Leading From The East
Continuing to contemplate balance
Undoubtedly an overly timid Worshipful Master won’t be able to serve his Lodge well, as his timidity will prevent him from leading.
But, neither will an overly arrogant Worshipful Master. Recently I encountered a Past Master claiming that: ‘the Master of the Lodge has complete authority over the Lodge.’ Well, we certainly know that isn’t true. There are bylaws, codes, and of course the Lodge itself that must be contended with, and all of which limit a Worshipful Master’s power. Not to mention his obligation.
As with all things, and as the Scottish Rite teaches so powerfully, balance is key.
But, how do we achieve that balance?
How do we know that we are neither too timid in the East, nor too overbearing?
How can we ensure that we really do hear everyone, but actually act when needed?
I don’t generally think too much about this. I guess that I’ve always just sort of considered it part instinct, part experience. But those words from that Past Master, that as Master of the Lodge he had complete authority to do whatever on earth he wanted to do with the Lodge, well they really struck me. Because that just isn’t true. And it certainly isn’t a sign of a leader.
Indeed, a ‘leader’ like that can and will destroy a Lodge, because all the ‘followers’ will just stop following. They do that by not coming, staying away, going away for non-payment of dues. I’ve seen it happen in a Lodge, and I imagine lots of other Masons have seen it too.
It is shocking how much damage a poor Worshipful Master can do over the course of a year.
So, I’m hopeful that we can discuss it here today.
We are headed to the East. How can we make sure that we’ll lead with balance, neither too timid, not too dictatorial?
Let’s chat about it in the comments below…
Looking for more from me? I’ve collected some recent favorites over on my LinkTree.
A good leader in any organization is a essential element that many, many books have been written given advice. Now I will give you my humble thoughts.
First and foremost there isn’t a one size fits all answer, but from trial and error I’ve come to believe to lead one has to walk a very thin line between leading and delegating. The leader who tries to control everything is going to fail 100% of the time.
A captain may run the ship, but he doesn’t do it by himself!
So, in a lot of ways, that PM's statement is both largely true and largely irrelevant.
What makes it largely irrelevant is the importance of "followers'" discretionary effort.
While it's not LITERALLY true, as you point out, it is largely true. The WM has a LOT of latitude in what he can do. As you point, out people will "stop playing" if he goes to far, but that doesn't really address whether the WM CAN do something, only if he SHOULD. Clearly, if there are examples of WMs abusing their power and destroying their lodges, they had the power to do so.
I've been in circumstances both in the military and civilian world where I similarly had broad discretion to "tell the followers how it's gonna be."
Luckily, early on, I was introduced to the concept of "discretionary effort." Essentially, "yeah, you're the 'boss' and they have to do what you say (because the military can't just quit), but they ONLY have to do what you SAY." You don't want that. You want people who want you to succeed. Malicious compliance is the worst compliance.
This is really the same in other environments, except in other environments, quitting is also an option...
If the followers don't wanna follow, the "leader" is just gonna be wandering around by himself.