I don't know that it is always a training or mentorship failure. Some men just aren't suited to or interested in Lodge leadership, and training won't overcome that I don't think. For example, I've seen a situation in which a man was elevated to the East who didn't actually have an interest in most facets of the Lodge. Yet he was next in line, so he was elected.
During my tenure in my lodge we've twice elected WMs who were not up to the task. One became mean spirited and resentful when much needed help was offered. The other was a very jovial older Brother and we elected him out of kindness. The kinder thing to do would have been to guide him to a role where he could be successful. And I greatly appreciate your acknowledgement that a Brother who is not a good fit for Grand Master should not advance to the Grand East. I'll not name names but in the most friendly manner I'll just say I've been very disappointed in a few GMs.
Why does this happen? A lodge's WM and our jurisdiction's GM should be the supreme ambassador for our reason to be: Brothers dwelling in harmony to help each other become better men. Instead we sometimes have leaders who are intoxicated with their authority and take obvious pleasure in giving orders.
This problem has been around for a while and it's probably going to be around for a while longer, but with an enlightened approach to management and leadership training there may be a way out. Let's start with the Proficiency in Lodge Management Program, which I have completed and greatly benefited from. The problem is it doesn't teach anything about managing a lodge. Truth in labelling suggests that a better title might be Proficiency in Memorizing the Open and Closing Rituals and Finding Stuff Using Ctrl+F in a Searchable PDF. Again, a worthwhile program, but not management training. As to Leadership training, we do a lot of things at the Leadership Retreat that are really management training. Yes, there's a little bit of leadership training there, but only a little. And there's nothing wrong with a Management retreat, it's just not a leadership retreat.
We need to expand our teachings in leadership, and whether or not a Brother wants to advance in a Lodge or the Grand line, all should consider getting this training as the benefits can extend far beyond what happens in Masonry. And it would better inform Brothers of the qualifications we seek from those we elect to sit in the East.
Leadership Lesson #1: The most powerful thing a leader can do is to never resort to power.
I too have seen the mean spirited type of WM that you mention. I think in the case I am familiar with, the role caused an almost panic as he felt that he wasn't up to it, and that somehow resulted in him lashing out at those who were in the best positions to help him move forward.
I don't disagree with your thoughts about the PiLM program here in Washington. Like you, I completed it, and it has proven to be helpful to me, but it doesn't teach either leadership nor management. As you say, it teaches Masonic ritual, and how to find things within the Washington Masonic Code. Leadership lessons, and lessons about putting the Masonic Code into context are needed as well.
I do think that Lodges are perfect classrooms for teaching leadership, but that needs to be the focus from time to time if a Lodge is going to be able to do it well. I am familiar with a handful of Lodges in this Jurisdiction that go on a retreat together once or twice a year, and sit down for a couple of days, talking about and learning about leadership. I think that is highly effective.
There are usually two types of leaders. One good. One bad. The unfortunate fact is there are more bad leaders than good. And it’s not just limited to Masonry. It permeates our world today in politics, business, and even religion. The bad leader is the individual who is leading because he is a trophy hunter. He wants recognition and accolades. A good leader is known as a “servant leader.” A servant leader is there to make an impact in developing his people and his organization. He doesn’t care about accolades. He cares about making things better. The principles of servant leadership are similar to Masonry’s mission, vision, and values:
• Active listening
• Empathy
• Healing
• Self-Awareness
• Consensus-building
• Conceptualization
• Foresight
• Stewardship
I am also a fan of Covey’s Seven Habits of Effective People:
• Be proactive
• Begin with the end in mind
• First things first
• Think win-win
• Seek to Understand, then be understood
• Synergize
• Think constant improvement
People who know me know that I am a big football fan. I’m also a fan of the head coach of our Seattle Seahawks, Pete Carroll. In the offseason, Carroll is a motivational speaker. He talks about leadership and the things he does to motivate players and coaches. One of his big mantras is that if we take good care of the football, everything else will take care of itself. I’d turn that into something Masonic. If we take good care of our brothers, everything else will take care of itself.
The ancient philosopher Lao Tzu is reported as saying “A leader is best when people barely know he exists when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves.”
I agree with what you shared Brother Ken. In the York Rite Leadership Training Classes I have attended, most of the YRL 101 Class Curriculum is about Covey’s 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. ~ {Thinking about selflessness is one thing, the doing of selflessness is another, the Being of Selflessness is the Rite Thing.} ~
Thank you for this listing of important leadership principles. I think that we all do well to try and integrate them into our lives, for in one sphere or another, all of us are eventually called upon to lead.
Two things from your list that I think are vital to Masonic leadership are 'conceptualization' which I tend to think of as 'vision' and 'consensus building.'
In my experience, if a man heading towards the East can develop a vision for where he would like his Lodge to go, and effectively communicate that vision to his Brothers, they will work to support him in those efforts, and be glad to do so. If however either the vision or the buy-in to it is missing, well then he likely will not have a successful year in Solomon's Chair.
I think your point is very well taken, and applies to a great many facets of Freemasonry. We must be willing to continually examine the way we do things in order to ensure that those ways are best meeting the needs of Freemasons today.
Progressing to the East shouldn’t be anything any brother strives for. No brother is initiated and receives the degrees of Masonry with the thought of one day wearing the big hat. A Master (leader) should, above all things, be humble. A good Master needs to be humble enough to seek counsel and strong enough to know how to apply it to a given situation. A good Master needs to show proficiency in fiduciary matters, Human Resources and consensus building. A brother who is sitting in the West or South should be able to show their leadership abilities by identifying and dealing with most issues before they ever reach the Master. A Junior or Senior Warden who continually brings issues, large or small, to the Master isn’t a leader. All the brothers need to be courageous, all the time. We’ve talked a lot about the importance of guarding the West Gate, so too is the importance of guarding the Oriental Chair. The brother that needs to be applauded for his courage is the one that knows within himself that he is not the brother to lead a lodge and steps aside. No “unqualified” brother should be elected to Master without having been the recipient of counsel about his shortcomings. In the end, the brothers of the lodge need to weigh the consequences of hurting an entire group or an individual who hasn’t the abilities to lead.
>>We’ve talked a lot about the importance of guarding the West Gate, so too is the importance >>of guarding the Oriental Chair.
Thank you my Brother, this is very well said. I think that if we can do these two things well we will see massive improvements in our Lodges over time.
If we think back to the early part of the 1700’s in England, the only degrees the members could obtain were the EA and FC, whereupon the Master of the lodge would be conferred in to the third degree; MM.
I think the point of the topic today can be found in the Old Constitution of Freemasonry (rule VI, page 7) “…and there Euclydes gave them these admonitions following: I. To be true to their king. II. To be true to the Master they serve. III. To be true, and love one another. IV. Not to miscall one another, &c. V. To do their work so duly, that they may deserve their wages at their Master’s Hands. VI. To ordain the wisest of them Master of the rest of the Work. VII. To have such reasonable wages, that the Workman man live honestly, and with credit. VIII. To come and assemble together in the Year, to take Council in their Craft how they may work best to serve their Lord and Master, for his profit, and their own credit, and to correct such as have offended.”
So, in this regard those who are initiated in to the third degree can be thought as raising the candidate as a priest or minister (ordained). If he does not receive education or simply doesn’t understand the symbolisms and philosophies, is he really dually prepared? This is why I believe it’s important to educate and mentor as much as possible. If the master of a lodge is elected, he should be the wisest of the lot, as it states in Euclid’s eight admonitions. Wise can be interpreted various ways, but I see fit, a wise man is objective, and what is referred to by the ancients as a priest, magi or shepherd, who leads with love in his heart and with a sober mind. Intelligence is always subjective. Also to add, ideally, one who can has knowledge of our charges, laws and obligations, and provide education so others will be dually and truly prepared, not just in lodge but in their own temple.
I think it’s also good to also point out here, we should not be so quick to judge another, as we all have defects; a rough stone if you will (see admonitions 2-5). I for one have a terrible memory and my hats off to those who have gone up the line to the east. I am also especially thankful for those who give their time to share information, give lectures, conversations and education on or related topics to our Craft. The greatest outcome of this silly “pandemic” thing, is the amount of time I’ve been given to listen to brothers around the world on various topic through internet video and other platforms such as this. So thank you MWGM Bailey, and those who research, study and share.
>>VI. To ordain the wisest of them Master of the rest of the Work.
Thank you for sharing this. I appreciate it, and I think we would do very well to emulate that old charge today.
As for the pandemic, I agree with you. Being able to see and learn from so many Brothers, across the country and around the world has been a true silver lining. I certainly hope that when all of this is over, we continue to use technology to teach, and learn, and share together. Doing so can only make Freemasonry stronger.
Lodges for the most part all too often will put people in chairs simply because no one else will step up. And ones that volunteer may have their heart in the right place, but just can’t do the work required of them. Many times I’ve had to sit down with brothers and discuss expectations versus their skill set and had them voluntarily drop out of the line. You have to do what is for the benefit of the lodge.
But sometimes the lodge doesn’t have a choice, and can be an indication that the lodge is on a rough and rugged road.
And I agree about the LLR comments. There is actually very little leadership training, but honestly how much can you learn in an hour?
Finally, you can be the greatest leader in the world, but when you have members of your lodge actively opposed to change, then all you will get is frustrated.
Throughout its long history, Freemasonry has always gone through cycles of expansion and contraction. I think that if we follow the current contraction and plot our membership decline on a graph, then do the same thing with our Lodge number contraction, we will see that we have lost membership on a much steeper slope than Lodges. The two just don't line up right now, and I think that is why Lodges get into situations where there is simply no one willing to step up into the East. We have too many Lodges currently for the number of Masons.
As those two graphs come together, which will happen as things continue to stabilize, we will, I think, see fewer of those situations.
Dang it, I had a commentary pretty well done but took a break to mow the lawn. Anyway, here goes again. I've worked in a side business for 30 years as an Organizational Development consultant and this very topic comes up as a "Case Study" often. Leadership positions derived from succession lines are doomed to fail. They are not unique to Freemasonry but survived due to laziness and "easy to do". After all, how bad could it be if we get the wrong person as the Leader. No "outer world organization" would ever elect their leader from a "succession line" since the probability of failure would be so high from leader incompetence. Our fraternal traditions are copied everywhere in the world. Most are volunteer organizations and these volunteers will devote heart and soul to the organization mission as long as they are treated well within. If that fails, the volunteers drift away quickly and seek substitute Lodges or whatever so they may feel needed again. I have seen this happen many times in NE Washington Lodges. Mentoring has been mentioned but there exist just as many bad or ineffective mentors as good ones. I have much more to share on this later.
There's a certain amount of tension surrounding this question. Perhaps it revolves around the way Masonry is organized.
We want Masters and Wardens who are excited, prepared, intelligent, dedicated and leaders. We try to create a system that improves men to meet that criteria.
I wish it were true that we had a line of excited, prepared, intelligent, dedicated leaders to fulfill that noble fantasy of progressing through the ranks every year.
We need to face the reality that every Mason is not a prepared, intelligent, dedicated leader. We need to engage the talents of those who are and make a place for those who aren't.
The Brother who maintains the library and wishes not to advance is not a liability.
Let leaders lead. Let administrators administer. Let organizers organize. Let socializers socialize.
Stop trying to fit members into roles they that don't fit their abilities or personalities.
How many successful companies do you know that turn over their CEO every year - NONE!
I realize one of our goals is to develop men to their highest potential. I agree. That does not mean that every officer needs to be elevated each year or even every two or three years.
The old saying;"If it works, don't change it" is good advice.
There are plenty of responsible opportunities in any Lodge without focusing on jamming members through the offices.
If leadership has lost it effectiveness there is ample opportunity to elect others to replace it.
To make the blanket statement that this “tradition” causes harm is false. Harm is caused by the member neglect in that they fail to mentor/ train.
I don't know that it is always a training or mentorship failure. Some men just aren't suited to or interested in Lodge leadership, and training won't overcome that I don't think. For example, I've seen a situation in which a man was elevated to the East who didn't actually have an interest in most facets of the Lodge. Yet he was next in line, so he was elected.
True mentorship must include expectations, standards, evaluations and the understanding that not meeting the standard there is no advancement.
Yes to everything you said Grand Master!
During my tenure in my lodge we've twice elected WMs who were not up to the task. One became mean spirited and resentful when much needed help was offered. The other was a very jovial older Brother and we elected him out of kindness. The kinder thing to do would have been to guide him to a role where he could be successful. And I greatly appreciate your acknowledgement that a Brother who is not a good fit for Grand Master should not advance to the Grand East. I'll not name names but in the most friendly manner I'll just say I've been very disappointed in a few GMs.
Why does this happen? A lodge's WM and our jurisdiction's GM should be the supreme ambassador for our reason to be: Brothers dwelling in harmony to help each other become better men. Instead we sometimes have leaders who are intoxicated with their authority and take obvious pleasure in giving orders.
This problem has been around for a while and it's probably going to be around for a while longer, but with an enlightened approach to management and leadership training there may be a way out. Let's start with the Proficiency in Lodge Management Program, which I have completed and greatly benefited from. The problem is it doesn't teach anything about managing a lodge. Truth in labelling suggests that a better title might be Proficiency in Memorizing the Open and Closing Rituals and Finding Stuff Using Ctrl+F in a Searchable PDF. Again, a worthwhile program, but not management training. As to Leadership training, we do a lot of things at the Leadership Retreat that are really management training. Yes, there's a little bit of leadership training there, but only a little. And there's nothing wrong with a Management retreat, it's just not a leadership retreat.
We need to expand our teachings in leadership, and whether or not a Brother wants to advance in a Lodge or the Grand line, all should consider getting this training as the benefits can extend far beyond what happens in Masonry. And it would better inform Brothers of the qualifications we seek from those we elect to sit in the East.
Leadership Lesson #1: The most powerful thing a leader can do is to never resort to power.
I too have seen the mean spirited type of WM that you mention. I think in the case I am familiar with, the role caused an almost panic as he felt that he wasn't up to it, and that somehow resulted in him lashing out at those who were in the best positions to help him move forward.
I don't disagree with your thoughts about the PiLM program here in Washington. Like you, I completed it, and it has proven to be helpful to me, but it doesn't teach either leadership nor management. As you say, it teaches Masonic ritual, and how to find things within the Washington Masonic Code. Leadership lessons, and lessons about putting the Masonic Code into context are needed as well.
I do think that Lodges are perfect classrooms for teaching leadership, but that needs to be the focus from time to time if a Lodge is going to be able to do it well. I am familiar with a handful of Lodges in this Jurisdiction that go on a retreat together once or twice a year, and sit down for a couple of days, talking about and learning about leadership. I think that is highly effective.
There are usually two types of leaders. One good. One bad. The unfortunate fact is there are more bad leaders than good. And it’s not just limited to Masonry. It permeates our world today in politics, business, and even religion. The bad leader is the individual who is leading because he is a trophy hunter. He wants recognition and accolades. A good leader is known as a “servant leader.” A servant leader is there to make an impact in developing his people and his organization. He doesn’t care about accolades. He cares about making things better. The principles of servant leadership are similar to Masonry’s mission, vision, and values:
• Active listening
• Empathy
• Healing
• Self-Awareness
• Consensus-building
• Conceptualization
• Foresight
• Stewardship
I am also a fan of Covey’s Seven Habits of Effective People:
• Be proactive
• Begin with the end in mind
• First things first
• Think win-win
• Seek to Understand, then be understood
• Synergize
• Think constant improvement
People who know me know that I am a big football fan. I’m also a fan of the head coach of our Seattle Seahawks, Pete Carroll. In the offseason, Carroll is a motivational speaker. He talks about leadership and the things he does to motivate players and coaches. One of his big mantras is that if we take good care of the football, everything else will take care of itself. I’d turn that into something Masonic. If we take good care of our brothers, everything else will take care of itself.
The ancient philosopher Lao Tzu is reported as saying “A leader is best when people barely know he exists when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves.”
I agree with what you shared Brother Ken. In the York Rite Leadership Training Classes I have attended, most of the YRL 101 Class Curriculum is about Covey’s 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. ~ {Thinking about selflessness is one thing, the doing of selflessness is another, the Being of Selflessness is the Rite Thing.} ~
Thank you for this listing of important leadership principles. I think that we all do well to try and integrate them into our lives, for in one sphere or another, all of us are eventually called upon to lead.
Two things from your list that I think are vital to Masonic leadership are 'conceptualization' which I tend to think of as 'vision' and 'consensus building.'
In my experience, if a man heading towards the East can develop a vision for where he would like his Lodge to go, and effectively communicate that vision to his Brothers, they will work to support him in those efforts, and be glad to do so. If however either the vision or the buy-in to it is missing, well then he likely will not have a successful year in Solomon's Chair.
We should be careful that "That's the way we always do it" doesn't turn into tradition. The first phrase is the most harmful to any organization.
I think your point is very well taken, and applies to a great many facets of Freemasonry. We must be willing to continually examine the way we do things in order to ensure that those ways are best meeting the needs of Freemasons today.
Progressing to the East shouldn’t be anything any brother strives for. No brother is initiated and receives the degrees of Masonry with the thought of one day wearing the big hat. A Master (leader) should, above all things, be humble. A good Master needs to be humble enough to seek counsel and strong enough to know how to apply it to a given situation. A good Master needs to show proficiency in fiduciary matters, Human Resources and consensus building. A brother who is sitting in the West or South should be able to show their leadership abilities by identifying and dealing with most issues before they ever reach the Master. A Junior or Senior Warden who continually brings issues, large or small, to the Master isn’t a leader. All the brothers need to be courageous, all the time. We’ve talked a lot about the importance of guarding the West Gate, so too is the importance of guarding the Oriental Chair. The brother that needs to be applauded for his courage is the one that knows within himself that he is not the brother to lead a lodge and steps aside. No “unqualified” brother should be elected to Master without having been the recipient of counsel about his shortcomings. In the end, the brothers of the lodge need to weigh the consequences of hurting an entire group or an individual who hasn’t the abilities to lead.
>>We’ve talked a lot about the importance of guarding the West Gate, so too is the importance >>of guarding the Oriental Chair.
Thank you my Brother, this is very well said. I think that if we can do these two things well we will see massive improvements in our Lodges over time.
If we think back to the early part of the 1700’s in England, the only degrees the members could obtain were the EA and FC, whereupon the Master of the lodge would be conferred in to the third degree; MM.
I think the point of the topic today can be found in the Old Constitution of Freemasonry (rule VI, page 7) “…and there Euclydes gave them these admonitions following: I. To be true to their king. II. To be true to the Master they serve. III. To be true, and love one another. IV. Not to miscall one another, &c. V. To do their work so duly, that they may deserve their wages at their Master’s Hands. VI. To ordain the wisest of them Master of the rest of the Work. VII. To have such reasonable wages, that the Workman man live honestly, and with credit. VIII. To come and assemble together in the Year, to take Council in their Craft how they may work best to serve their Lord and Master, for his profit, and their own credit, and to correct such as have offended.”
So, in this regard those who are initiated in to the third degree can be thought as raising the candidate as a priest or minister (ordained). If he does not receive education or simply doesn’t understand the symbolisms and philosophies, is he really dually prepared? This is why I believe it’s important to educate and mentor as much as possible. If the master of a lodge is elected, he should be the wisest of the lot, as it states in Euclid’s eight admonitions. Wise can be interpreted various ways, but I see fit, a wise man is objective, and what is referred to by the ancients as a priest, magi or shepherd, who leads with love in his heart and with a sober mind. Intelligence is always subjective. Also to add, ideally, one who can has knowledge of our charges, laws and obligations, and provide education so others will be dually and truly prepared, not just in lodge but in their own temple.
I think it’s also good to also point out here, we should not be so quick to judge another, as we all have defects; a rough stone if you will (see admonitions 2-5). I for one have a terrible memory and my hats off to those who have gone up the line to the east. I am also especially thankful for those who give their time to share information, give lectures, conversations and education on or related topics to our Craft. The greatest outcome of this silly “pandemic” thing, is the amount of time I’ve been given to listen to brothers around the world on various topic through internet video and other platforms such as this. So thank you MWGM Bailey, and those who research, study and share.
>>VI. To ordain the wisest of them Master of the rest of the Work.
Thank you for sharing this. I appreciate it, and I think we would do very well to emulate that old charge today.
As for the pandemic, I agree with you. Being able to see and learn from so many Brothers, across the country and around the world has been a true silver lining. I certainly hope that when all of this is over, we continue to use technology to teach, and learn, and share together. Doing so can only make Freemasonry stronger.
Lodges for the most part all too often will put people in chairs simply because no one else will step up. And ones that volunteer may have their heart in the right place, but just can’t do the work required of them. Many times I’ve had to sit down with brothers and discuss expectations versus their skill set and had them voluntarily drop out of the line. You have to do what is for the benefit of the lodge.
But sometimes the lodge doesn’t have a choice, and can be an indication that the lodge is on a rough and rugged road.
And I agree about the LLR comments. There is actually very little leadership training, but honestly how much can you learn in an hour?
Finally, you can be the greatest leader in the world, but when you have members of your lodge actively opposed to change, then all you will get is frustrated.
Throughout its long history, Freemasonry has always gone through cycles of expansion and contraction. I think that if we follow the current contraction and plot our membership decline on a graph, then do the same thing with our Lodge number contraction, we will see that we have lost membership on a much steeper slope than Lodges. The two just don't line up right now, and I think that is why Lodges get into situations where there is simply no one willing to step up into the East. We have too many Lodges currently for the number of Masons.
As those two graphs come together, which will happen as things continue to stabilize, we will, I think, see fewer of those situations.
Dang it, I had a commentary pretty well done but took a break to mow the lawn. Anyway, here goes again. I've worked in a side business for 30 years as an Organizational Development consultant and this very topic comes up as a "Case Study" often. Leadership positions derived from succession lines are doomed to fail. They are not unique to Freemasonry but survived due to laziness and "easy to do". After all, how bad could it be if we get the wrong person as the Leader. No "outer world organization" would ever elect their leader from a "succession line" since the probability of failure would be so high from leader incompetence. Our fraternal traditions are copied everywhere in the world. Most are volunteer organizations and these volunteers will devote heart and soul to the organization mission as long as they are treated well within. If that fails, the volunteers drift away quickly and seek substitute Lodges or whatever so they may feel needed again. I have seen this happen many times in NE Washington Lodges. Mentoring has been mentioned but there exist just as many bad or ineffective mentors as good ones. I have much more to share on this later.
There's a certain amount of tension surrounding this question. Perhaps it revolves around the way Masonry is organized.
We want Masters and Wardens who are excited, prepared, intelligent, dedicated and leaders. We try to create a system that improves men to meet that criteria.
I wish it were true that we had a line of excited, prepared, intelligent, dedicated leaders to fulfill that noble fantasy of progressing through the ranks every year.
We need to face the reality that every Mason is not a prepared, intelligent, dedicated leader. We need to engage the talents of those who are and make a place for those who aren't.
The Brother who maintains the library and wishes not to advance is not a liability.
Let leaders lead. Let administrators administer. Let organizers organize. Let socializers socialize.
Stop trying to fit members into roles they that don't fit their abilities or personalities.
How many successful companies do you know that turn over their CEO every year - NONE!
I realize one of our goals is to develop men to their highest potential. I agree. That does not mean that every officer needs to be elevated each year or even every two or three years.
The old saying;"If it works, don't change it" is good advice.
There are plenty of responsible opportunities in any Lodge without focusing on jamming members through the offices.
If leadership has lost it effectiveness there is ample opportunity to elect others to replace it.