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!
I agree completely regarding the need to delegate. I've seen Worshipful Masters try to do everything themselves, and it always seems to go badly. Far too much work for the WM, and everyone else feels disconnected from what's going on.
If we can sell a solid vision to our Brothers, they will be eager to jump in and help.
This is also true. The Secretary can make or break a Lodge, and the relationship between the Worshipful Master and the Secretary plays a significant part in that. Unfortunately, Jim is correct in many accounts, and it can come from two directions. One, as I mentioned, that the WM delegates his authority on the Secretary, and now he has a double burden that can possibly burn him out. Two, you have a long-time Secretary who knows full well how a Lodge is run, through experience, and tells the WM what to do rather than offer the proper guidance to a WM, allowing him to preside over the affairs of the Lodge. I do remember when I was Tenino's secretary when the WM would try to have me make a Lodge decision and I tossed it right back to the East. Not my place to make that decision. That's YOUR duty.
Having read Herman Hesse’s “The Journey to the East” when I was in high school, I remembered the character Leo when I prepared for a term in the East of my lodge.
I think that there is a great deal of truth in that statement. When we step into the East, I believe that we have a duty to leave our Lodge better than how we found it. And that means, serving the Lodge, and its members, so that it and they can thrive.
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.
>>>If the followers don't wanna follow, the "leader" is just gonna be wandering around by >>>himself.
Yep.
And I guess that would be somewhat OK, if all those who left just came back after the bad WM's term was over. Unfortunately, in the cases like this that I've seen, most who leave never return. The damage done is permanent.
How I interpret to 'Rule and Govern with equal regularity' is the balance between authority and stewardship (or administrative leadership). I have always disliked "authority", but it means being willing to make the tough calls when necessary.
When I was in the Air Force BMT program we had a "Dorm Chief" who made it known often and loudly he was in fact the de-facto supervisor in the absence of our MTI. Funny thing was the louder he got, the less he found what he was looking for.
You are absolutely right that the wrong temperament and approach can have devastating consequences on any organization.
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!
I agree completely regarding the need to delegate. I've seen Worshipful Masters try to do everything themselves, and it always seems to go badly. Far too much work for the WM, and everyone else feels disconnected from what's going on.
If we can sell a solid vision to our Brothers, they will be eager to jump in and help.
This is very relevant to me - I'm being installed as WM in September this year!
All rather intimidating at present...
I hope that you really enjoy your time in the East! I certainly did mine.
We all know who really runs the lodge.
Yeah, if the Worshipful Master delegates it...
Yep.
A good Secretary undoubtedly makes a huge difference.
This is also true. The Secretary can make or break a Lodge, and the relationship between the Worshipful Master and the Secretary plays a significant part in that. Unfortunately, Jim is correct in many accounts, and it can come from two directions. One, as I mentioned, that the WM delegates his authority on the Secretary, and now he has a double burden that can possibly burn him out. Two, you have a long-time Secretary who knows full well how a Lodge is run, through experience, and tells the WM what to do rather than offer the proper guidance to a WM, allowing him to preside over the affairs of the Lodge. I do remember when I was Tenino's secretary when the WM would try to have me make a Lodge decision and I tossed it right back to the East. Not my place to make that decision. That's YOUR duty.
The Master is a servant.
Having read Herman Hesse’s “The Journey to the East” when I was in high school, I remembered the character Leo when I prepared for a term in the East of my lodge.
Jay
I think that there is a great deal of truth in that statement. When we step into the East, I believe that we have a duty to leave our Lodge better than how we found it. And that means, serving the Lodge, and its members, so that it and they can thrive.
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.
>>>If the followers don't wanna follow, the "leader" is just gonna be wandering around by >>>himself.
Yep.
And I guess that would be somewhat OK, if all those who left just came back after the bad WM's term was over. Unfortunately, in the cases like this that I've seen, most who leave never return. The damage done is permanent.
How I interpret to 'Rule and Govern with equal regularity' is the balance between authority and stewardship (or administrative leadership). I have always disliked "authority", but it means being willing to make the tough calls when necessary.
>>>I interpret to 'Rule and Govern with equal regularity' is the balance between authority and >>>stewardship
I like that, and hadn't quite made that connection myself. It makes a great deal of sense though. Thank you!
When I was in the Air Force BMT program we had a "Dorm Chief" who made it known often and loudly he was in fact the de-facto supervisor in the absence of our MTI. Funny thing was the louder he got, the less he found what he was looking for.
You are absolutely right that the wrong temperament and approach can have devastating consequences on any organization.
Great post MWB Bailey!