“…such is the nature of our constitutions that as some must, of necessity, teach and rule, so others must, of course, learn and obey. Humility in both is an essential duty. The officers who have been selected to govern your Lodge are sufficiently conversant with the rules of propriety and the laws of the Institution to avoid exceeding the powers with which they are entrusted, and you are of too generous disposition to envy their preferment. I therefore trust that you will have but one aim - to please each other, and to unite in the grand design of being happy and communicating happiness.”
-Charge to the Lodge, GL of Washington, Standard Work
It seems that as a society, we don’t really like to really think about, let alone discuss hierarchical relationships. While equality of opportunity has always been a hallmark striven for in the United States, more and more people are looking for equality of outcome. Equity of result, egalitarian relationships only.
But this ignores reality, and as Freemasons we are charged to discover the Truth.
Reality is that virtually all functioning relationships between people are hierarchical in nature. The boss has employees. The military officer has enlisted men. Lodges have Worshipful Masters. Cities have Mayors. Taking it all the way to the top, the country has a President.
This is just the way it has always been. Humans are social animals, and somebody has to be the leader lest we have chaos. In my experience, watching my friends and family, it is that way even in marriages. Indeed, many, most, virtually all claim in today’s world to be egalitarian, but that seems like a misnomer. I’ve seen plenty of relationships that looked to be forever locked in power struggles. And I’ve seen plenty that seemed to have a complete power vacuum at their center.
Taking this out from family relationships to Lodges, we see lots of Lodges like this as well. Lodges torn apart by power struggles, and Lodges unable to function because of power vacuums. Someone has to lead the Lodge, and others must decide that they will follow the Master they elect.
It does seem natural, given that different people have different skills, that there would be leaders and followers in every aspect of life.
I’ll give an example to try and illustrate this point from my own life.
I am not good at balancing a checkbook. I write checks, I figure I’ll write it in the book later, and then I forget that I wrote them, or how much I wrote them for. It makes more sense that my wife, who is good at this, would take care of it. Conversely, I seem to be better at setting money aside for retirement than my wife is. So it makes sense that I would be the one to take care of that.
All this can result in leader/follower relationships, in aspects. She leads the checkbook operation, I lead the savings operation. We both get the best from each other.
But some people seem to struggle over power all the time. Fights and bickering over money seems to be really popular. And some people seem to spin their wheels around a power vacuum all the time. We all do it a little bit it seems, especially when it comes to restaurants: “Where do you want to eat?” “I don’t know, where do you want to go?” “Beats me, what do you think” And so on forever while they starve. Maybe better if Brother John Doe just admits he’d like a pizza. (Hopefully the world’s finest pizza, The Jorf from Olympia’s Old School Pizza! But hey, I got carried away.)
Past Masters can sometimes get bothered by the new Master and his Wardens, sit in a corner and decide to oppose everything these men younger in the Craft attempt to do. Power struggles result, making everyone involved miserable.
A Master may not know how to lead, or may lack a clear vision for the Lodge. Consequently he doesn’t lead and doesn’t work to implement his vision. No one does anything, nothing is accomplished, because everything just circles around a power vacuum.
Interestingly, our Charge to the Lodge points out the fact that functioning relationships between people are hierarchical in nature:
“…such is the nature of our constitutions that as some must, of necessity, teach and rule, so others must, of course, learn and obey.”
That seems a given. We’ve all got someone to report to. Even the President, styled as the leader of the free world, and undoubtedly the most powerful man in the world has constraints on his power, must bow to the dictates of the Congress and Courts. Not to mention, manage to get re-elected or keep his party in power following a second term.
But then, more importantly, our Charge to the Lodge explains, in some detail, how to make these relationships between people work. This is solid advice, but not only for a Lodge, for any relationship.
Humility, for the one who leads, and the one who follows is essential. Just because I’m the boss of the coffee stand doesn’t mean that I should be lording that over my employees. Just because I, as the coffee stand employee, think that the boss just might be a moron, doesn’t mean that I should give less than 100% to the enterprise while on the clock. Just because I’m the Worshipful Master of the Lodge doesn’t mean that I get to order guys to do things they don’t want to do, just as the sideliners of the Lodge shouldn’t be leaving all the work to the officers they elected.
“Humility in both is an essential duty.”
Propriety must be shown by the one who leads. Just because he owns the coffee stand doesn’t mean that he can demand things from his female employees that fall outside of the conventional employer/employee relationships. Just because the Worshipful Master thinks that his Junior Deacon is a bozo doesn’t mean that he is allowed to verbally abuse or bully the man in public, or in private.
“The officers who have been selected to govern your Lodge are sufficiently conversant with the rules of propriety”
Obedience to moral and legal codes is required in one who hopes to lead. The coffee stand owner can’t spit in the latte’s he makes those customers who drive up in their Ford trucks because he is a Chevy man, nor encourage his employees to do so. Just because the Worshipful Master wants to spend a bunch of Lodge money on something, doesn’t mean that he can skip the step of gaining the consent of the Lodge.
“and the laws of the Institution to avoid exceeding the powers with which they are entrusted”
But of course, all relationships are a two way street.
The coffee shop employee can’t spend his days seething with resentment because he thinks the boss is a moron, and that it should be him who had the opportunities in life that would have afforded him the chance to open his own coffee shop. The old Past Master who no longer holds a leadership position in the Lodge can’t sabotage the current Worshipful Master by spreading gossip and complaints, just because the new guy has some different ideas and works to do things a bit differently.
“and you are of too generous disposition to envy their preferment”
Ultimately, it all comes down to this:
The coffee shop owner must work to ensure that his employees are as happy as possible with their work, that their salary is sufficient for them to live decently and honorably. He must support them in their endeavors.
By the same token, the coffee shop employees must work to ensure that the boss is happy with their work. They have to work hard enough to earn their salary. They must support the efforts the boss makes to ensure the success of the coffee shop.
The Worshipful Master must work to keep the members of the Lodge happy. Engaged with Masonry so that they can derive personal value from the efforts they put into it. He needs to support his junior officers and his sideliners in their own efforts to improve the Lodge, and improve themselves.
Along those same lines, junior officers and sideliners owe their support to the Worshipful Master. If they have volunteered or been tasked with something, they have to do it so that whatever it is doesn’t fail. They have to jump in to help as they are able, so that everything doesn’t fall upon one man. They have to support efforts the WM makes to ensure the continued success of the Lodge.
“I therefore trust that you will have but one aim - to please each other, and to unite in the grand design of being happy and communicating happiness.”
In this way we can have healthy and happy relationships with other people, no matter what our relationship with them revolves around.
When it comes to Freemasonry, this is a recipe for a happy Lodge, filled with happy Brothers and great fellowship.
Also in Washington’s Master Mason Charge: “To your inferiors in rank or office, you are to recommend obedience and submission; to your equals, courtesy and affability; and to your superiors, kindness and condescension.” This goes along the same lines as what you mentioned in our Charge to the Lodge.
Frankly, I think we really need to maintain focus on dissecting these Charges in our Masonic Education at our meetings. Let the Brothers take the new understanding of the Charges home with them after the meeting, and think about it that night and into the next morning, to look in the mirror and ask themselves if they are truly following those lines of conduct that they, as Freemasons, are expected to follow.
“Universal benevolence you are zealously to inculcate; and, by the regularity of your own conduct, afford the best example for the conduct of others less informed.” As we look further into our actions, we must understand that we do lead by example, whether we realize it or not. People are paying attention to our actions, the words we use, and our overall behavior. And they will treat us accordingly. And they will view whatever company or organization we are representing in a similar manner. I know it seems unfair, but it’s how society works; it’s human nature. And if you are the actual leader, such as the owner of a company, or the leader of the local Lodge, etc. of an organization, the people will even more judge the company, organization, etc. by the actions of that leader.
Whether we’re the Boss, the employee, or just a sideliner, we all need to be thoughtful in our thoughts, words and actions. At ALL times, not just when we think people are "looking."
This is such a complicated subject, in my opinion. It’s so easy to have a strong opinion about hierarchies, and be wrong, because most opinions are based in personal experience/feelings or ideal situations that don’t exists. Generally, hierarchies seem to be based on a quality like, age, gender, wealth, experience, knowledge, power, relationships, blood line, etc. If you have more of the quality desired, you have more power and a higher place in the hierarchy. History is populated with examples of how hierarchies based on a single quality generally led to failure, because the qualities used to select leaders tend to be exterior, and not interior and tell us nothing about the human being.
Several decades ago, the idea that anyone can lead, that leaders are made not born, became popular in organizational models. While I guess it’s true that most people can be trained to manage others, it’s my experience that leadership is a quality a person has, and while it can and should be be enhanced by training, it is something we have to greater and lesser amount. Some people are born leaders and some people should NEVER lead, and most people fall in the middle.
Another issue we need to address in my opinion is that leadership and ethics are not linked. They should be, it would be great if they were, but they are not. Hitler and Stalin, as examples, ran huge governments that grew, at least for a short time to be world influencing. Neither man was a good man. They had leadership skills, and they lacked anything I would call ethical compass.
Many people today don’t approve of hierarchies, or at the very least are suspicious of them. I am in the latter category, not because I oppose the idea, but because hierarchical structures today demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree, disfunction. Egalitarianism, which is a great philosophy will never work as well as we would want it too. When applied to selection of leaders, assuming everyone can be a leader, in my experience, can be disastrous. Absent humility, in a person who becomes a leader, because it is believed anyone can be a leader, might not pursue the necessary training, and personal growth necessary to be an effective leader.
I have found that many of the best leaders are reluctant to lead. They tend to become leaders either as a service to others, or because they are fixing something that is broken. Conversely, many who pursue (not all) leadership do so for all the wrong reasons, often prestige or power.
Other hierarchies are not so much about leadership and power, but are based in knowledge and cultural transmission. Teachers and mentors. This is a time when opinion has moved to equality with knowledge and wisdom. Being passionate in belief and opinion is often confused with knowledge and wisdom. Feelings and emotions are also considered trump cards for decisions. To be clear opinions and emotions have their place, but when they replace facts in value, hierarchies become disfunction in organizations. The loudest becomes the most valued and bullying can become the mode of leadership.
The last thing I want to say is, while leadership and hierarchical structures are an integral component of our governing structure, it is my opinion that in masonry they largely act to train and test men as leaders. Lodges are usually led, in truth, by the culture of that lodge, its history and its past masters. The Master does officiate, and has power, but it’s truly limited in most cases. What does happen is a brother gets a chance to experience leadership, and this opportunity exposes that man’s quality to himself. I have seen many men experience the difference between ideals and reality. Some take that experience and grow, some don’t. We say we take good men and make them better, and it is my experience that one way we do that is by having brothers go thru the line, slowly acquiring institutional power and responsibility and learning their own limits. In fact, I would say that throughout our system, that the various leadership structures serve as our primary training and development system.
I recognize the need for hierarchies, and I am willing to participate in them. I require that hierarchy to be ethical, fair, and productive. When that does not happen then I experience them as hypocritical structures and generally, after expressing my concerns, will not participate in them. In masonry I measure hierarchies based on our oaths, obligations and landmarks. It is my opinion that blind acceptance of a hierarchy is not an ethical act, nor is rejecting a hierarchy that is moral and ethical, just because it is a hierarchy. Like I said at the beginning, its complicated, at least for me.