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."
I agree, when looking for topics of Masonic education, we could do much worse than simply looking at our own rituals, choosing a small passage, and discussing its meaning. There are unplumbed depths that Masons would enjoy talking about and learning from.
After all, why have ritual at all if we aren't to learn from it?
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.
The point you make, that: "Several decades ago, the idea that anyone can lead, that leaders are made not born, became popular in organizational models." Certainly holds true in most Masonic Lodges, in which men are pushed into leadership positions, regardless of their own desires.
Continuing your point: "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."
I would add that some (maybe most) people who should never lead, don't want to lead. They understand that they perform better in a supporting role. Problems come when they are placed in situations in which they are pressured to lead. It is, I think, and unfortunate byproduct of the view that 'anyone can lead' that some folks come to believe that everyone should lead, and based on that, pressure others to step into roles that they do not want.
Lastly, your point that: "Egalitarianism, which is a great philosophy will never work as well as we would want it too." is certainly true. While it seems great, in practice it just doesn't perform. This is very similar to theories of utopia. The perfect society is not possible, but when men with power and guns focus on creating it, mass murder on vast scales inevitably occurs. The terrible tyrants of history didn't see themselves as tyrants, they saw themselves as doing whatever it took to create a perfect society. Alas though, man is imperfect, and as such human society can never be perfect.
All relationships have a dependency element. In the traditional marriage, the wife depended on the husband to provide money to sustain the household, the wife was in charge of raising the kids, keeping the house clean, doing the shopping, etc. Both depended on each other to fulfill those roles assigned to them by society.
As a business, the employers depend on their employees to show up, represent the business properly, and perform their duties satisfactorily. The employees depend on the employers to set proper schedules, provide a safe working environment, and pay them on time.
Where the problems can start with lodges is that as a volunteer organization, that dependency resides solely on the whims of its members. While in a business an employer can fire their employees of they don't perform, and employees can file grievances with HR, or L&I, or their unions, as a fraternity, the brothers can simply stop attending. As elected officers, we can't make the members do anything. As much as we ask, most times it's the same small handful of brothers doing everything.
As a fraternity, we have a huge pile of lazy brothers. Brothers unwilling to help their lodges, yet still go about their lives wearing the S&C and calling themselves masons. They never set foot in lodge, and if they did, they never volunteer to help. Some even think that paying their dues every year is more than enough to show support for their lodge.
But again, the problem is, the craft is a volunteer organization. As long as those brothers are paying their dues, there is nothing we can do to get them involved, or get rid of them as dead weight.
And then, there is the admonition that we're all brothers, equally. But just as George Orwell mentions in Animal Farm, "some animals are more equal than others". There are some brothers that chase titles and honors as a reflection of their stature within the fraternity. Others more well intentioned, accept titles and honors as a reflection of what they can do for the fraternity and have a positive desire to make the craft better. And even more, brothers shirk those titles and honors as they aren't willing to accept the responsibilities it entails.
Where I have problems is with the titles. Most brothers, regardless if what station in the craft they have achieved, are perfectly fine to be addressed as "brother", or more informally, by their first name. But others demand that they be used. When they do, it automatically places that divide between the two and you can't honestly continue to say we're all equal anymore.
There is a legend I was told early in my masonic career about Harry S Truman that really resonates with me. President Truman was afforded many masonic titles and accolades during his 50+ years as a freemason. Grand Master of Missouri, 33 degree honorary from the southern jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite, and award the Gourgas Medal by the Northern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite. Supposedly his driver was also a member of the craft, and WM of the lodge Truman also belonged to. When asked about it, Truman replied that once he steps foot in the lodge, he is just another brother and will follow the WM in whatever he desires.
That is the type of man who exemplifies the craft, and I wish we had more of them.
Any man who is offended to not be called Very Worshipful Brother or Most Worshipful Brother on any occasion beyond an official ceremony is not suitable for the title he holds.
The Brothers that have commented have summed up most of what can be said about leaders and leadership. When I became a MM is was never my intention to become Master of the Lodge. I did of course consent when asked to sit in the Marshal’s place and began my ascent to the East. I follow a simple adage and find it to work well for me. “If service is beneath you, leadership is beyond you”. It sums up the part of having humility in everything we do.
So now we need to know if you wore two aprons at the same time, moving the appropriate one in front of the other while performing both speaking roles! (Yep, saw a Mason do that once when his lodge was unexpectedly short handed for a Stated Meeting.)
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."
I agree, when looking for topics of Masonic education, we could do much worse than simply looking at our own rituals, choosing a small passage, and discussing its meaning. There are unplumbed depths that Masons would enjoy talking about and learning from.
After all, why have ritual at all if we aren't to learn from it?
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.
The point you make, that: "Several decades ago, the idea that anyone can lead, that leaders are made not born, became popular in organizational models." Certainly holds true in most Masonic Lodges, in which men are pushed into leadership positions, regardless of their own desires.
Continuing your point: "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."
I would add that some (maybe most) people who should never lead, don't want to lead. They understand that they perform better in a supporting role. Problems come when they are placed in situations in which they are pressured to lead. It is, I think, and unfortunate byproduct of the view that 'anyone can lead' that some folks come to believe that everyone should lead, and based on that, pressure others to step into roles that they do not want.
Lastly, your point that: "Egalitarianism, which is a great philosophy will never work as well as we would want it too." is certainly true. While it seems great, in practice it just doesn't perform. This is very similar to theories of utopia. The perfect society is not possible, but when men with power and guns focus on creating it, mass murder on vast scales inevitably occurs. The terrible tyrants of history didn't see themselves as tyrants, they saw themselves as doing whatever it took to create a perfect society. Alas though, man is imperfect, and as such human society can never be perfect.
Whew, lots to chew on this time.
All relationships have a dependency element. In the traditional marriage, the wife depended on the husband to provide money to sustain the household, the wife was in charge of raising the kids, keeping the house clean, doing the shopping, etc. Both depended on each other to fulfill those roles assigned to them by society.
As a business, the employers depend on their employees to show up, represent the business properly, and perform their duties satisfactorily. The employees depend on the employers to set proper schedules, provide a safe working environment, and pay them on time.
Where the problems can start with lodges is that as a volunteer organization, that dependency resides solely on the whims of its members. While in a business an employer can fire their employees of they don't perform, and employees can file grievances with HR, or L&I, or their unions, as a fraternity, the brothers can simply stop attending. As elected officers, we can't make the members do anything. As much as we ask, most times it's the same small handful of brothers doing everything.
As a fraternity, we have a huge pile of lazy brothers. Brothers unwilling to help their lodges, yet still go about their lives wearing the S&C and calling themselves masons. They never set foot in lodge, and if they did, they never volunteer to help. Some even think that paying their dues every year is more than enough to show support for their lodge.
But again, the problem is, the craft is a volunteer organization. As long as those brothers are paying their dues, there is nothing we can do to get them involved, or get rid of them as dead weight.
And then, there is the admonition that we're all brothers, equally. But just as George Orwell mentions in Animal Farm, "some animals are more equal than others". There are some brothers that chase titles and honors as a reflection of their stature within the fraternity. Others more well intentioned, accept titles and honors as a reflection of what they can do for the fraternity and have a positive desire to make the craft better. And even more, brothers shirk those titles and honors as they aren't willing to accept the responsibilities it entails.
Where I have problems is with the titles. Most brothers, regardless if what station in the craft they have achieved, are perfectly fine to be addressed as "brother", or more informally, by their first name. But others demand that they be used. When they do, it automatically places that divide between the two and you can't honestly continue to say we're all equal anymore.
There is a legend I was told early in my masonic career about Harry S Truman that really resonates with me. President Truman was afforded many masonic titles and accolades during his 50+ years as a freemason. Grand Master of Missouri, 33 degree honorary from the southern jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite, and award the Gourgas Medal by the Northern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite. Supposedly his driver was also a member of the craft, and WM of the lodge Truman also belonged to. When asked about it, Truman replied that once he steps foot in the lodge, he is just another brother and will follow the WM in whatever he desires.
That is the type of man who exemplifies the craft, and I wish we had more of them.
Any man who is offended to not be called Very Worshipful Brother or Most Worshipful Brother on any occasion beyond an official ceremony is not suitable for the title he holds.
The Brothers that have commented have summed up most of what can be said about leaders and leadership. When I became a MM is was never my intention to become Master of the Lodge. I did of course consent when asked to sit in the Marshal’s place and began my ascent to the East. I follow a simple adage and find it to work well for me. “If service is beneath you, leadership is beyond you”. It sums up the part of having humility in everything we do.
Indeed, the adage you mention speaks volumes. He who hopes to lead had better be prepared to work and give.
"Just because the Worshipful Master thinks that his Junior Deacon is a bozo"
I have been both at the same time and I don't remember if I was thinking that or not >;-P
So now we need to know if you wore two aprons at the same time, moving the appropriate one in front of the other while performing both speaking roles! (Yep, saw a Mason do that once when his lodge was unexpectedly short handed for a Stated Meeting.)
LOL well THAT I didn't do !
I was in the East in one Lodge and the JD in the other.........but I did get stuck in the SD spot tonight so that didn't work the way I was expecting.