Blog

Blogference Day 2: Making Servant Leadership Relevant in Communication

by Beav on May 13, 2008

To view this post with all comments included click here

Welcome back to day 2! It would seem that there are dozens of you who are visiting, but not participating so I encouraging to scroll down and hit that comment button and join in the fun. The discussion will be better for it.

Most of the work of leadership involves communication. This is true in the corporate world and the ministry. So how can the biblical paradigm of servant leadership inform our communication as we seek to produce fruit and results?

A great place to start here is the incarnation itself. Charles Kraft in his book Communication Theory for Christian Witness suggests that we see the incarnation as a communicative act itself. God, seeking to reveal Himself, communicates to mankind through a medium that every person could connect with and resonate with – the person of Jesus. Simply put, God chose to communicate on humanity’s terms. This is part of that powerful picture Paul captures in Philippians 2:4-8. Kraft emphasizes that following this model of communication leads us towards what he calls “receptor-based” communication.

Receptor-based communication is the approach to communication that recognizes that the final interpretation of meaning is held by the receptor, the person receiving the intended communication. In other words, because our audience are the ones that have the final say as to what message they are hearing from us, we should do everything we can to make sure we are communicating in light of their frame of reference. This is servant leadership exercised in communication – communicating on someone else’s terms to achieve your results instead of forcing them to adapt to your own terms and frame of reference. This is part of what why contextualization is important from a cross-cultural standpoint, but I want to take us a bit more global in terms of how we view all of our leadership and ministry communication.

Ed Robertson in several different articles found in Strategic Communication Management notes that one of the top communication problems that works against effective leadership communication within organizations is “communication atrophy.” Communication atrophies if not seen as “the process you deploy to get results through others.” Leaders who are “too busy” to communicate and to learn how to do so effectively end up becoming too disconnected to communicate well in a way that translates towards results and action. When leaders see the need to get on the level of their audience and value their dignity as “receptors” and interpreters of communication, they most likely will start building trust and credibility at a rapid rate. There’s almost nothing that kills leadership credibility faster than communication which exposes total ignorance to the true thoughts, feelings, and beliefs of the audience.

Robertson also notes that the belief that “to communicate is to speak“ leads to poor leadership communication and results as well. He associates this with what he calls “the old command-and-control school of leadership“ which assumes that people at the bottom of the hierarchy ought to follow the communication of people at the top without much thought as to the other side of communication – listening to those people. Many leaders trust the content or message itself to do the intended work of communication. This amounts to more of a monologue than true other-centered communication, which reflects a commitment to listen and nurture dialogue. Robertson nails the essence of this topic when he writes, “Communication is the leadership connection. Without it leaders are rendered helpless to engage and enable the led. If only leaders speak, the organization as a whole is silent.“

So servant leadership can and must be alive and well in our communication because this is the territory where we as leaders are exposed for what we value (really) and what we might not. Servant leadership takes us into the hearts of those we lead to understand and learn what they value and find meaningful. This helps us experience “shared meaning” on the mission (a trust building dynamic), respect others’ roles in the communicative process as we work together towards our common mission, and understand how we can most effectively communicate on that journey.

What do you think? Why is adequate and consistent communication often such a struggle in leadership and ministry settings? Are there other significant pieces to the puzzle of how servant leadership fits with communication in theory and practice?

As I close today’s introductory post, here’s an insightful critique of the over-emphasis of the words themselves in communication when there’s not an audience that is able to really hear or receive the intended message. The context between the post and this video is very different, but the result of having an audience that isn’t listening is the same – greater isolation and relational distance. And for leadership in the ministry, this can be like a kiss of death to one’s effectiveness.

Given the “raciness” of this video, my suggestion is to press play and then minimize your browser so you can listen to the song instead of watching. My purpose on including this was for the song itself and not the video…

The 80′s were classic.

tom.virtue

Good step of making servant leadership concrete and down to earth a bit today by focusing on how it works out in communication. Good post in spite of bringing it to a close with the racy video!

I liked the discussion of Robertson & the phrase, ‘When leaders see the need to get on the level of their audience and value their dignity as “receptors” and interpreters of communication…’ That seems to sum up one of the components of servant leadership as to whether you see people you’re leading as people in whom God has put part of what YOU need in order to move toward what God wants to do in kingdom work where you are or whether you expect most of what God wants to use in building His kingdom work as residing in you as the leader or leadership team.
If you give people dignity as “receptors” and as “interpreters of communication” you’re saying that they bring as much to the table as you bring even though your roles may be different. As leaders, you’ll CREATE the atmosphere which will either welcome people bringing all of who they are, or will not communicate that dignity and shut them down along with what God has put in them to bring to what He wants to do.

That’s why I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion – this area of servant leadership as it relates to communication is so significant to effectiveness!
Beav

uhhh…yeah. my bad. if I’m causing anyone to stumble with my 80′s video let me know. I was more focused on the “words” and not on any other “things” that might be doing communication of their own.

I’m doing this as I’m having a Dr. prep both my big toes for a double ingrown toenail procedure. I’m preparing to pass out from all the anasthesia (4 shots into each toe). I will prevail though. My commitment to the blogference is 100%. I will play through the pain!
Beav

I love your comment here. You actually are making a link between today’s post and Day 3′s post on servant leadership and culture. You captured really well some of what’s coming tomorrow

It’s so true that the atmosphere of communication we create reflects our core assumptions about where the focus of importance is. If we, as leaders in power, are what is most important, then listening, free dialogue, and empowered contribution by others is going to be scarce. If we really believe we all have a vital and important contribution out of WHO we are, our leadership and communication methods and goals will change dramatically.

On another note, today’s post was focused on communication and we applied it more organizationally, but i want to point out that the same principles would apply to evangelism and other non-organizational communicative interactions. That’s a post I’m not doing this week – servant leadership and evangelism, but it would fit in this conversation and actually DJ and Alisha I think are doing a good job getting at this general area so it’s a good opportunity to integrate both streams of thought here.

Maybe tomorrow someone other than a member of my own family or myself will post Maybe my wild 80′s rock video scared everyone away from commenting today? Naw
Anonymous

Beav, am I cheating on this blog ference if I did not blog in yesterday? (I did read it though…)
Anyways, I liked the idea of bringing servant leadership down to where we live in the realities of our relationships with on another. I like that it is connected to the gospel of the Incarnate Christ. I like that it provokes us to think about how we see others, how we receive them and how we value their gifts and their thoughts. The bottom line for me is that servant leaders value others with dignity and with respect. And they truly live out Ephesian 5 where we are admonished to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. To truly submit to another person in fear of God is to receive and value the God given glory living inside each human being that we come across….including those whom God has entrusted to us to lead and to serve.
Well done, Brian. You are smart…
Pistons Won! I am happy!
DJ

I am still trying to get my head on your level Brian! Hopefully it is working.

It’s really good to think about communication a bit here. Words are probably the most powerful thing we have as leaders. I stink at encouragement, and that has to affect our team and students I am sure (and of course is somehow linked to my flesh and sin that I need to repent of).

It is crazy to think about Jesus stooping to our level and doing all he did. That he did not forsake us forever should really speak to how we view people, especially those we are leading.

I think I need to grow for sure in really working to communicate in a way that can be most received by the person or people I speak to. Hmm, need to process.
Dave G

Hey Beav,

Thanks for clarifying the term receptor…
Seriously, I have not heard of this idea, nor have I really given it much thought. It certainly adds some very serious consideration to the discussion on evangelism with people ‘outside’ of our everyday communities. However, it really gives us some stuff to think about with communication on the teams we work with. We need to think through how we can best be heard, and it seems that we also have a high responsibility to ask good questions when we are in the receptor-role, so we make sure the truth of what we’re hearing is really what’s being said. That does lead to a question though regarding ‘truth’. People today are so quick to land on (our) understandings of it, that this idea really fuels the fire of thinking a 19 year-old P.E. major is equipped to decide what is true and what is not. It leads to the idea that ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’…and truth is in the mind of the individual. Maybe i’m following the trail a little too far, but if you can filter through the external processing, i’d love to hear more on this. Good to hear from you again on here man.
Love, Seis Leches
Lindsay

Ok…so this is a pretty deep definition of communication that seems to transcend words. Even in the incarnation, communication is a picture a embodiment. It brings a whole new dimension to the vital role relationship, connection, learning and personal sacrifice play in communication – is it accurate to say that words seem to be the fruit of those things? Sort of the icing on the cake?

Also, and correct me if I’m missing something in this, but it seems to me that in “receptor-based communication,” the receptors (followers), in practicality, are affored greater value in the communication process than the communicators (leaders). Because “the final interpretation of meaning is held by the receptor.” If so, the picture that comes to mind for me is Jesus washing his disciples feet…both of these things (communication and foot washing) paint a vivid picture of self-sacrifice. Again, the weight and implications of the leadership calling are pretty huge.

Finally, Tom, I love your comment about the perspective of servant leaders in that they “see people they’re leading as people in whom God has put part of what THEY need in order to move toward what God wants to do in kingdom work” and that servant leaders will “CREATE the atmosphere which will welcome people bringing all of who they are” – that was very practical and helpul in shedding light on the perspective and paradigm necessary to actually live this out. This is a shift in worldview that I’m finding particularly convicting. It also seems to shatter leadership that is in search for personal significance or even wrestling to figure out personal identity. The searches for these things would seem to short-circuit a leader’s capacity for servant leadership in a lot of ways.

Ok, not sure if many of my thoughts or sentences make much sense…it’s definitely a little late as a I write it. But again, I’m loving how radically unique this conversation is!
Kelley at Chico

I was really impacted by your seminar on this topic at Winter Conference, Beav. Cool to be opening it up to dialogue…

I resonate with the definition “anonymous” gave there: “The bottom line for me is that servant leaders value others with dignity and with respect.” And to restate Beav’s from the Day 1 post as a reminder for myself as I comment, “Servant leadership is about using our power to affirm the dignity of others and give them honor through both our stated objectives and our chosen methodologies and strategies, with the result being greater mutual respect and relational connection.”

Before I comment on the topic of how communication plays a vital role in this, let me just share some challenges in my own life as leader who truly does desire to value the sheep that Jesus entrusts to us.

One challenge I think we all face as movement leaders is the tension between caring for and building into those already in our movement while at the same time striving to be outward-focused in going after those who are lost. In my first years on staff (let’s be honest, really right up into the beginning of this year) this tension played out for me especially in the area of selection.

I thought that valuing students in our movement was directly correlated to offering leadership positions and time investment into whoever wanted it. As we were lax about our selection “criteria,” and “gave chances” to unaligned students, I ended up leading with, coaching, and discipling some very difficult students who did not even end up staying with our movement. I was discouraged and frustrated, and felt like almost 3 years of effort were unfruitful for our movement and devoid of lasting impact, and that I was bound for conflict. It also left me drained and unmotivated as there was no mutual forward momentum or vision in working with these students.

Enter Brian Barela, and a high value for selection and alignment. At first everything in me revolted at the thought of selection, of evaluation of and filtering out students who “God might use.” I think in my undeveloped perspective it was coming up against this very idea I had of what a “servant leader” is before I even heard the vocab… I desperately valued “affirming the dignity” of students. However, from my experience, this does not mean to let the weight and multiplication power of leadership fall to whoever wants it like I originally thought. Now that I have had the absolute pleasure of working alongside aligned, selected students, I never want to go back! Their influence on others was a GOOD thing, their teachability and receptivity soaked up all the vision I could offer and multiplied it into real interactions with others in our movement and with the lost, and I was just plain refreshed and encouraged as a coach.

All this to say that valuing people and affirming the dignity of all in our ministry context does not equal giving free reign to any motivated student. I think it does, however, mean having respect enough to listen to that motivation, and redirect it into positive spheres of influence, which do not always equal the positions of most prominence.
Beav

Great thoughts and responses everyone! It’s been fun catching up on the discussion this morning.

Dave – I’m not a communication expert. Just ask my wife. However, what I’ll try to offer is that there probably is a distinction between truth as you are talking about and process of meaning making that goes on within each of us when we are the receivers of communication. To say that meaning is relative because of the individual processes that contribute to it is different than saying that receptor has the power to determine the big T Truth. The relational aspect of communication should force us to loosen our black and white interpretations of many things, but it does not erode the reality of a larger truth that transcends our own mental faculties. Good question.

Linds – I think you are right on when you say that communication is about “more than words” (anybody recalling that band Extreme right now?), it’s about embodiment. The example of the footwashing is a good one. There were words, but the power of what was being communicated was in the actions (which were made more powerful by the context – another thing that impacts communication!) Great link to the identity of a leader and their communication – I’m hoping to get into that on Friday…

DJ – loved your connection between Jesus’ incarnation and our call as leaders to be patient and longsuffering with those we work with. It’s a total picture of how our gracious disposition towards others over time can also make a huge impact on trust and meaningful communication.

Kelley – great first response about the connection between communication and a base level of teachability or “receptivity” in the hearers. Made me think of the axiom of not “casting our pearls before swine” (not that I’m calling students swine, but there are people that sometimes are so self-absorbed that they won’t be able to receive much-makes me wonder how often we tend to miss out on things for us because of our own self-absorption…)

I love capturing some of the essence of leadership by that phrase “adding value to our followers.” There’s so many ways we can do this. DJ mentioned encouragement. I need to grow in that too. What is important about this approach to communication though is that unless we are learners of our people and truly getting to know them for who they are, much of our attempts to add value may evaporate – because they are based on our own grid instead of what the other values or finds meaningful. I’ve been “encouraged” often by some and it just flies by because there’s a disconnect in terms of what is being said and the degree to which I feel known by that person. It’s a good warning that our attempts to add value to others may be more fruitful if we try to do it in ways that more in line with where the other person is at than ourselves.

Two people jump out in response to your questions about my own experience. First, in a similar vein as your examples I would say Spud is a great leader in this regard. I remember him being really good in how he related to students and myself in how he sought to communicate and come alongside them. Currently Margaret has been awesome. She’s been awesome as long as I’ve known her, but working with her more directly I’m more appreciating the level of work and sacrifice she puts in to communicate value to every person she relates to. It’s amazing. There are others, but those are two By the way, “anonymous” up there was Margaret. She gave herself away with the Detroit Pistons reference.

Great thoughts all, I think some of this will carry over to tomorrow if you stick with it…
tom.virtue

This comment is a day late, but wanted to follow up on your first comment Kelley. At the end you said, “I think it does, however, mean having respect enough to listen to that motivation, and redirect it into positive spheres of influence, which do not always equal the positions of most prominence.”
I like what you’re saying and think I want to take it a step further. I think it could mean redirecting people or at least helping them think through making a move to another ministry where they might flourish even more than they can in their current situation. Servant leadership could be that as much as servant leadership could be making a strong challenge to someone to step up to more commitment and more leadership in our ministry without apology – when it looks like it would be to THEIR benefit.
That’s what I love about exercising servant leadership on personal level I’m freed from communication which feels manipulative, hype, or pressuring. It seems like God’s design for leadership would be something that brings freedom – kind of like you’re talking about Kelley. That’s the kind of leadership I want to live it out!
Kelley at Chico

I missed a day there, but wanted to respond to both Brian and Tom. Thank you guys for adding your thoughts and adding a lot to the train of thought I was tracking on! I’m starting to like this blogging thing…

Beav: I think that was a great point about encouragement, and one that I’ve definitely experienced in my own life. I think I’m learning this over and over again, but now have some words to describe the experience…

And how awesome that you bring up Margaret! Yu, I’m supposing. I was just thinking about her on my walk this morning as I was mulling over these thoughts. And I totally agree… I have come away from every interaction with her, however short or far between, feeling valued, cared for, and more and more known. Just this morning I was talking to the Lord about how I’d like to be like Margaret in how she is like Jesus.
I would add Arlene Leong and Miriam Phinney both as two other leaders I have seen this trait exemplified in. I was blessed as a student to be led by women such as these at Humboldt State: passionate for the Lord, giving me vision to be missional in every area of life and to serve, and making me feel valued as a follower of Christ all along the way.

Tom: I am so glad you added to that thought! And I think you are exactly right… this idea of motivating others and releasing them to the mission in a way that matches them best is really freeing. I have noticed that it takes a certain amount of humility to encourage someone to serve in a track or area or ministry differently than what I have chosen myself… challenging, but hitting this idea of leadership for followers rather than for leaders right on the head. And I think the Lord purifies our motives all along the way… we serve Him, and my desire for every follower of Christ is that they would serve Him how He is calling rather than how I am calling them to. I love it when this intersects with Crusade because I get to serve alongside of them, but want to be a kingdom-builder first and foremost.

Just want to quote you on a great thought: “That’s what I love about exercising servant leadership on a personal level; I’m freed from communication which feels manipulative, hype, or pressuring.” Me too! I can call others to join me with passion when it fits, but feel free to encourage them to something else without devaluing the ministry that God has asked me to be a part of!