What does leadership training mean to you, and to each Mason?
I've had the advantage of leadership training at the hands of the United States Marine Corps. And after that the Air Force. And before that, I had my mother's example, who'd been a Marine in WWII. So leadership training means one thing to me that it might not mean to vast civilian population.
Something that's troubled me for some time is what I call the "Rambo-robo-copping" of society. By this I mean the Hollyweirdised fetishising of the caricature of the pseudo-military LARP. The idea that everyone is a "warrior" - no - everyone are not. And that everyone is a "leader" and leaders are somehow "warriors" and part of self-privileged strata. No. I categorically reject this idea.
But in *civil* society - which is the vast majority of people, and where all of us really *live* our day to day lives - the *Servant* - the Public Servant - is the gold standard. And that has been shoved down the oubliette in favour of a caricature of what people have been Hollywoodised into believing ought to be "leadership" applied in a civil setting.
Thank you for this perspective, I really appreciate it, and you are certainly right, leadership means different things to different people, and needs to be different based on context.
It seems to me that the best form of Leadership, for a Masonic Lodge is what I call visionary leadership. In other words, the leader/potential leader, needs to develop a vision for where he would like to see the Lodge go. Then sell the Masons of the Lodge on that vision. Once they have bought in, it is really easy to ask them for help with all the steps it takes to implement that vision. and if they have really bought into it, they will really work to achieve it.
That works, and it is somewhat related to servant leadership. I think that the elements mix well.
But the Hollyweirdized guy who barks orders from the East will never find success in a Masonic context!
4. I certainly agree that Freemasonry needs a systematic course of leadership education. I have seen so many Masonic training programs labeled “leadership” but mostly deal with lodge management type issues. In my opinion, true leadership education teaches the attitudes, behaviors, and skills for visioning, team building, collaboration, problem solving, and dealing with people for effective relationship building.
Mason education needs a definition. If you asked the question, “what is Masonic education” to 100 Masons, you might get 100 different answers. In my experience the programs offered in most lodges are just short informational pieces (some having nothing to do with Masonry), and not a systematic learning experience to actually help a man improve and practice the virtues and lessons imparted in the degrees. Grand Lodges, for the most part, have not developed strong programming to support a sustained learning program for lodges.
I encourage everyone to listen to an online video discussion with Masonic Author Dan Hrinko by the Ohio Lodge of Research. Dan discusses what the education of a Mason should look like from initiation through the Brotherhood. Additionally, Bro. Hrinko provides a summary of "The Purple of the Fraternity" His other writings include "The Craft Driven Lodge." And "From Man to Mason: A Transformation Through Education." https://youtu.be/gXde8jzxxBk?si=1tT9JD-jFLq5HmBI
5. I have often said that we have relaxed standards and become more common. When we cease to be unique, we will fail.
6. If a GM suspends a member for just reasons, a process should begin immediately. I don’t think the trial commission needs to be Past Masters, but should be brothers who will conduct the proceedings impartially.
>>>I have seen so many Masonic training programs labeled “leadership” but mostly deal with >>>lodge management type issues.
I agree, these two things, which are quite different from each other, are frequently confused within our Fraternity. We do need to know how to manage our Lodges, but we also need to know how to lead our Lodges.
>>>If you asked the question, “what is Masonic education” to 100 Masons, you might get 100 >>>different answers.
I also believe that Masonic education that would benefit a Lodge and its members can differ from Lodge to Lodge. As Lodge 'personalities' are different among various Lodges, they attract to themselves men unique to the Lodge itself. Different men than the Lodge down the street. As a result, what will benefit the members, and how it should be presented, can differ.
With this I am referring to Lodges in large urban areas where there are a lot of Lodges for Masons to choose from. Not so much Lodges where there is only a single reasonable choice.
>>>When we cease to be unique, we will fail.
Agreed. Common and cheap will not result in a successful Freemasonry.
>>>I don’t think the trial commission needs to be Past Masters, but should be brothers who will >>>conduct the proceedings impartially.
I too caught the 'No PGM's' bit in the Laudable Pursuit's recommendation. If memory serves, here in Washington the Trial Committee is led by a PGM, but the rest of the members are VW and W Brothers.
I would like to address this point in number 5 >>> That means proficiency and attendance requirements, dress codes, and real investigations of new members. >>>
Proficiency is a must (especially concerning opening/closing lodge) and should be an absolute requirement before becoming WM. In our jurisdiction there are programs to certify a brother in this, and even a resolution up for vote during our annual communication to make it required. Being proficient is not about rote memorization. It is about being professional, being organized, and being respectful of the craft. It is its own badge of honor.
As far as attendance requirements, I would welcome some form of this. It bewilders me that we have brothers that simply pay their yearly dues and stay on the books, but you never see them in lodge. If they have some sort of reasoning for not attending, they should address it to the lodge or WM in order to resolve it, or dimit and join another lodge that best suits them. Are you really a Freemason if you never attend lodge?
With the exception of disabled, sick and elderly brothers that can no longer physically or mentally attend lodge, there is no excuse for the rest of us. Yes, we all may miss a night or two due to life events, but I think having some sort of requirement, for example attendance of at least 50% of stated meetings, is reasonable.
Dress codes – I welcome them. However, they mean different things to different lodges and is subject to the lodges culture. Whereas one lodge may require dark suits, white shirt and black tie, another lodge may require khakis and a black polo (or a specific lodge polo that is given to each new Mason). It could be less noticeable too, for example all brothers wear the exact same tie and lapel pin. Point is, a dress code can be seen as a point of pride and honor in the lodge and helps define its culture.
Real investigations of new members, I see as Guarding the Westgate. Quality versus quantity. A lodge should really get to know a seeker before simply handing him petition because he showed up for two dinners. This goes for legacies, too. IMO legacies should not be handed a petition just because their father or grandfather was a Mason. The lodge still needs to get to know the seeker and exercise due diligence to ensure a man (legacy or not) is a good fit for Masonry and that lodge.
>>>Proficiency is a must (especially concerning opening/closing lodge) and should be an >>>absolute requirement before becoming WM.
I agree. It is terrible to sit through a Lodge opening and closing when the Officers are incapable of opening and closing the Lodge.
It is even worse when the Lodge finishes an EA Degree, has just told the brand new Mason that he has some memory work to do, then sits him on the sidelines and lets him witness the fact that the Master of the Lodge doesn't know how to close his Lodge.
I see this as a Guarding the East Gate kind of thing. We should not be electing a Mason to be Worshipful Master unless he knows the work. And that is completely within our power.
There are some men who for whatever reason can not memorize the ritual. It is rare, but in my experience they do exist. In those cases, it should simply be made clear to them that they have to find a path in Freemasonry other than Lodge leadership.
If as Senior Deacon a Mason struggles with the work, he shouldn't be elected a Warden, and so on, up the line.
But, I'm not sure that we need, or want, a Grand Lodge Code Provision for this. Wouldn't it be better if Lodges just did the right thing on their own? Or do we truly need the hand of Big Brother forcing it?
>>>As far as attendance requirements, I would welcome some form of this.
I agree. If a Brother lives within a reasonable distance of the Lodge, and he is physically capable of attending Lodge, he should be in Lodge.
I'm not certain though that a requirement that Masons attend Lodge is quite the right way of looking at it. I think an expectation for Lodge attendance might be a better way of considering it.
We should be telling potential candidates that if they are accepted to receive the Degrees of Masonry, they will be expected to be active members of the Lodge. That if they have to miss a meeting for some reason, they will be expected to let the Secretary or Worshipful Member know why they can't attend.
As it is now, most Lodges tend to set just about zero expectations on their Masons. But, if a Lodge had expectations, and communicated those expectations the Lodge would get what it expected.
It must have been last fall when I attended a meeting of a Lodge up in Seattle. The WM made it clear that he expected every member of the Lodge to attend. In person if able, or via Zoom if unable for some legitimate reason. As I recall, only one single member of the Lodge didn't attend, and he had a good excuse.
So, expectations do work. We just tend to not set them. And then wonder why we have 10% attendance.
There is historical precedent for Lodges requiring attendance. I have a copy of some really old Lodge bylaws that set out the amount of the fine a Mason had to pay if he missed Lodge without a good excuse.
All that said, some Masons do move out of an area, but want to maintain some connection to the Lodge, even though it is no longer possible for them to attend. I think we do well to accommodate them by allowing them to maintain their membership despite the impossibility of their remaining active.
>>>Dress codes – I welcome them. However, they mean different things to different lodges and is >>>subject to the lodges culture.
Generally, I am the most dirtbag of dressers when it comes to Lodge. Not always, it depends on context.
But, that said, I am a huge fan of Lodge Dress Codes.
When all members of a Lodge are dressed the same, it creates an esprit de corps that is clearly noticeable and powerful. When I was Master of Centralia Lodge I had a Dress Code for the Lodge, and expected the members of the Lodge to adopt it.
But, as you rightly point out, the Dress Code, in order to be impactful, must reflect the culture of the Lodge. Historically, Centralia is a mining town with a lot of logging thrown in. Our Dress Code reflected that historical reality. What we wore would not be appropriate elsewhere.
Likewise, the Lodge at Skykomish has had tremendous success over the course of many years utilizing an extremely unique Dress Code. It is unmistakable when a Skykomish Mason visits a Lodge as such, anywhere in the Jurisdiction.
We can't put a bunch of guys who are uncomfortable in tuxedos, and who can't wear a tuxedo well because of it, in tuxedos. The Dress Code must be something that everyone can embrace and get behind.
And, in my view, Masonic dress should reflect the times that we live in.
>>>A lodge should really get to know a seeker before simply handing him petition because he >>>showed up for two dinners.
Agreed. 100%.
A single bad man allowed to be a member of our Lodge, will drive good men away from our Lodge by the score.
Imagine the man who comes across in public as a whack job doing so in his Masonic shirt with his Masonic ring. What does that do to the reputation of Freemasonry? What good man wants to join if he knows that we let said whack job join?
And that is the very least of the problems that are caused when we allow unsuitable men to be Initiated.
I like that fine idea, it doesn’t have to be much (i.e. $10 - $20) and maybe the WM allows for one unexcused absence. But yes, the expectation should stand to be a Freemason you have to attend Lodge. Thanks for your comments MW.
What does leadership training mean to you, and to each Mason?
I've had the advantage of leadership training at the hands of the United States Marine Corps. And after that the Air Force. And before that, I had my mother's example, who'd been a Marine in WWII. So leadership training means one thing to me that it might not mean to vast civilian population.
Something that's troubled me for some time is what I call the "Rambo-robo-copping" of society. By this I mean the Hollyweirdised fetishising of the caricature of the pseudo-military LARP. The idea that everyone is a "warrior" - no - everyone are not. And that everyone is a "leader" and leaders are somehow "warriors" and part of self-privileged strata. No. I categorically reject this idea.
But in *civil* society - which is the vast majority of people, and where all of us really *live* our day to day lives - the *Servant* - the Public Servant - is the gold standard. And that has been shoved down the oubliette in favour of a caricature of what people have been Hollywoodised into believing ought to be "leadership" applied in a civil setting.
So, what is *Servantship* instead?
Thank you for this perspective, I really appreciate it, and you are certainly right, leadership means different things to different people, and needs to be different based on context.
It seems to me that the best form of Leadership, for a Masonic Lodge is what I call visionary leadership. In other words, the leader/potential leader, needs to develop a vision for where he would like to see the Lodge go. Then sell the Masons of the Lodge on that vision. Once they have bought in, it is really easy to ask them for help with all the steps it takes to implement that vision. and if they have really bought into it, they will really work to achieve it.
That works, and it is somewhat related to servant leadership. I think that the elements mix well.
But the Hollyweirdized guy who barks orders from the East will never find success in a Masonic context!
4. I certainly agree that Freemasonry needs a systematic course of leadership education. I have seen so many Masonic training programs labeled “leadership” but mostly deal with lodge management type issues. In my opinion, true leadership education teaches the attitudes, behaviors, and skills for visioning, team building, collaboration, problem solving, and dealing with people for effective relationship building.
Mason education needs a definition. If you asked the question, “what is Masonic education” to 100 Masons, you might get 100 different answers. In my experience the programs offered in most lodges are just short informational pieces (some having nothing to do with Masonry), and not a systematic learning experience to actually help a man improve and practice the virtues and lessons imparted in the degrees. Grand Lodges, for the most part, have not developed strong programming to support a sustained learning program for lodges.
I encourage everyone to listen to an online video discussion with Masonic Author Dan Hrinko by the Ohio Lodge of Research. Dan discusses what the education of a Mason should look like from initiation through the Brotherhood. Additionally, Bro. Hrinko provides a summary of "The Purple of the Fraternity" His other writings include "The Craft Driven Lodge." And "From Man to Mason: A Transformation Through Education." https://youtu.be/gXde8jzxxBk?si=1tT9JD-jFLq5HmBI
5. I have often said that we have relaxed standards and become more common. When we cease to be unique, we will fail.
6. If a GM suspends a member for just reasons, a process should begin immediately. I don’t think the trial commission needs to be Past Masters, but should be brothers who will conduct the proceedings impartially.
>>>I have seen so many Masonic training programs labeled “leadership” but mostly deal with >>>lodge management type issues.
I agree, these two things, which are quite different from each other, are frequently confused within our Fraternity. We do need to know how to manage our Lodges, but we also need to know how to lead our Lodges.
>>>If you asked the question, “what is Masonic education” to 100 Masons, you might get 100 >>>different answers.
I also believe that Masonic education that would benefit a Lodge and its members can differ from Lodge to Lodge. As Lodge 'personalities' are different among various Lodges, they attract to themselves men unique to the Lodge itself. Different men than the Lodge down the street. As a result, what will benefit the members, and how it should be presented, can differ.
With this I am referring to Lodges in large urban areas where there are a lot of Lodges for Masons to choose from. Not so much Lodges where there is only a single reasonable choice.
>>>When we cease to be unique, we will fail.
Agreed. Common and cheap will not result in a successful Freemasonry.
>>>I don’t think the trial commission needs to be Past Masters, but should be brothers who will >>>conduct the proceedings impartially.
I too caught the 'No PGM's' bit in the Laudable Pursuit's recommendation. If memory serves, here in Washington the Trial Committee is led by a PGM, but the rest of the members are VW and W Brothers.
I would like to address this point in number 5 >>> That means proficiency and attendance requirements, dress codes, and real investigations of new members. >>>
Proficiency is a must (especially concerning opening/closing lodge) and should be an absolute requirement before becoming WM. In our jurisdiction there are programs to certify a brother in this, and even a resolution up for vote during our annual communication to make it required. Being proficient is not about rote memorization. It is about being professional, being organized, and being respectful of the craft. It is its own badge of honor.
As far as attendance requirements, I would welcome some form of this. It bewilders me that we have brothers that simply pay their yearly dues and stay on the books, but you never see them in lodge. If they have some sort of reasoning for not attending, they should address it to the lodge or WM in order to resolve it, or dimit and join another lodge that best suits them. Are you really a Freemason if you never attend lodge?
With the exception of disabled, sick and elderly brothers that can no longer physically or mentally attend lodge, there is no excuse for the rest of us. Yes, we all may miss a night or two due to life events, but I think having some sort of requirement, for example attendance of at least 50% of stated meetings, is reasonable.
Dress codes – I welcome them. However, they mean different things to different lodges and is subject to the lodges culture. Whereas one lodge may require dark suits, white shirt and black tie, another lodge may require khakis and a black polo (or a specific lodge polo that is given to each new Mason). It could be less noticeable too, for example all brothers wear the exact same tie and lapel pin. Point is, a dress code can be seen as a point of pride and honor in the lodge and helps define its culture.
Real investigations of new members, I see as Guarding the Westgate. Quality versus quantity. A lodge should really get to know a seeker before simply handing him petition because he showed up for two dinners. This goes for legacies, too. IMO legacies should not be handed a petition just because their father or grandfather was a Mason. The lodge still needs to get to know the seeker and exercise due diligence to ensure a man (legacy or not) is a good fit for Masonry and that lodge.
Thank-you
>>>Proficiency is a must (especially concerning opening/closing lodge) and should be an >>>absolute requirement before becoming WM.
I agree. It is terrible to sit through a Lodge opening and closing when the Officers are incapable of opening and closing the Lodge.
It is even worse when the Lodge finishes an EA Degree, has just told the brand new Mason that he has some memory work to do, then sits him on the sidelines and lets him witness the fact that the Master of the Lodge doesn't know how to close his Lodge.
I see this as a Guarding the East Gate kind of thing. We should not be electing a Mason to be Worshipful Master unless he knows the work. And that is completely within our power.
There are some men who for whatever reason can not memorize the ritual. It is rare, but in my experience they do exist. In those cases, it should simply be made clear to them that they have to find a path in Freemasonry other than Lodge leadership.
If as Senior Deacon a Mason struggles with the work, he shouldn't be elected a Warden, and so on, up the line.
But, I'm not sure that we need, or want, a Grand Lodge Code Provision for this. Wouldn't it be better if Lodges just did the right thing on their own? Or do we truly need the hand of Big Brother forcing it?
>>>As far as attendance requirements, I would welcome some form of this.
I agree. If a Brother lives within a reasonable distance of the Lodge, and he is physically capable of attending Lodge, he should be in Lodge.
I'm not certain though that a requirement that Masons attend Lodge is quite the right way of looking at it. I think an expectation for Lodge attendance might be a better way of considering it.
We should be telling potential candidates that if they are accepted to receive the Degrees of Masonry, they will be expected to be active members of the Lodge. That if they have to miss a meeting for some reason, they will be expected to let the Secretary or Worshipful Member know why they can't attend.
As it is now, most Lodges tend to set just about zero expectations on their Masons. But, if a Lodge had expectations, and communicated those expectations the Lodge would get what it expected.
It must have been last fall when I attended a meeting of a Lodge up in Seattle. The WM made it clear that he expected every member of the Lodge to attend. In person if able, or via Zoom if unable for some legitimate reason. As I recall, only one single member of the Lodge didn't attend, and he had a good excuse.
So, expectations do work. We just tend to not set them. And then wonder why we have 10% attendance.
There is historical precedent for Lodges requiring attendance. I have a copy of some really old Lodge bylaws that set out the amount of the fine a Mason had to pay if he missed Lodge without a good excuse.
All that said, some Masons do move out of an area, but want to maintain some connection to the Lodge, even though it is no longer possible for them to attend. I think we do well to accommodate them by allowing them to maintain their membership despite the impossibility of their remaining active.
>>>Dress codes – I welcome them. However, they mean different things to different lodges and is >>>subject to the lodges culture.
Generally, I am the most dirtbag of dressers when it comes to Lodge. Not always, it depends on context.
But, that said, I am a huge fan of Lodge Dress Codes.
When all members of a Lodge are dressed the same, it creates an esprit de corps that is clearly noticeable and powerful. When I was Master of Centralia Lodge I had a Dress Code for the Lodge, and expected the members of the Lodge to adopt it.
But, as you rightly point out, the Dress Code, in order to be impactful, must reflect the culture of the Lodge. Historically, Centralia is a mining town with a lot of logging thrown in. Our Dress Code reflected that historical reality. What we wore would not be appropriate elsewhere.
Likewise, the Lodge at Skykomish has had tremendous success over the course of many years utilizing an extremely unique Dress Code. It is unmistakable when a Skykomish Mason visits a Lodge as such, anywhere in the Jurisdiction.
We can't put a bunch of guys who are uncomfortable in tuxedos, and who can't wear a tuxedo well because of it, in tuxedos. The Dress Code must be something that everyone can embrace and get behind.
And, in my view, Masonic dress should reflect the times that we live in.
>>>A lodge should really get to know a seeker before simply handing him petition because he >>>showed up for two dinners.
Agreed. 100%.
A single bad man allowed to be a member of our Lodge, will drive good men away from our Lodge by the score.
Imagine the man who comes across in public as a whack job doing so in his Masonic shirt with his Masonic ring. What does that do to the reputation of Freemasonry? What good man wants to join if he knows that we let said whack job join?
And that is the very least of the problems that are caused when we allow unsuitable men to be Initiated.
I like that fine idea, it doesn’t have to be much (i.e. $10 - $20) and maybe the WM allows for one unexcused absence. But yes, the expectation should stand to be a Freemason you have to attend Lodge. Thanks for your comments MW.