I've spent the summer pondering and presenting ideas on Franciscan Servant Leadership. Although servant leadership hasn't been in the op-ed pages recently, nonetheless, it seems like a worthwhile concept to ponder, given the various crises in leadership that we are witnessing and that are frequently discussed in the news.

Servant leadership in itself is a fairly counter-cultural understanding of leadership - one that is based on serving and listening and responding to the needs to others rather than one focused on attaining and keeping power. Serving others as a leader removes the focus from self and turns it instead toward others. That is profoundly contrary to the way most business leaders lead.

St. Francis' style of servant leadership is that much more counter-cultural. Indeed, many in business might protest that St. Francis cannot possibly be a role model of leadership for a business leader. But perhaps this holy fool has something to teach us.

Over the next few weeks, I'm going to write about four practices of Franciscan servant leadership. These practices are prayer, dialogue, discernment of gifts, and shared leadership.

For now, let me leave you with a quote from Robert K. Greenleaf, who coined the term "servant leadership." I think this understanding of servant leadership is profoundly Franciscan, and I hope you will see why over the next few weeks.

" This is my thesis: caring for persons, the more able and the less able serving each other, is the rock upon which a good society is built. Whereas, until recently, caring was largely person to person, now most of it is mediated through institutions - often large, complex, powerful, impersonal; not always competent; sometimes corrupt. If a better society is to be built, one that is more just and more loving, one that provides greater creative opportunity for its people, then the most open course is to raise both the capacity to serve and the very performance as servant of existing major institutions by new regenerative forces operating within them.” (Greenleaf, “What is servant leadership ?” http://www.greenleaf.org/whatissl/)

Weighing in on Mosques in America

I just heard a piece on NPR about protests across America about the building of mosques. I'm sure anyone who doesn't live under a rock has heard about the controversy about building a mosque near Ground Zero. The president has weighed in and clarified his "weighing in." So I'm going to take a position. The opposition to the building of mosques in this country is simply wrong.

It grieves me that Americans can be so wrong-headed and wrong-hearted on this issue. I understand and agree that Ground Zero is holy ground; I sympathize with the hurt and anger of those who lost loved ones and agree that the burial place of those who died must be honored. I can't think of a better way to honor them than to extend a hand in friendship to moderate Muslims who seek a community center and place to worship, allowing them the freedom to exercise their religion in a land that is supposed to be free. I can't think of a worse way to honor them than to continue the cycle of violence through prejudice and hatred .

Islam does not = terrorism. Islam is not a cult. Islam is one of the 3 great monotheistic religions, which include Judaism and Christianity. Islam is not monolithic. Just as there are different denominations of Christianity and different forms of Judaism and Buddhism, so there are different types of Islam. Furthermore, fundamentalism and violence is not unique to Islam.

I hope Americans will take this opportunity to become more educated about Islam; I hope they will be compassionate toward Muslims; I hope they will not repeat the tragic mistakes we have made in the past toward people we viewed as "enemies" and wrongly persecuted.

Is America in danger of being taken over by a race of elite superhuman intelligent beings? No, I haven’t heard of an imminent invasion by space aliens, but I did read an extensive article in the New York Times on the “Singularity Movement” that raised thoughts of such an invasion in my mind. The Singularity is a movement embraced by a group of the smartest and wealthiest technological minds in Silicon Valley. The vision of the Singularity movement is that eventually human beings and machines will be able to merge (if images of “The Borg” from Star Trek arise in your mind, you get the picture). Such a union will free these human/machine entities from illness, old age, and even death.

Raymond Kurzweil, the spokesperson for the movement , made clear his intention to live for hundreds of years and even to resurrect his father. The eventual advances of neuroscience and technological ability will enable him to download memories and data; medical advances will enable him to prepare his body for longevity. At this time, Mr. Kurzweil takes 150 pills a day and receives “regular intravenous procedures,” in addition to “reprogramming his body through a low-fat, vegetable-rich diet and regular exercise” (well, we’re all supposed to be doing that, right?). Nonetheless, I could not help but reflect upon how terribly frightened this man must be of death. Can technology truly “fix” everything – even the “problem” of death?

I’m not sure whether to laugh at this prospect or to cry. It seems so sci-fi; indeed, there are probably many in a position to say, “This all sounds great, but it IS sci-fi – we simply aren’t there yet.” Nonetheless, apparently there are some who think it CAN happen and is a really nifty idea. This of course raises all kinds of questions about how and whether this changes how we think of ourselves as human. Will these “borgs” become the new standard of humanity? Will the rest of us become “less than human”? The implications of such a superhuman “master race” are frightening. But I’m not yet ready to build a fallout shelter against the impending invasion!

This summer I'm reading Barry L. Padgett's Professional Morality and Guilty Bystanding: Merton's Conjectures and the Value of Work. I'm going to be using it in my business ethics class this fall. While teaching the course last semester, I discerned that I needed a "formation" component to the course - that is, I felt the students needed to be coaxed out of their "business" mindset and invited to reflect upon who they are and what is important to them.

One of the favorite buzz phrases in business these days is "thinking outside the box." It is so ubiquitous among business students that I am tempted to ban its use from my classroom. It is a vanity, really, because people use the phrase to flatter themselves that they are "thinking outside the box" when really they are doing nothing of the sort.

Truly thinking outside the box requires profound self-knowledge of the Socratic sort. At one point Padgett notes, "self-reflection is a necessary component of living a moral life at all" (p. 107). I was so excited to read this sentence, as it expresses something that I've known all along and was not quite able to articulate. If we are going to go beyond mere compliance and become truly moral, we need not just to know the ethical theories and apply them to case studies, we need not just to memorize the four Franciscan principles of Marian University. We need to engage in deep and life-long self-reflection; we need to be open to what we learn from that reflection; and then we must act accordingly.

I'm looking forward to offering my students an adventure in self-knowledge this fall.

Padgett, Barry L. Professional Morality and Guilty Bystanding: Merton's Conjectures and the Value of Work. Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press, 2009.

Training in Franciscan Servant Leadership

Next week, I will be presenting on Training in Franciscan Servant Leadership for Business Leaders together with Marcy Ripberger of Character Council of Indiana at the 2010 Symposium of the Association of Franciscan Colleges and Universities. The symposium is being hosted by the University of St. Francis in Ft. Wayne, IN.

Marcy and I will be building on the practices of Franciscan Servant Leadership that I discussed in my previous blog: dialogue, discernment of gifts, and shared leadership. I will add prayer to that list as well. After this brief talk, we hope to show a couple of videos – one modeling poor leadership and the other modeling an appeals process that will illustrate some of the practices of Franciscan leadership in action. I imagine an energetic discussion will ensue.

The theme of the symposium is “Care for Creation.” Since business can be conceived of as an essential human creation – and since there is plenty of evidence that business has been poorly cared for of late – our presentation fits the symposium theme nicely.

Without giving away the whole presentation, suffice it to say that the four practices build upon one another. Through prayer, we discern God’s call to us to serve as leaders. Since servant leadership is about meeting needs, we engage in dialogue with those we serve to discern those needs. True dialogue that seeks the good of the other and not ourselves is only possible if undergirded by a prayerful attitude. As we discover needs and conceive of tasks to be performed to meet those needs, we need to understand our own and our team members’ gifts and talents. As we go through this discernment individually and in community, we do so in prayer and through dialogue. Finally, as we set upon the tasks before us, we share in leadership of the team. Those best equipped for certain tasks step up and lead the team. Some leaders may need to step down and allow others to exercise leadership and take authority. Again, we do this prayerfully, engaging in dialogue and constantly reviewing the gifts and talents of each person in the group.

While the practices of dialogue, discernment of gifts, and shared leadership can be embraced by a secular approach to servant leadership, I believe that prayer is a necessary practice that undergirds and perfects the other 3 practices. Furthermore, the Franciscan flavor of these practices is evident because the practices bring to fulfillment the four Franciscan values that Marian University embraces: dignity of the individual; peace and justice; reconciliation; and responsible stewardship.

The "Sacrifice" of Servant Leadership

One of the most interesting comments (to me) that came out of the panel discussion on servant leadership (“Lead from the Heart: Ethical Perspectives on Servant Leadership”; see March blog) had to do with the “sacrifice” of servant leadership. The perception was that foregoing the power model of leadership for a servant model entailed a sacrifice of some sort. I don’t know about the other panelists, but I was somewhat puzzled by this comment until I reflected upon it for a while.

Some people embrace servant leadership naturally. It bubbles up inside them as the only possible way to lead. As Robert K. Greenleaf says: “It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve. . . .” (Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership; http://www.greenleaf.org/index.html)

But not everyone is so naturally disposed to servant leadership. They lead as they see others lead – and most of the time that is a power model. So perhaps the question this raises is whether one can be a servant leader if one is not naturally disposed to that model. I think one can. It may seem like (and even truly be) a sacrifice at first, but with training and commitment, I think someone can learn to be a servant leader. And after all, don’t we all have much to learn about being servant leaders?

I’m thinking here of Aristotle’s understanding of virtue ethics as something that must be learned and practiced – it is not innate. So if we think of the practices inherent to servant leadership as virtues that must be learned, clearly we all need to learn to be servant leaders. Another important aspect of learning virtue is to learn to associate pleasure with virtue and discomfort (even pain) with vice. Perhaps this is the key difference between those who embrace servant leadership and those who view it as a sacrifice. Those who have had some training and experience take pleasure in the dialogue, shared leadership, and mentoring. They have learned to associate pleasure with the gift of relating to and being concerned for others. Others simply haven’t had enough training or experience with this model to appreciate its virtues. To be formed in the model of the servant leader – that is, to become the kind of person who serves as a leader – we all must train and learn and practice. And of course, it takes our whole lives to become servant leaders. Remember Aristotle again: One swallow does not a summer make.

Lead from the Heart: Ethical Perspectives on Servant Leadership

On Thursday, March 11, the Center for Organizational Ethics at Marian University will sponsor a panel discussion on servant leadership titled "Lead from the Heart: Ethical Perspectives on Servant Leadership." Servant leadership was first suggested by Robert K. Greenleaf, who understood servant leadership to be a vocational approach to leadership that opts for servanthood rather than power as the basis for leading others.


The event will be held at Civic Theatre, a venue selected because it provides fully accessible facilities. Starting with a continental breakfast at 7:30, the program will begin at 8:00 a.m. A discussion and Q&A opportunity will follow the presentations. The event will end at 9:30.


Our speakers will be Dr. Kent Keith, CEO of the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership; Marcy Ripberger, President of the Character Council of Indiana; Richard W. Smith, consultant and Organizational Development Specialist with the Peace Learning Center; and me.


Dr. Keith will provide an overview of servant leadership and Ms. Ripberger will present on character traits of servant leadership. Richard W. Smith will take a narrative approach with stories of ideas that were significant markers in the life of Robert Greenleaf. Finally, I will present on a Franciscan understanding of servant leadership.


This is the first public event for the Center for Organizational Ethics, so I am very excited. I hope some of you might be able to make it to the event and learn with us about the ethical value of a servanthood approach rather than a power approach to leading and nurturing others.