Leading Biblically by Ted Slater on 02/29/2008 at 11:00 AM

What does Scripture say about workplace leadership? How can managers and supervisors bring their Sunday faith with them to work on Monday?

Bruce E. Winston, Ph.D., dean for the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship at Regent University, has wrestled for years with these questions and has found a perhaps-unlikely answer in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. Specifically, the Beatitudes.

Interestingly, he found that the most common workplace problems were solved by applying the first Beatitude. The second most common issues were resolved by applying the second Beatitude. And so on down the list.

Dr. Winston has written a series, applying these biblical principles to leadership, for Boundless. We published the introduction back in December 2007. Since then, we've seen the roles of humility, empathy, and discipline in workplace leadership.

I'm personally challenged by this series, and am trying to put these principles into practice where I work. I'm eager to see what might happen should others in positions of leadership adopt these principles.

Leading Biblically by Ted Slater on 02/29/2008 at 11:00 AM

What does Scripture say about workplace leadership? How can managers and supervisors bring their Sunday faith with them to work on Monday?

Bruce E. Winston, Ph.D., dean for the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship at Regent University, has wrestled for years with these questions and has found a perhaps-unlikely answer in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. Specifically, the Beatitudes.

Interestingly, he found that the most common workplace problems were solved by applying the first Beatitude. The second most common issues were resolved by applying the second Beatitude. And so on down the list.

Dr. Winston has written a series, applying these biblical principles to leadership, for Boundless. We published the introduction back in December 2007. Since then, we've seen the roles of humility, empathy, and discipline in workplace leadership.

I'm personally challenged by this series, and am trying to put these principles into practice where I work. I'm eager to see what might happen should others in positions of leadership adopt these principles.

Comments

[1. BDB said the following at 11:37 PM on Mar 2:]

1

What Winston is writing about is very similar to Peter F. Drucker and Ken Blanchard. Of course, they're Christians, too.

You can grow and organization and staff by investing in people. There are definitely executives who believe that people create the value in an organization. And people who perform definitely can make an organization proftable.

The problems described in controlled discipline are more often problems with first-time supervisors. They usually haven't developed the skills to notice subtle problems and adjust their influence; so they go off on people too hard. Granted, there are executives like this, too, but they are only successful if they hire middle managers who put up with that behavior and buffer the front-line staff. (It actually pays pretty well to be a buffer to an ego-centric executive, by the way. But you can only keep the job a long time if the executive understand they need a buffer between them and the regular folks.)

One of my pet peeves is when supervisors and managers claim one of their employees is being "insubordinate." When I hear that term tossed around, I usually try to intercept them before they put it in writing. They usually haven't gotten down to the difficult task of specifically defining the expected behavior with the employee. While I don't particularly like the ham-handed nature of the progressive discipline process, it is useful in these situations. First, it forces the supervisor to really write down which company policies or procedures were violated. If they discover that they never told the employee what they ought to be doing, well, that's boss failure. Some employees will come around if you write down, specifically, what they should be doing.

But alas, some refuse. The purpose of documenting progressive discipline is to provide a record in the event someone needs to be terminated. This is particularly important in states where worker protections are vague and arbitrary. If the employer can show a pattern of verbal, written, and final written warnings before terminating an employee, it's usually no problem getting it to hold up in court. (Or in front of the EEOC or some other appeal entity.) Some employees will self-select out when you get firm and start documenting where they aren't getting the job done.

But some employees will abuse it. They will go on and on about how they didn't know what they should be doing, about how there's favoritsm, whatever else. It's important if you have an employee that is manipulative that you document carefully. Be assured, if you let the problem fester because it's difficult to confront them, it will become a huge problem to the rest of your team. Better to go through the pain of confronting the individual and getting their objections out on the table where you can document them. It will be unpleasant, but that's part of being a manager.

[2. Rachael said the following at 12:43 AM on Mar 3:]

2

At the end of one of his articles (linked to the "empathy" link in this post), he mentions how he spent a long time listening to someone after asking how things were going. Sometimes people do want to talk. Sometimes they are not fine though their lips may indicate otherwise. It would be good to develop the "deep listening" skills as he suggests.

Though I'm not in business or management, it's a good reminder to seek to develop empathy and care about people when asking how they are. Do we truly care? Do we have time to listen to an honest answer? Are we willing to do something to help should they be 'not fine'?

It's too bad that "how are you" is often reduced to a cultural nicety where there is often no time to have an honest exchange with a genuine answer to that question...

[1. BDB said the following at 11:37 PM on Mar 2:]

1

What Winston is writing about is very similar to Peter F. Drucker and Ken Blanchard. Of course, they're Christians, too.

You can grow and organization and staff by investing in people. There are definitely executives who believe that people create the value in an organization. And people who perform definitely can make an organization proftable.

The problems described in controlled discipline are more often problems with first-time supervisors. They usually haven't developed the skills to notice subtle problems and adjust their influence; so they go off on people too hard. Granted, there are executives like this, too, but they are only successful if they hire middle managers who put up with that behavior and buffer the front-line staff. (It actually pays pretty well to be a buffer to an ego-centric executive, by the way. But you can only keep the job a long time if the executive understand they need a buffer between them and the regular folks.)

One of my pet peeves is when supervisors and managers claim one of their employees is being "insubordinate." When I hear that term tossed around, I usually try to intercept them before they put it in writing. They usually haven't gotten down to the difficult task of specifically defining the expected behavior with the employee. While I don't particularly like the ham-handed nature of the progressive discipline process, it is useful in these situations. First, it forces the supervisor to really write down which company policies or procedures were violated. If they discover that they never told the employee what they ought to be doing, well, that's boss failure. Some employees will come around if you write down, specifically, what they should be doing.

But alas, some refuse. The purpose of documenting progressive discipline is to provide a record in the event someone needs to be terminated. This is particularly important in states where worker protections are vague and arbitrary. If the employer can show a pattern of verbal, written, and final written warnings before terminating an employee, it's usually no problem getting it to hold up in court. (Or in front of the EEOC or some other appeal entity.) Some employees will self-select out when you get firm and start documenting where they aren't getting the job done.

But some employees will abuse it. They will go on and on about how they didn't know what they should be doing, about how there's favoritsm, whatever else. It's important if you have an employee that is manipulative that you document carefully. Be assured, if you let the problem fester because it's difficult to confront them, it will become a huge problem to the rest of your team. Better to go through the pain of confronting the individual and getting their objections out on the table where you can document them. It will be unpleasant, but that's part of being a manager.

[2. Rachael said the following at 12:43 AM on Mar 3:]

2

At the end of one of his articles (linked to the "empathy" link in this post), he mentions how he spent a long time listening to someone after asking how things were going. Sometimes people do want to talk. Sometimes they are not fine though their lips may indicate otherwise. It would be good to develop the "deep listening" skills as he suggests.

Though I'm not in business or management, it's a good reminder to seek to develop empathy and care about people when asking how they are. Do we truly care? Do we have time to listen to an honest answer? Are we willing to do something to help should they be 'not fine'?

It's too bad that "how are you" is often reduced to a cultural nicety where there is often no time to have an honest exchange with a genuine answer to that question...