad idea to use a hammer to set a screw (thanks, dad).<\/p>\n One more thing: It initially seemed strange to me that a book whose title included the phrase \u201cthe undefended leader\u201d was primarily about power. I thought \u201cIsn\u2019t the use of power ultimately a defense mechanism?\u201d In the last section of the book Walker turns a corner from the \u201cthree letter scheme\u201d and reestablishes what he\u2019s been saying throughout the book (and throughout the first book in the series.)<\/p>\n \u201cThe undefended leader\u201d,<\/em> Walker says, \u201cis the one whose needs are met through an unconditional attachment to an Other, in which she finds identity, belonging, and affection. This source of approval gives her such security that her sense of self is not defined by her success as a leader.\u201d[3]<\/strong><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em>Like we learned in Edwin Friedman\u2019s \u201cFailure of Nerve\u201d[4]<\/a> an effective leader must learn the principle of detachment. What Walker seems to be adding to our understanding is that detachment, and mastery of all eight leadership tools he points to, is most truly possible when a leader is truly attached to and finds her identity in God.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Simon P. Walker,\u00a0Leading with Nothing to Lose: Training in the Exercise of Power<\/em>, Carlisle, CA: Piquant Editions Ltd, 2007, 142.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Eve Pool, Leadersmithing: Revealing the Trade Secrets of Leadership. <\/em>London: Bloomsbury Business, 2017.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Walker, Leading with Nothing to Lose<\/em>, 144.<\/p>\n