Organizational Ideology: A Consistent Foundation amidst Constant Change

Theoretically and relatively, in comparison to individuals, organizations have the ability to exist for perpetuity. Leaders come and go generation after generation Author, Isaac Asimov, wrote:

The only constant is change, continuing change, inevitable change, that is the dominant factor in society today. No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be. (Quoteworld, 2006)

In a society so prone to change, organizations need to have some overarching purpose that will outlast fads and new technologies, and allow the organization to thrive in the world as it is, and as it will be. This paper will illustrate how an organization’s ideology can inspire people and shape its practices through times of change, uncertainty, and crisis; show how ideology influences organizations’ ability to act ethically both because it is the inherent right thing to do, and because it maintains a sense of long-term organizational perspective on its identification; and demonstrate how an organization’s ideology permeates all facets of existence from personnel practices to social responsibility.

Ideology Promotes Stability, Focus, and Resolve
An organization’s core ideology is its “values and sense of purpose beyond just making money—that guides and inspires people throughout the organization and remains relatively fixed for long periods of time” (Collins & Porras, 2004, p. 48). An organization’s core ideology—its core purpose, its foundation—guides and shapes a company’s practices primarily by creating stability in times of change, focus in times of uncertainty, and resolve in times of crisis.

An old adage states, “Change is the only constant.” This is certainly as true in today’s business world as it has been for millennia. Organizations change in terms of leadership, processes and procedures, product mixes, and target markets, but as Collins and Porras (2004) argue, visionary companies’ core purpose should not. An organization’s core ideology creates stability in its behavior amidst changing markets or an evolving society. For example, Hewlett-Packard founders tinkered with many products, many of which were unsuccessful, before becoming the computer company we know it as today (Collins & Porras).

During times of uncertainty, the temptation for an organization to either abandon its values or exist without them must be overwhelming. For example, Sony founder, Masaru Ibuka, codified the new company’s ideology while overcoming the obstacles of daily survival in post World War II Japan (Collins & Porras, 2004). It would have been easy for him to apply a “do whatever we need to do to get by” philosophy, but instead, setting the organization’s purposes and management guidelines provided focus in uncertain times.

An organization’s core values enable it to act with resolve in times of crisis. In the 1980s, Ford Motor Company was losing billions—“43 percent of its net worth” (Collins & Porras, 2004, p. 52)—in just three years due to the popularity of Japanese imports. During this crisis, Ford’s senior management took the time to clarify the company’s values. Within this development, they revisited Henry Ford’s philosophy during the company’s initial days. The result of this process was Ford’s “Mission, Values, Guiding Principles (MVGP)” (Collins & Porras). Though Ford is not out of the woods yet, still bleeding money and still losing market share at about one percentage point in each of the last three years (Taylor III, 2006), they are boldly touting an organizational restructuring and a new market strategy (Carty, 2006).

In sum, ideology is the basis of progression through change, action in times of uncertainty, and response to crisis. Whether in times of change, uncertainty, or crisis, an organization’s core ideology says, “This is who we are; this is what we stand for; this is what we’re all about” (Collins & Porras, 2004, p. 54). The philosophy with which an organization aligns itself speaks volumes about the organization.

Inherent Ethical Behavior or Long-Term Strategy?
In the face of a major crisis, or in everyday business life, what makes an organization behave ethically—an inherent desire to do the right thing, or because it will maintain business survivability in the long-term? The question poses a conundrum Collins and Porras (2004) label as the “Tyranny of the Or” (p. 43), in which one can only choose one view between “two seemingly contradictory forces or ideas” (p. 43). However, this is not necessarily the case. Both motives can exist simultaneously.

In 1982, seven people in the Chicago area died because someone, not an employee, “had tampered with Tylenol bottles, lacing them with cyanide” (Collins & Porras, 2004, p. 60). Upon hearing this news, “Johnson and Johnson had [sic] effectively demonstrated how a major business ought to handle a disaster” (Knight, 1982) by having immediately removed all bottles of Tylenol capsules from the shelves of not just the Chicago area, but from the entire country. Knight further lamented, “Johnson & Johnson has succeeded in portraying itself to the public as a company willing to do what’s right, regardless of the cost.” Pulling the Tylenol off the shelves was the right thing to do and Johnson & Johnson received much public praise for doing so despite the tragic deaths.

In contrast, Johnson & Johnson’s swift action also demonstrated their long-term commitment to good business practice. Many experts said that the Tylenol brand was doomed, and it would never rebound. Today, Tylenol is alive and well in the market. In Johnson & Johnson’s case, its response to the tampering not only was the right thing to do, it also made good business sense. Thus, organizations do not have to choose between two contradictory views of their motives for doing the right thing; they can achieve what Collins and Porras (2004) label as the “Genius of the AND” (p. 44). Acting ethically because it is inherently the right thing to do also makes good business sense, and it contributes to long-term survivability or the organization.

Christianity as an Ideal Ideology.
One prime example of ideology that will last—and has lasted—more than 100 years is Christianity. Since Christ walked the earth about 2,000 years ago his message—his core ideology—has been the foundation for millions across multiple cultures. Within these cultures Christianity has served as a guiding light during times of change, such as the abolishment of slavery; times of uncertainty, such as the colonies declaration of independence from Britain; and times of crisis, such as the current war on terror. National presidents and cultural leaders have subscribed to Christianity as their core belief—their foundation of action and reaction during these times. As an ideology, Christianity is powerful enough to change the sinful hearts of men and the course of a developing nation; thus, it is most certainly capable of being the basis for the development and proliferation of an organization.

Regent University, a mid-atlantic higher education institution founded by the Christian Broadcasting Network pioneer, Dr. M. G. “Pat” Robertson, touts Christianity, as its ideological foundation. Regent University’s vision statement reads:

Our vision, through our graduates and scholarly activities, is to provide Christian leadership in transforming society by affirming and teaching principles of truth, justice and love as described in the Holy Scriptures, embodied in the person of Jesus Christ, and enabled through the power of the Holy Spirit. Soli Deo Gloria. (Regent, 2006a)

In short, Regent’s purpose is “Christian Leadership to Change the World.” This foundation has permeated every aspect of the university’s existence from personnel to social responsibility.

Regent University places a great deal of importance on selecting the right personnel. Each professor is responsible for exemplifying what it means to be a Christian leader (P. Lee, personal communication, August 30, 2005). Regent also places a great deal of importance ensuring that their clientele—students—hold Regent’s ideology as well. Through the Honor Code and Standard of Personal Conduct, overt references toward behavior that is not Christ-like are clearly discouraged (Regent, 2005). In addition, both employees and student are encouraged to “conduct themselves in a Christ-like and professional manner and maintain an exemplary and involved lifestyle, including regular church attendance, participation in activities of the Regent community and its founding organization” (Regent, 2005, p. 23).

Regent also weaves its ideology throughout everyday business practices. Articulated within its mission statement, Regent employs a firm resolve to realize its vision through Christ-centered, foundational commitments in terms of its dedication to generating high quality programs and personnel, building a family of God, its educational approach, the proliferation of information technology, strategic planning and rigorous self-assessment, being fiscally responsible, and its commitment to community outreach (Regent, 2006a).

One of the biggest examples of Regent University’s resolve for community involvement and social responsibility is in its close affiliation with Operation Blessing International (OBI). OBI is a “nonprofit organization that provides humanitarian aid in the form of food, clothing, medicine, and financial assistance to help disadvantaged people and disaster victims throughout the world” (Robertson, 2005, para. 1). OBI has assisted millions of people across the United States and in nearly 100 foreign countries (Regent, 2006b). In recent years, OBI has been instrumental in bringing relief to victims of Hurricane Katrina (Operation, 2006a), the tsunami that devastated Southeast Asia in 2004 (Operation, 2006c), and most recently, OBI was the first on the scene at a massive earthquake in Indonesia (Operation, 2006b).

In sum, Regent University operates with Christian principles. This set of beliefs permeates the behaviors and practices of the institution, its employees, and its students. In its relatively short 28-year lifespan, Regent has undergone phenomenal growth and has enjoyed great success. In spite of the many changes in personnel, finances, and operating procedures, Regent’s core ideology has been the driving force and reason for its existence.

Conclusion
An organization’s core ideology—its core purpose and its foundation—shapes a company’s practices, including every aspect of its existence from personnel to social responsibility, primarily by creating stability in times of change, focus in times of uncertainty, and resolve in times of crisis. An organization’s ideology enables it to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do, while maintaining a sense of long-term organizational perspective. An organization’s ideology can be both the impetus and summation of its existence; it is the reason for being beyond profit. An organization’s ideology is the consistent foundation that enables it to grow and prosper amidst constant change.

References

Carty, S. S. (2006, January 10). ‘Reality’ of market share Ford’s focus. USA Today. Retrieved June 8, 2006, from here

Collins, J., & Porras, J. I. (2004). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. New York: HarperCollins.

Knight, J. (1982, October 11). Tylenol’s maker shows how to respond to crisis. The Washington Post, p. WB1.

Operation Blessing. (2006a). OBI distributions easing suffering of Katrina victims. Retrieved June 9, 2006, from here

Operation Blessing. (2006b). Operation Blessing is first-responder at Indonesia earthquake. Retrieved June 9, 2006, from here

Operation Blessing. (2006c). Tsunami Relief and Recovery. Retrieved June 9, 2006, from here

Regent University. (2006a). Mission Statement. Retrieved June 10, 2006, from here

Regent University. (2006b). Pat Robertson. Retrieved June 10, 2006, from here

Regent University. (2005). Regent University student handbook: A guide to policies and procedures. Retrieved June 9, 2006, from here

Robertson, P. (2005). Humanitarian: Pat Robertson recognized as philanthropist and humanitarian. Retrieved June 8, 2006, from here

Taylor, A., III. (2006, January 8). Bill Ford: Market share bleed stops now. Fortune. Retrieved June 8, 2006, from here

Quoteworld. (2006). Retrieved June 10, 2006, from here

The Meaning and Use of Parables in the Synoptic Gospels

The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37, New Revised Standard Version) is a well-known story. When questioned about what one must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus replied:

A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when we saw him, he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.’” (Luke 10:30–35)

This parable illustrates both the dark, sinful side of human behavior, and the hope that people are fundamentally good. The Jewish religious leaders—the priest and the Levite—rejected the beaten man, yet the Samaritan, an outcast, helped the man tremendously. On the surface, this is a story about being a good neighbor. On a deeper level, the Samaritan embodies Jesus, an outcast in his own right, who was moved by mercy to help the man, much in the same way that Jesus helped countless others who could not help themselves (Walvoord & Zuck, 1985). This is a classic parable that both teaches a moral lesson and reveals the nature of Jesus. This paper will briefly define, describe and discuss the distribution of Jesus’ parables in the Synoptic Gospels, discuss how and why Jesus used parables, and explore the meaning and messages behind the parables as Jesus used them.

What is a Parable?

Although biblical scholars have poured over Jesus’ parables for centuries, there is only minor agreement of what actually constitutes a parable. There are loose definitions and those that are more restrictive; thus, to definitively define and describe what a parable is would be a lesson in futility. Regardless of this fact, this section will define, describe, and discuss the distribution of Jesus’ parables in the Synoptic Gospels.

Definition
There is great depth to parables. According to Gundry (2003), parables are nothing more than “extended figures of speech, often in story form” (p. 117). However, the English word parable derives from the Greek word parabolē, which means “something cast (bole) alongside (para) something else (Hedrick, 2004, p. 1), such as a fictitious story, cast alongside a particular truth. Parabolē has many more meanings and uses. For example, parabolēs can be used as “a proverb (Lk 4:23), a riddle (Mk 3:23), a comparison (Mt 13:33), a contrast (Lk 18:1-8), and both simple stories (Lk 13:6-9) and complex stories (Mt 22:1-14)” (Green & McKnight, 1992, p. 593).

Scholars disagree on the criteria by which a group of words become a parable. “There are thirty forms explicitly labeled parabolē…[and] there are at least forty parables on a more restricted definition, but as many as sixty-five” (Green & McKnight, 1992, p. 596) if one includes metaphoric items like the proverbial speck in the other’s eye (Matthew 7:3). Hedrick (2004) offers another definition and description of a parable that will serve this paper: “A parable is constructed as a brief, freely invented, narrative fiction, comprised of beginning, middle, and end, dramatizing a common human experience or some incident from nature” (p. 9).

Description
There is more than just the meaning of the word. Although many scholars do not use this classification system Green & McKnight (1992) offer four, often distinguished forms of parables: 1) “a similitude, which is an extended simile relating a typical and recurring event in real life”; 2) “an example story, which presents a positive or negative character (or both)…to be imitated or whose traits and actions are to be avoided”; 3) a parable, which is “an extended metaphor referring to a fictional event or events narrated in past time to express a moral or spiritual truth”; and 4) an allegory, which is a series of metaphors (p. 593).

Parables have a typical structure as well. Parables have the tendency to be balanced, brief, symmetrical, and vague (Green & McKnight, 1992). Parables “typically omit unnecessary descriptions and frequently leave motives unexplained and implied questions unanswered” (Green & McKnight, p. 594). Further, parables use everyday examples, but they are not necessarily realistic in nature. This unique combination makes parables intriguing, thought provoking, highly adaptable, and timeless.

Distribution
Jesus taught largely in parables. “Approximately one-third of Jesus’ teaching is in parables” (Green & McKnight, 1992, p. 594). There are eight parables found in all three gospels, and though Mark has 11 parables, only one—the Seed Growing Secretly (Mark 4:26–29)—is unique to his gospel; Matthew and Luke have 10 and 14 unique parables respectively (Green & McKnight). Through a restrictive definition, Green and McKnight attribute a total of 44 parables to the Synoptic Gospels, and two in John if one counts the Good Shepherd and the True Vine.

The Use of Parables in the Gospels

Quite possibly, the potential uses of parables number in the dozens. Though the exact reason or reasons Jesus used parables in his teachings throughout the Synoptic Gospels, parables are an effective means of communication. In addition, Jesus used parables to disseminate ethical truths and bring about social reform. Lastly, Jesus used parables to enlighten those who believed in him as the messiah, while simultaneously obscuring the truth from those who doubted.

Effective Communication
A common supposition about Jesus’ motives for using parables is that it is an effective way to teach and communicate higher order, yet simplistic moral truths. Parables as metaphorical stories ease the information transfer, especially moral lessons or other tacit concepts. In business, the most effective means of expressing abstract ideas is through figurative language and symbolism (Nonanka, 1991). Jesus used the same type of communication when teaching in parables. Groff and Jones (2003) delineate several key advantages to telling stories, each being quite useful for Jesus: Stories are memorable, encourage receptivity, focus on what matters, and are not entirely bound by logic.

However, Hedrick (2004) argues that since Jesus rarely explained his parables, “listeners were left with an open-ended narrative, subject to a variety of explanations” (p. 27). In addition, how people view themselves and their own lives may influence their interpretation. A 48-year-old man, and an 18-year-old woman, may have a drastically different interpretation of the parable of the Prodigal and His Brother (Luke 15:11–32).

Ethical Truths and Social Reform
Underscoring Jesus’ place in history as the Son of God, Jesus was also a great ethicist, who used parables to disseminate ethical truths and bring about social reform. The entire Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7) is a guide to how people should conduct their lives and behave toward each other when in a fruitful relationship with God (Walvoord & Zuck, 1985). This sermon contains three parables: 1) Wise and Foolish Builders (Matthew 7:24–27), 2) Father and Children’s Requests (Matthew 7:9–11), and 3) Two Doors (Matthew 7:13–14). It is highly probable that Jesus used parables to communicate ethical truths.

Jülicher, a prominent 19th-century New Testament scholar argued that parables express a moral truth. Jülicher believed that the parables contain a general moral code and were instructional in nature. For instance, the parable of the Barren Fig Tree (Luke 13:6–9) compares the story of a landowner threatening to cut down a fig tree that has not borne fruit for three years. According to Jülicher, the context within Luke 13:1–9 illustrates that people who do not bear fruit (repent) will be cut down (perish) (Hedrick, 2004). However, Hedrick criticizes Jülicher’s analysis, citing that he is essentially allegorizing—something Jülicher warns against—and that Jülicher should not tie this parable to the preceding passage (Luke 13:1–5). Since the parable also precedes Jesus healing a crippled woman, and a connection to that passage is unlikely, it is reasonable to assume Luke was applying it to the previous passage about repentance.

William Herzog, a late 20th-century New Testament scholar argued that Jesus’ parables propagated social reform (Hedrick, 2004). After a difficult time reconciling the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard (Matthew 20:1–16), Herzog studied the socioeconomic conditions of Palestine in the first century, during Jesus’ time. Herzog (1994) concluded that parables are essentially “earthly stories with heavy meanings” aimed at “break[ing] the spiral of violence and cycle of poverty created by exploitation and oppression” (p. 9). Further, Herzog cited that Jesus was “executed as a political subversive and crucified between two social bandits… [because] he was a threat to Roman overlords’] economic and political interests (p. 9). Under these conclusions Herzog viewed parables as an impetus for social reform.

Herzog’s social reformative view of the parables has some merit. God clearly wants people to care for the poor (Deuteronomy 10:17–19, 24:19–22; Matthew 25:31–46; James 2:1–13), and that there is punishment for those who do not (Amos 4:1–3; Isaiah 1:21–25, Matthew 25:31–36). Jesus using his parables to teach about economic matters such as these is not unimaginable. Shortly before Jesus was crucified, he turned over the tables of the moneychangers in protest of their greed. In contrast, Hedrick (2004) points out that while in general Herzog’s theory of parables has support concerning the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard, most parables cannot be seen through this economic filter. Further, Hedrick argues, “A theory how the parables of Jesus work must accommodate all the parables in order to be completely convincing” (p. 76). However, this all-or-nothing criticism is unjustified. Jesus was a great teacher with many different lessons. “When rightly understood, the parables help us to see how extraordinary a wisdom teacher Jesus really was, and how revolutionary, in the best sense of the word, was the content of what he taught and to which he bore witness by his life and death” (Keating, 1997, p. 11).

Reserve the Truth for the Faithful
A multitude of New Testament scholars and millions of others have attempted to interpret Jesus’ parables using a variety of methods. Most agree that Jesus had something important to say. So why would Jesus Christ speak in parables? The Synoptic Gospels provide clues. When Jesus’ disciples asked why he taught in parables (Matthew 13:10–17; Mark 4:10–12; Luke 8:9–10), Jesus replied, “in order that ‘they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven’” (Mark 4:12). But what does this mean? According to Gundry (2003), Jesus spoke in parables in order “(1) to obscure the truth judgmentally from outsiders, who have not responded in faith to his plain speech, and (2) with interpretation to clarify the truth rewardingly for insiders, who have responded in faith to his plain speech” (p. 136). Jesus distinguishes between outsiders (nonbelievers) and insiders (believers) (Gundry, 2003). The insiders were those who believed in him and were spiritually discerning, while the outsiders, the “others who were not responding to Jesus’ message of the kingdom would not understand the parable (cf. 1 Cor. 2:14)” (Walvoord & Zuck, 1985).

Jesus reserved the meanings and messages behind the parables for the faithful. What is this truth which Jesus obscures from some but not others? Jesus may have used parables to obscure the truth about the kingdom of God. “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God, but to them it has not been given” (Luke 8:10). Jesus rewarded those who believed in him with the truth, while those who did not, did not receive this knowledge.

The Meaning of the Parables in the Gospels

Literary and biblical scholars, nonprofessionals, Christians, and atheists alike have invested immeasurable time and resources searching for the meaning within Jesus’ parables. Whether one views Jesus’ parables through an allegorical, existential, structural, or a purely literary lens, undoubtedly his teachings have affected millions. This section will take a cursory look at interpreting parables through a variety of methods, and the meaning within the parables, including people’s response to the kingdom of God as well as its character, value, and messages.

Interpretation of Parables
Throughout history, there have been various ways scholars have interpreted parables, and not all of them have been particularly cogent. Before we can look at the meaning of parables in the gospels, understanding interpretation is necessary. Allegorizing dominated interpretation for years. In addition, existential, structural, literary interpretations, and comparisons with Jewish parables have been popular methods of interpretation as well.

Though popular, interpreters have not always appropriately allegorized. Allegorizing is “the interpretive procedure of reading into the parables a theology that Jesus did not intend” (Green & McKnight, 1992, p. 592). Until Jülicher, a German New Testament scholar, entered the scene near the end of the 19th century allegorizing Jesus’ parables was the most prominent method of interpretation (Green & McKnight). One “classic example of overallegorizing a parable” (Gundry, 2003, p. 118) is Augustine’s interpretation of the Good Samaritan, in which Augustine attributes theological significance to nearly every aspect of the parable.

After allegorization dominated the mainstream of interpretation, other methods surfaced. Between mid 1930s and the late 1960s, C. H. Dodd and J. Jeremias were influential in stripping away the allegorical features and viewing the parables in a historical or realized eschatological manner (Green & McKnight, 1992). However, not everyone was satisfied with these methods and this dissatisfaction spurred existentialist, structuralist, and literary approaches.

According to Green & McKnight (1992), existentialists’ interpretations highlighted the parables as a way for Jesus to express his understanding of his existence, citing the parables’ call for a decision as evidence of an inherent present tense. On the other hand, structuarlists were not so concerned with history or intention; rather, they “sought to compare the movements, motives, functions, oppositions and resolutions within texts” (Green and McKnight, p. 592).

Beyond history, intention, and structure, literary critics have tended to employ a “reader-response approach in which a text’s meaning is determined by the interaction of the reader with the text” (Green & McKnight, 1992, p. 593). Alternatively, others have compared Jesus’ parables to Jewish parables. Most notably, Flusser, a Jewish New Testament scholar “challenged the conclusions not only of Jülicher, but also of Jeremias, of the reader-response approaches and of much of New Testament scholarship” (Green & McKnight, p. 593).

Simultaneously and haphazardly embracing all of these methods of interpretation would be perilous. Though allegorization has merit, scholars should monitor this temptation carefully, lest they end up like Augustine. The existentialist view seems to have as little popularity as a purely existentialist worldview in modern society. Structuralism may have its place in terms of hobby or exploration, but ignoring history and intention seems irresponsible and impractical. Literary interpretation leaves too much to one’s imagination, which could elicit a multitude of unintelligible and inaccurate analyses.

The best way to interpret a parable seems to incorporate a mixture of these approaches. Looking at parables as allegory seems to be a good basis for interpretation, since allegory as a literary form is valid, and the trouble was overallegorizing, not the literary form itself (Green & McKnight, 1992). In addition, maintaining a sense of history and culture, will add understanding and depth to an interpretation; however, existentialist and reader-response approaches are best left to hobbyists. The many and significant nuances in the interpretations of Jesus’ parables is represented by the plethora of books on Jesus’ parables (Shillington, 1997). Ultimately, regardless of the approach, its popularity, advantages, or disadvantages, people must decide how to interpret Jesus’ parables for themselves.

The Kingdom of God
The meaning of the kingdom of God permeates Jesus’ teaching and most certainly his parables. Many parables including the Sower, the Seed Growing Quietly, the Mustard Seed, and the Treasure and the Pearl illustrate different aspects of the kingdom of God. These parables and others provide the basis of the primary meaning buried within the parables, encompassing people’s response to the kingdom of God as well as its character and value.

The parable of the Sower (Mark 4:3–9; Matthew 13:3–9) represents “people’s response to the message of the kingdom of God” (Green & McKnight, 1992, p. 424). The message of the kingdom of God fell on the deaf ears of many people including the Pharisees and Sadducees (Hunter, 1983), who the failed crops sown in the thorns represent. The key message to the people is be good soil for the word, so that it can grow and one can “…bear fruit, thirty and sixty and a hundredfold” (Mark 4:20).

The parable of the Seed Growing Quietly (Mark 4:26–29) represents the subtle, inconspicuous character of the kingdom of God (Green & McKnight, 1992). Like a seed, which grows without a farmer’s knowledge of exactly how, the kingdom of God grows slowly by night and day. This is in stark contrast to the Jewish expectation that God would bring the kingdom by “military deliverance from Roman domination” (Gundry, 2003, p. 62).

The parables of the Mustard Seed (Mark 4:30–32; Matthew 13:31–32; Luke 13:18–19) and the Yeast (Matthew 13:33; Luke 13:20–21) represent “the immense growth of the kingdom of God from an insignificant beginning” (Green & McKnight, 1993, p. 424). A mustard seed is the smallest of seeds, yet when fully-grown it becomes the largest of plants (Walvoord & Zuck, 1985). Likewise, only a small amount of yeast is necessary for an entire batch of bread to rise. Jesus proclaimed, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news” (Mark 1:15). Jesus’ proclamation is similar to the seed and yeast—nobody could imagine how much was going to occur from such a small beginning.

The parables of the Treasure (Matthew 13:44) and the Pearl (Matthew 13:45) represents “the inestimable value of the kingdom of God, for which people must be prepared to give up everything” (Green & McKnight, 1993, p. 424). In the former, someone who finds a treasure buried in the field deems is so valuable that he sells all his worldly possessions in order to buy the field and gain possession of this treasure. In the latter, the merchant sold all he had to purchase one magnificent pearl of great value. In each of these parables, the treasure is the kingdom of God having such great value that the finders immediately give up all they have to obtain it, which demonstrates the immeasurable value of the kingdom of God.

In addition to the character and nature of the kingdom of God, Jesus used parables to communicate messages about the kingdom of God including God’s mercy for sinners, the assurance of the inevitable harvest, the imminence of catastrophe, and the current challenges facing Jews and Gentiles alike. Jeremias (1972) analyzed the parables of Jesus while taking a close look at these messages and drawing upon sound scriptural evidence for his interpretations.

God has mercy upon sinners; this is the message represented within the parable of the Prodigal and His Brother (Luke 15:11–24). Jeremias (1972) would rename, “the parable of the Father’s Love,” (p. 128) since the father is the central figure, who forgives his son after his son had “sinned against heaven and before [the father]” (Luke 15:21). In response to his repentance, the father forgives his son and rejoices at his return. In this parable, the father represents God’s mercy by forgiving sinners for their transgressions against him (Jeremias).

Jesus also used parables to express the assurance of the inevitable harvest and the imminence of catastrophe. When viewing the advent of the kingdom of God as a harvest, the parables of the Mustard Seed, the Yeast, and the Seed Growing Quietly, taken together assure us the harvest will come (Jeremias, 1972). In light of Jesus’ warnings of his return (Matthew 24:40–44), the parables of the Barren Fig Tree, the Rich Fool (Luke 12:13–21), and the Sheep and Goats (Matthew 25:31–46) when taken together and viewed as warnings “show that Jesus is not thinking of the inevitable death of the individual as the impending danger, but of the approaching eschatological catastrophe, and the coming Judgment” (Jeremias, 1972, p. 165).

Taking into consideration the inevitable harvest and the imminent catastrophe now is the time to rise to the challenge at hand—make the choice, believe, and repent. Upon revisiting the parable of the Fig Tree, the audience is left with the possibility that proper care in the fourth season after three years of neglect would not be sufficient to save the tree, though the fig tree’s fate is never revealed. If the tree does not produce fruit in the fourth year, the vintner will have it destroyed. Likewise, sinners must repent and bear fruit (i.e., of the Spirit) or perish.

Conclusion
In the final analysis, exactly why Jesus taught in parables is unknown; there seems to be many uses for them. It is true, parables viewed as stories are a great way to transfer information mainly because people can remember them easily, parables can communicate great truths in a simple way, and they tend to focus on what intrinsically matters to people. There is strong evidence posed by respected New Testament scholars, Jülicher and Herzog, that this was more likely a byproduct of a larger goal—dispelling ethical truths and igniting social reform. In the end, however, the Synoptic Gospels demonstrate that while Jesus taught in parables to the crowds, he reserved the parables’ true meanings for those who believed in him in faith.

The meanings and messages behind Jesus’ parables are many and complex. Masterfully, Jesus illustrated people’s response to the kingdom of God, its innate character, and its immeasurable value. In addition, Jesus illustrated inherent messages within the parables of the kingdom of God including God’s mercy for sinners, the assurance of the inevitable harvest, the imminence of catastrophe, and the current challenges, such as the necessary repentance to enter God’s kingdom. Whether one believes they are simple stories or profound ethical truths, geared toward social reform or the coming kingdom of God, the meaning use of parables in the gospels have simultaneously perplexed and enlightened people for nearly two millennia, and will probably do so until Jesus returns.

References

Green, J. B., & McKnight, S. (Eds.). (1992). Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Groff, T. R., & Jones, T. P. (2003). Introduction to knowledge management: KM in business. Amsterdam: Butterworth Heinemann.

Gundry, R. H. (2003). A survey of the New Testament. (4th ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Hedrick, C. W. (2004). Many things in parables: Jesus and His modern critics. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Hunter, A. M. (1983). The parables for today. London: SCM Press.

Jeremias, J. (1972). The parables of Jesus. (2nd ed.). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Keating, T. (1997). The kingdom of God is like…. New York: Crossroad Publishing Company.

Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69, 96-101.

Shillington, V. G. (Ed.). (1997). Jesus and His parables: Interpreting the parables of Jesus today. Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark.

Walvoord, J. F., & Zuck, R. B. (Eds.). (1985). The Bible knowledge commentary: An exposition of the scriptures. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

Beyond Servitude: The Kenotic View of Leadership of Jesus Christ

Arguably, Jesus Christ was the greatest leader of all time. In life and death, Jesus has and continues to influence millions around the world. In action, Jesus was a servant. Clearly demonstrated throughout the New Testament, Jesus served humanity. However, this service was a reflection of his view of leadership. This paper will argue that Jesus viewed leadership from the standpoint of kenosis, a form of self-emptying, which allows the formation of meaningful and productive relationships. In addition, this paper will compare Jesus’ view of leadership with the view of the author.

Jesus’ View of Leadership

When some people think of Jesus and also think of leadership, a common conclusion is that Jesus had a servant leadership style. There are many examples within the Gospels that demonstrate his commitment to serve others. But more importantly, Jesus’ behavior extended from his view of leadership, which is best described as kenotic.

Jesus as Servant Leader
Jesus was first a servant, and through his service to humanity, he became a leader. Greenleaf (1977) argues that the true servant-leader “begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first” [emphasis his] (p. 13). Further, he attributes more success to the leader, who is first a servant, in contrast to the leader, who leads first then attempts to serve “out of prompting of conscience or in conformity with normative expectations” (p. 14). Moreover, Matthew (20:26–27, New Revised Standard Version) states, “It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant.” Paradoxically, Jesus’ leadership stemmed from his desire to first be a servant, a position from which he eventually derived great influence.

There are many examples of Jesus’ servitude. Specifically, he fed the hungry masses (Matthew 14:15–21; 15:32–39), and healed lepers (Matthew 8:1–4; Mark 1:40–44; Luke 5:12–14), paralytics (Matthew 9:2–8; Mark 2:3–12; Luke 5:18–26), the blind (Matthew 9:27–31, 20:29–34; Mark 10:46–52; Luke 18:35–43), the lame (Luke 6:1–11), and the dying or dead (Matthew 8:14–17, 9:18–26; Mark 1:29–34, 5:22–43; Luke 4:38–41, 8:41–56). He befriended those who were hated (Matthew 9:10, 21:31–32; Mark 2:15; Luke 5:29, 7:36), and he performed the symbolic act of washing his disciples’ feet (John 13:1–17).

Jesus’ service to others was an extension of his view on leadership. Jesus holds a profoundly deep view of the relationship between him and his followers. Jesus, as God incarnate and one aspect of the Trinity (Sire, 2004), wants a personal, authentic relationship with every person (Boa, 2001). “Because the infinite and personal God loves us, he wants us to grow in an intimate relationship with him; this is the purpose for which we were created—to know, love, enjoy, and honor the triune Lord of all creation” (Boa, 2001, p. 27). The construct kenosis most clear characterizes Jesus’ view of leadership.

Theologians have used the word kenosis—a derivative of the Greek word kenao, which means “to make empty”—to describe the concept of incarnation in Christian theism (Bekker, 2006a). “And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). In Philippians, Paul writes a psalm which poignantly describes the sacrificial, self-emptying of Christ:

Though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross. (Philippians 2:6–8)

This self-emptying goes beyond serving others. It epitomizes God’s initiation to join us in our locality and culture, and to meet us and love us on our level.

Kenosis in Leadership
So, how does the concept of kenosis translate into the practice of leadership? “Leaders with the values of kenosis can be been [sic] described as characterised by, voluntary self-limitation, vulnerability, present to the other, voluntary powerlessness, continual purification from self-centeredness, humility, self-sacrifice, and openness to the other” (Bekker, 2006a, para. 2). Further, in his letters to the Philippians, Paul describes five constructs to define kenotic leadership: 1) having an attitude for desiring no reputation (1:15–18), 2) willingness to embrace our own humanity as well as the humanity of others (2:17–18), 3) becoming a servant (2:4), 4) being humble (2:3), and 5) being obedient (2:14) (Bekker, 2006b).

Jesus exemplified his view of leadership as kenosis through his behavior, forgoing any need for stature (Matthew 9:29–30), voluntarily restraining his omnipotence (Matthew 27:27–31), serving his disciples and all of humankind (John 13:1–11), humbling himself in the face of death by the hands of mere mortals (Matthew 32–51), and being obedient to the father at all costs (Matthew 26:39). Thus, Jesus’ service-oriented behaviors were an extension of his kenotic view of leadership as a relationship. Jesus harnessed the power of kenosis in expanding the leader-follower relationship. Christian thinker, Yves Raguin, eloquently articulates the power of kenotic leadership:

We develop an instinctive attitude of listening, trying to understand, letting ourselves be permeated with the atmosphere of our surroundings, passing beyond what is merely heard and seen to reach the personality of the people with whom we love, or those we may meet … [it] is the gateway to mutual understanding, and beyond this, to an intimate sharing that is the consummation of a relationship in union… (Raguin, 1973, p. 111–112)

My View of Leadership

Using Kouzes and Posner’s (2002) definition as a springboard, my current definition of leadership is: “An ethical, transformational, service-oriented, faith-inspired relationship “between those who aspire to lead and those who choose to follow” (p. xxvii). It is within this notion that I will compare my view of leadership with Jesus’ view.

Origin of My View of Leadership
I am a fallen creature (Sire, 2004). Having been born sinful and estranged from my heavenly father prior to accepting Jesus as my savior, my view of leadership is considerably skewed. My own experiences, the examples set by other fallen creatures (e.g., my parents, peers, and supervisors), the public figures operating in the context of a capitalist democracy, and Hollywood, whose goal is to produce grandiose versions of reality, have all contributed to my view. Thus, my views on leadership are hardly kenotic. However, I have developed several foundational views of leadership, including leadership as a relationship, a means to serve others, an avenue for transformation, and a way to glorify God.

Leadership as a Relationship
Like Jesus, I view leadership as a relationship. Leadership relationships mirror other interpersonal relationships. For example, good communication is necessary for a healthy relationship (Beebe, Beebe, & Redmond, 2002). Likewise, other components of healthy relationships are similar to components of good leadership relationships. Respect, loyalty, forgiveness, honesty, and love are all admirable elements of both interpersonal and leadership relationships. Furthermore, like Jesus I enjoy engaging my followers on various intellectual and emotional levels. In the depths of human interaction it is a joyous experience to connect with others deep below the surface of everyday life.

Leadership as a Means to Serve
Another aspect of leadership that Jesus and I agree on is that leadership is a means to serve. I concur with Greenleaf’s (1977) argument that leaders who seek to serve first will lead best. Whether I become the CEO of Merck Pharmaceuticals or the manager of a local McDonalds, I feel—and have always felt—that I am here to serve others. While serving others, I feel closest to fulfilling God’s purpose for my life.

Leadership Transforms
Kouzes and Posner (2002) explained five critical areas of development for exemplary leaders. Collins and Porras (2004) articulated why some companies have what it takes to last. Kotter (1996) showed readers eight steps on how to lead change. These examples are only a miniscule representation of the plethora of leadership authors who, despite their varied methods, steps, and procedures, have only one unified message—leadership transforms. Leadership transforms people, organizations, and societies. Essentially, leadership is the impetus that resolves what Senge (1990) calls creative tension in order to move entities from their current reality to their vision. In terms of transformation, Jesus was perhaps the most effective leader of all time. Collins and Porras stated that creating a vision that takes on a life of its own and will out last the leader is critical to longevity. Jesus’ vision has transformed millions since his time, and it will continue to do so.

Leadership Glorifies God
Since Earth is our temporary home, everything—including our wealth and our relationships—are temporary. Essentially, everything for which we are responsible actually belongs to God. As such, we do not own our wealth or our company’s resources. We are stewards of them for God (Leviticus 27:30). Moreover, when in a leader-follower relationship, we are responsible for God’s children. Thus, if leaders behave and treat others in an ethical manner, it glorifies God. As a Christian leader, I am a representative for God—charged with the responsibility to conduct my relationships with integrity.

Conclusion
Jesus Christ, God incarnate in the flesh, was undoubtedly a great servant leader. He fed the hungry, cured the sick, and exemplified humility and service. Moreover, Jesus operated from a deep desire to have an intimate relationship with his followers, employing a kenotic view of leadership. Ultimately, he set the example of how to lead with the explicit goal of developing a means for “personal transformation of both the leader and follower … and enter into a new union that is marked by equality and service” (Bekker, 2006b).

In comparison, my view of leadership is similar to Jesus in several ways. While Jesus held a kenotic view of leadership—abound with humility, self-sacrifice, and obedience that will likely never be matched—my experiences and influences have led me to several views of leadership similar to those of Jesus. Jesus and I both view leadership as a relationship, a means to serve, an avenue for transformation, and a way to glorify God.

References

Beebe, S. A., Beebe, S. J., & Redmond, M. V. (2002). Interpersonal communication: Relating to others. (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bekker, C. (2006a). Dreaming with eyes open: Leadership and kenotic spirituality. Retrieved July 14, 2006, from here

Boa, K. (2001). Conformed to his image: Biblical and practical approaches to spiritual formation. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Collins, J., & Porras, J. I. (2004). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. New York: HarperBusiness.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.

Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. In Harvard Business Review. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge. (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Raguin, Y. (1973). I am sending you (John 22:21): Spirituality of the Missioner. Manila: East Asian Pastoral Institute.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

Sire, J. W. (2004). The universe next door: A basic worldview catalog. (4th ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVaristy Press.

My Personal and Leadership Values: The Importance, Assessment, and Congruency

In a world characterized by constant change with business landscapes being redefined faster than they can be solidified, leaders need to have a firm foundation on which to behave, build creditability, and base their decisions. As an emerging Christian leader, it is my task to define and understand the effect my personal and leadership values will have on my behaviors and my ability to lead others ethically and in a way that glorifies God. This paper will define and differentiate between as well as highlight the importance of personal and leadership values; it will argue that because my leadership values are an extension of my personal values, there is a high congruence between the two; and it will explore one major area of incongruence that will continue to prevent me from living up to my personal vision of glorifying God if not addressed.

Personal and Leadership values
Lee and King (2001) define values as the “standards or principles that guide your actions and beliefs” (p. 55). Values operate and drive a person’s behaviors within both personal and leadership contexts. Personal values are the standards and principles that operate in one’s personal life and relationships. Leadership values are the standards or principles that guide a leader in a leadership context.

Values also influence decision making. For example, people who value integrity should hold themselves accountable for the mistakes they make in their professional and personal contexts no matter what the consequence. Kouzes and Posner (2003a) argue that integrity is the main component of credibility—one of the most important attributes of a leader. My experience has revealed that people are judged by what they do much more than what they think or say. Since values drive behavior, and they greatly influence the decisions people make, values are the most important link between one’s beliefs and actions; thus, understanding one’s values is paramount.

Importance of Values
Jesus understood and communicated the importance of values. Jesus communicated his vision of how we could be blessed by upholding certain values within the Sermon on the Mount. For instance, in Matthew 5:1–48 Jesus admonished us with countless values embedded within his sermon that show “how a person who is in right relationship with God should conduct his life” (Walvoord, Zuck, & Dallas Theological Seminary, 1985).

Understanding one’s personal and leadership values is important. Leaders who have taken the time to reflect upon and identify their key values will have an advantage when making tough decisions. Lee and King (2001) argue that “being aware of your personal values strengthens you as a leader and helps you get the most personal reward from your leadership work” (p. 55). Leaders are often called to choose between multiple actions, all of which are shrouded in ambiguity and carry with them negative possibilities. However, Jesus focused his lesson on values for us by saying, “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth... but store up your treasures in heaven. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matthew 6:19–21, New International Version) (Buzzell, Boa, & Perkins, 1998). Jesus commanded us to value heaven more than earth because it glorifies God. Ultimately, having intimate knowledge of one’s values may be a leader’s greatest advantage and most important step in developing his or her leadership values.

Assessment of My Values
Several assessments help demonstrate the congruence between my personal and leadership values. I have completed the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.), a Motivational Gifts Survey (MGS) based on Romans 12 (Della Vecchio, n.d.), and a 360-degree feedback assessment called Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) (Kouzes & Posner, 2003b). Because these assessments were not specifically designed to measure values, I have assigned values to the results and confirmed these values with an independent person. Validity of these assessments as a measurement of values is undetermined. In addition to these commercial assessments, I have engaged in deep personal reflection and critical assessment of my values.

The MBTI assessed personality type and how I interact with the world, which for this analysis will relate mostly to my personal values. The results of the assessment yielded seven values including logic, knowledge, ideas, adaptability, learning, problem-solving, and analysis. The MBTI assessed my personality type to be: introverted, intuition, thinking, and perceiving (INTP).

The MGS assessed motivational gifts, which could be a reflection of both my personal and leadership values. The results of the MGS indicated my top two motivation gifts are teacher and perceiver; both scored 90 percent on a scale of 100 (see Appendix B for complete results and descriptions of all gifts). The conversion yielded 15 values, which indicated that knowledge, wisdom, meaning, learning, personal growth, justice, excellence, perfection, joy, continuous improvement, success, encouragement, progress, discernment, and concern for others were highly important to me.

The LPI is perhaps the most suitable of the assessments to judge my leadership values because the assessment was a reflection of my observed behaviors while in a leadership role. The results yielded 19 values when only considering the top 10 of 30 items in the assessment. This measurement indicated that integrity, commitment, respect, concern for others, passion, the future, sharing, teaching, listening, learning, joy, achievement, cooperation, teamwork, problem solving, personal growth, continuous improvement, innovation, and creativity were reflected in my observable behaviors in the leadership context, thus, a relatively accurate reflection of my leadership values.

Assessing my values through reflection and self-analysis is an important ongoing task. Self-analysis provides me with a deeper understanding of my motivations, strengths, and weaknesses. Understanding my values will enable me to make decisions that will support my personal and leadership visions. As a result of recent and overall reflection, I have clarified and narrowed my values to 15: Acceptance, concern for others, consistency, continuous improvement, effort, faith, free will, integrity, learning, openness, perseverance, personal growth, personal leadership, service, and wisdom. This set of values will undergo constant revision and clarification as I learn more about what it means to be a Christian leader, what it takes to align my behaviors with my values, and where I am on my journey toward my personal and leadership visions.

In sum, 44 different values are represented; 33 are from the commercial assessments. Five values—knowledge, joy, integrity, wisdom, and problem solving—paired; three values—concern for others, continuous improvement, and personal growth—were each listed in three assessments; and learning was listed in all four assessments. Values matched nearly 20 percent of the time. Considering the inherent and extreme differences in the assessments, the range of possible values, and the absence of an empirical methodology, I surmise there is a high degree of congruence between my personal and leadership values because there are no instances of opposing values listed (e.g., cooperation and independence).

Congruence between My Personal and Leadership Values
There is a high degree of congruence between my personal and leadership values. Kouzes and Posner (2002) wrote, “Leadership is a relationship between those who aspire to lead and those who choose to follow” (p. xxviii). Values are behavioral guidelines for conducting relationships with the people with whom we interact on a daily basis regardless of the context. While there are of course some differences due to organizational influences, relationships are fundamentally the same. According to my analysis of several commercial assessments as well as deep personal reflection, my leadership values are not different from my personal values; rather, they are an extension of my personal values, which are constrained by the organizational context.

My leadership values are an extension of my personal values because I am the same person drawing from the same experiences and influences. I bring my personal values to bear in leadership situations, and the lessons I have learned in leadership have influenced my personal life. Thus, there is a reinforcing dynamic between personal and leadership values. My life experience has taught me that people generally cannot behave consistently in ways that do not reflect their true character. Handling all transactions with integrity, continuously trying to learn and improve, and being concerned for others is important to me in my personal life; thus, understandably these values would surface in a leadership capacity.

Incongruence between My Personal and Leadership Values
Though my leadership values are an extension of my personal values, and there exists a high degree of harmony between them, there is also one notable exception. Since accepting Christ, I have had difficulty in incorporating faith into my leadership values. Spiritually guided leaders in secular environments often experience the limitations of the status quo; however, they can experience a faith-inspired vision of the future as well (Cogner & Associates, 1994). This is where there is divergence between my personal values and leadership values. If I do not conduct myself according to the values I say I have, how deeply held can those values really be? What effect will this inconsistency have on me personally and professionally? And, how will this affect my vision?

Embracing faith only in my personal life is a critical shortcoming that has several negative ramifications. First, my credibility may suffer. Being Christian comes with both the responsibility and inherent goal of conforming myself to the image of Christ. Ultimately, there will be numerous situations in which I will have the opportunity to let Christ’s light shine through me in both personal and leadership contexts. I will be judged by my actions whether or not I make that choice (Psalms 96:10, 13; 98:9; Ezekiel 20:36; Acts 17:31; Romans 2:16; Hebrews 10:30). As a leader, all eyes—mortal and immortal—will be on me (Lee and King, 2001).

Second, my ability to lead people will suffer. Credibility is the foundation on which leaders build trust, one brick or one action at a time. Without credibility, “leaders can have no hope of enlisting others to a common vision” (Kouzes & Posner, 2003a, p. 25). Trust is a key ingredient in my leadership style and losing trust would restrict my ability to lead others.

Last, this disparity between my personal and leadership values will inevitably prevent me from attaining my life vision: To live a life that glorifies God. Embracing God’s will only in my personal life is inconsistent with my values. Leadership is a part of my life; thus, if I want to live a life that glorifies God, my life in the context of leadership must be included as well. God wants all of me. In Colossians 1:10, Paul wrote, “And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way.” There is no exception for leadership situations. Thus, excluding faith in my leadership values and resulting behaviors would damage my relationship with my followers, reduce my ability to lead, and inevitably damage my relationship with God.

Conclusion
Underscoring the importance of values, values drive behavior and influence decision making in both personal and leadership contexts. Through self-analysis, reflection, and the use of three commercial assessments, I have discovered that there exists a degree of congruence between my personal and leadership values such as knowledge, joy, integrity, wisdom, and problem solving and an even higher degree of congruence among values such as concern for others, continuous improvement, and personal growth. Moreover, the most consistent value was learning. However, there is one point of incongruence in perhaps the most important value—faith.

Not embracing my faith in the leadership context will have several ramifications including damage to my credibility as a leader, a reduction in my ability to lead as a result of a loss of trust, and my ability to fulfill my life vision of glorifying God will be jeopardized. Thus, I both fear and hope that I will spend the rest of my career reconciling that disparity in a manner consistent with my espoused values.

References

Buzzell, S., Boa, K., & Perkins, B. (1998). The leadership Bible: Leadership principles form God’s word. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Cogner, J. A., & Associates. (1994). Spirit at work: Discovering the spirituality in leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

DellaVecchio, D. (n.d.). Motivational gifts survey. Retrieved July 10, 2006, from http://www.gifttest.org/

Kouzes, J.M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge. (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003a). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B.Z. (2003b). Leadership practices inventory: Facilitator’s guide. (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Lee, R. J., & King, S. N. (2001). Discovering the leader in you: A guide to realizing your personal leadership potential. (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

The Myers & Briggs Foundation. (n.d.). The Myers & Briggs Foundation Home Page. Retrieved April 30, 2006, from Meyers-Briggs

Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1985). The Bible knowledge commentary: An exposition of the scriptures. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.