A Culture of Dishonour

In the wake of two significant election campaigns in both Australia and the United States I am becoming increasingly disturbed by an emerging culture of dishonour towards people who carry a mantle of leadership. More than ever before, leaders from all sectors of society are confronted with complex issues and diverse worldviews that significantly raise the stakes of leadership and increases hostility towards those who dare to lead.  

I hear some of you retort, "We have a responsibility to speak out against bad leadership!" To which I reply, "Yes, but..."

Ideological conflict over critical issues is essential in any healthy functioning society.  However, when that conflict descends into personality bashing or character assassination, we destroy any foundation of trust that is absolutely necessary to dealing with the issues at the heart of our conflict.

In recent days I have read so much dishonouring name calling and have seen too many demeaning "memes" on social media by leaders toward other leaders that is far from constructive and does little to address very real issues.  Irrespective of which side of politics you align with or what religious views you adhere to, effective leadership demands a level of honour that transcends opposing points of view to engage in respectful and robust dialogue with those in authority who view the world very differently to yourself.  

I am not talking about blindly following a leader into darkness.  Nor am I suggesting a mediocre tolerance of all policies or ideologies.  Neither do I think leaders should never be challenged.  In fact, “I want to argue that the solution to ideological discord is not “tolerance” in the post-modern form we frequently find it, the bland affirmation of all viewpoints as equally true and valid but an ability to profoundly disagree with others and deeply honour them at the same time” (John Dickson, "Humilitas").  This is not simply agreeing to disagree under a facade of political correctness but a depth of character that demonstrates humility and honour in the face of fierce disagreement.

I appeal to leaders from all walks of life...

Let us rise above the petty politics that attack the person instead of addressing the issues.

Let us see through the media biases that manipulate the truth to promote a hidden agenda.

Let us resist demonising conflicting worldviews and create safe environments to debate those views.

Let us commit to nurturing a posture of influence rather than perpetuating a pattern of insolence.

Changing The Conversation

When an aboriginal footballer is booed for performing a "war dance" that incites a crowd, the fans are accused of RACISM.

When a female politician is criticised for leadership that divides a political party, politicians are accused of MYSOGYNY.

When a same-sex couple is challenged about a lifestyle that contradicts biblical values, Christians are accused of HOMOPHOBIA.

When refugees are condemned for seeking asylum through "illegal" channels, opponents are accused of INJUSTICE.

There is no doubt that there are people who are prejudiced against other races, those who show contempt for women, some who fear homosexuals and others who oppose migrants.  Regrettably, there are attitudes and behaviours still prevalent in our society that are intended to be discriminative and divisive.  However, a conflict of values and opposing views does not automatically warrant a label that prejudges the heart of a person expressing a different worldview. 

The tone of social commentary in recent times has relegated political correctness and popular opinion to the same level of prejudice that devalues human beings who do not conform to cultural norms.  It is ironic that what is meant to promote tolerance seems to provoke the exact opposite, projecting the very same values that are deemed to be offensive.  This in no way condones discrimination on any side of an argument, but highlights the 'white elephant' of reverse discrimination that has hijacked civil debate in a society that has historically defended freedom of speech, celebrated cultural diversity and protected religious rights.

There is part a speech from one of my favourite movies, The American President, that describes well our current social and political environment in Australia:  "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free"...We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections."

Before you are tempted to point the finger at our politicians with a resounding, "YES!", this is also reflective of how we try to win arguments through social commentary.  Shutting down different views or demonising those who express them does nothing to solve the problems we face today.  In order to change the conversation and create the platform for respectful and robust dialogue, it is worth repeating and drawing wisdom from a statement made by former Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson prior to the last federal election, which I have quoted on numerous occasions: 

"We are losing the art of civil debate in our society, as we secularize...because we are losing the ability to understand the value of the other person.  Voltaire is accredited as saying, "I may disagree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."  That's not the way we conduct the debate at the moment in this country or in the west.  If we don't like someone else's debate now, we demonise the person who puts the idea on the table.  Voltaire understood...that each individual ought to be valued enough for you to say let them put their idea on the table, then we'll debate that idea.  The greater the potpourri of ideas we've got in a pluralist society the better the chance we have of getting good policy out of it.  We will never get good policy in this country again until we learn how to have a civilized debate where we debate the issues and decide the case on the merits, not on, sorry to say it, popular applause."

The wisdom in this statement is applicable to any conversation that seeks to address the complex issues and engage the diversity of thought that challenges our values and beliefs as Australians.

Postscript:  See my previous thoughts on this subject in my post Civility v's Hostility written two years ago.

Conflicting Values

There is a deep tension brewing within my spirit over the conflicting values that are evident in Australian politics and an even deeper tension in how I feel and what I think about it!  You may be wondering, "which particular conflicting values are you referring to?"  A question that exposes a whole other level of tension!!

For the sake of this post I'll narrow it down to two current issues:  The execution of two convicted Australian drug dealers in Indonesia and the detention of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Islands.  While these two issues are unrelated, the juxtaposition of our government's response is the source of my tension.

Before I explain my tension, let me be clear what this post is NOT about.  This is not a debate about capital punishment, nor is it a discussion about Indonesian law.  It is not a judgement of two convicted criminals, nor intended to disregard the impact upon their family and friends.  It is not even an expression of my disgust about the government sanctioned abuse of human beings who are exercising their internationally protected right to seek asylum!

The conflicting values that is creating so much tension for me is the politically distorted view of justice and politically motivated expression of mercy by our government!

I am struggling to reconcile the public expression of emotion over the fate of two people who broke the law with the public disregard of human rights of vulnerable people who are legally seeking asylum by our politicians.

I am struggling to reconcile the political pressure being placed on a sovereign nation to show clemency towards two Australian citizens on death row with the political propaganda that is justifying inhumane treatment of hundreds of foreign refugees held in detention by Australia.

I am struggling to reconcile the use of tax funded resources to advocate for drug dealers with the same source of funding being used to abuse asylum seekers.

I am struggling to reconcile the Prime Minister's threat of consequences towards Indonesia if the executions proceed with the Prime Minister's disregard for the consequences of a damning Human Rights Commission report on Australia.

I am struggling to reconcile the media attention surrounding Chan and Sukumaran who, according to Indonesian law deserve to die, with the forgotten name of Reza Barati who, according to International law did not deserve to die.

I am struggling to reconcile our government's defence of the indefencible in both cases.

I am stuggling to reconcile our government's contradictory application of justice and mercy.

While I am unable to reconcile these conflicting values, I do know that I need to guard against allowing my inner tension to perpetuate the same conflict of values in my own attitude towards justice and mercy in these challenging times!  

"He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.  And what does the Lord require of you?  To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly 

with your God." (Micah 6:8)

Postscript:  At the beginning of this post I clearly stated what it was NOT about.  However, at the conclusion of this post I want to make it clear what I'm about by declaring that I do NOT support capital punishment.

Israeli Palestinian Conflict

Like the rest of the world I have been looking upon the escalating conflict in the Gaza Strip with a great deal of concern.  War in any language is not so much an exertion of sovereign force, as it is an expression of social failure; a lesson that seems to have been long forgotten from the war that was supposed to end all wars!  Therefore, it troubles me deeply to read the polarized views, especially among Christians, about the Israeli Palestinian conflict on social media that seem to justify one cause over the other.

I don't pretend to understand the origins or complexities of the current crisis and I choose not to get into the history of this long standing conflict, not to remain ignorant, but as an attempt to remain impartial and indignant about war as a means to resolve any conflict by any nation. I do not want to allow the politics or ideology of one side or the other to distract me from the more fundamental issue of God's children - Jew and Arab - engaging in a conflict that has nothing to do with God's will or intended purpose for His most precious creation - human beings!  

Through Jesus Christ, God established a new kingdom order that redefined conflict by stating, "You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven"  (Matthew 5:43-45).

In Paul's letter to the Galatians he declares, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28).  While this was written for a different context, I believe it speaks a relevant truth into this conflict.

In Christ Jesus there is no such conflict!  In Christ Jesus there is no such division!  In Christ Jesus there is no such hatred!  The tragedy on both sides of this conflict is that they confess a faith that shares a common ancestry but devalues a common humanity!  They confess a faith that seeks to honour their god but dishonours God's people!  They confess a faith that calls upon a divine authority to justify a human agenda!  They seek to advance the fulfillment of a messianic prophesy but reject Christ Jesus as the promised and anticipated Messiah who has already come to restore kingdom order on earth...without taking up arms!

It seems to me that the elevation of one cause over the other misses the fact that the victory both sides ultimately struggle for has already been won through Jesus Christ by His death and resurrection.   To the Christian community, rather than seek to defend either cause, let us speak justification through Jesus Christ into this conflict instead of justification through war!

Leadership Lament

There is a tension in my spirit as I write this post because I do not want to come across as self righteous or unfairly judgmental.  However, I am struggling to reconcile a form of leadership I witnessed this week with everything I know to be right and honourable about leaders.  The more I learn about empowering leadership, the deeper my discontentment grows with anything less!

It is not appropriate for me to discuss the circumstances of the observations I am referring to in this forum, but there are lessons to be learned and shared to perpetuate the sort of leadership that builds people up, not tears them down. The following are brief reflections on some fundamental leadership principles that I have seen violated, yet ought to be foundational to any leadership relationship or context.

Whenever there is a COMMUNICATION breakdown between two leaders it is usually related to unmet expectations from one or both parties.  Relational intelligence would suggest the moment you detect that expectations are not being met you would seek dialogue with the offending party to redefine those expectations.  I believe the earlier this is done, the risk of resentment creeping into the relationship is minimized and the likelihood of respect growing in the relationship is maximized. It is unproductive to avoid these conversations or to abdicate them because they are uncomfortable.

There is something inherent about CONFLICT that causes insecure leaders to avoid it or manifest it in a destructive manner.  Conflict in any working relationship is not only inevitable, but is essential to wrestling with the issues that matter to what and whom you are leading.  Rather than managing out or suppressing conflict, it needs to be encouraged and embraced in a healthy manner (read Embrace The Conflict for further discussion).  We need people on our teams who will disagree with us and we need to make it safe for them to do so if we are going to be effective and empowering leaders.

It is the responsibility of any leader at any level of an organisation to COACH the people on their team to lift the lid of their leadership to a higher level.  In the absence of intentional leadership development opportunities within a team, the team leader, in part, is accountable for the poor performance of team members.  We seem to have little problem applying this principle to a sporting club when the coach is sacked for the poor performance of the team, but paradoxically the reverse usually applies in the workplace.

John Maxwell often quotes, "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you CARE."  Leaders who devalue the personal lives of those they lead while trying to uphold the interests of the organisation find themselves in a self-defeating cycle.  Nurturing people through personal challenges will evoke a loyalty and commitment to an organisation that cannot be bought.  Leaders who demonstrate genuine care and concern (not just give lip service), find a greater responsiveness when the need for correction of performance issues arises.

I find it indefensible that these basic leadership principles are not only violated, but justified, to maintain image, manage risk or mitigate problems.  It grieves me to see potential leaders discouraged and competent leaders disillusioned by a dis-empowering style of leadership.  Yet, it strengthens my resolve to "equip the people of God for the work of the ministry to build up the body of Christ."  

The level of discontentment I felt this week is not only a sober reminder of the dark side of leadership, but a summons to reflect the character of Christ and to continue to develop and grow as an empowering leader.

Embrace The Conflict

“Unless one has considered alternatives, one has a closed mind.  This, above all, explains why effective decision-makers deliberately disregard the second major command of the textbooks on decision-making and create dissension and disagreement, rather than consensus.” (Peter F. Drucker)

Contrary to popular opinion, conflict is not the enemy of decision making, but a crucial part of the process of reaching well considered decisions with maximum buy-in by key stakeholders.  No matter how visionary, passionate or experienced a leader may be, decisions made in a conflict free environment run the risk of isolating critical and creative thinkers and compromising effective decision making.

When I speak of conflict in this context, I am not referring to destructive, personality based conflict, but constructive, ideological conflict that wrestles with issues relative to achieving a shared goal.  To engage in this type of conflict, leaders need to surround themselves with people who not only have a common vision but who bring diversity of personality and thinking to the team.  Leaders need to cultivate an environment of trust where this diversity of engagement can be safely expressed and where disagreement is embraced as a necessary part of the process.  

Unfortunately, this seems not to be the norm for the majority of teams I observe due to an innate fear of conflict.  Rather than recruit diversity of thought, some leaders prefer to retain people who only think the same as them.  While it may seem easier to advance your mission with like minded people on the front end, it comes at a cost on the back end of the decision making process.  This is something I have had to learn the hard way due to my personality type and leadership style.  As a passionate and driven leader who likes to make decisions quickly and take the shortest route to achieving a goal, I am often frustrated by process.  However, due to the coaching of great leaders who are secure enough not to be threatened by diversity and who are smart enough to value it, I have grown to resist my natural tendency to bypass process and have learned to leverage it to make more effective decisions.  In fact, the more passionate I am about an idea, the more determined I am to draw on the collective wisdom of diverse thinkers to ensure the idea is given every possibility to succeed.  So much so, that if I sense people on my team are holding back, in the words of leadership consultant Patrick Lencioni,  I will "mine for conflict" so that all views are considered to reach the best possible decision.

It concerns me deeply when leaders stack a team with "yes" people or worse, disband a team in favour of less resistance.  We seriously compromise our ability to effectively lead a team when we set ourselves up as the primary decision maker without the robust input of other leaders, which also undermines our ability to empower those who are excluded from the decision making process.  In saying that, discernment must be exercised to ensure that we are inviting the right type of conflict from the right type of people.  Patrick Lencioni talks about the importance of developing a foundation of trust in a team around shared values and vision to engage in healthy conflict to advance the mission of the organisation.  Where there is no trust and a misalignment of vision, the chances are this will create the wrong type of conflict from people who are not committed to a common goal.

Learning to embrace the conflict stimulates creative interaction within a team where ego is set aside in the interest of well considered decisions that team members are willing to commit to and be held accountable for, despite disagreement during the process.  

“Disagreement converts the plausible into the right and the right into the good decision.”  (Peter F. Drucker)

Who Are You Listening To?

As I engage in a variety of coaching, mentoring and pastoral relationships I observe a concerning pattern in how people navigate through challenging life issues.  When life gets tough there is a tendency to take the path of least resistance by withdrawing from people who will confront and gravitating towards people who will comfort.  In other words, we look for people who will tell us what we want to hear rather than those who will tell us what we need to hear!  This is a pattern that I see manifested in almost every area of life:

A couple going through a marriage crisis withdraws from mutual friends who see both sides of the relationship and gravitates towards people who will affirm their respective points of view.

A Christian who is struggling with faith withdraws from the fellowship of the Church and gravitates towards people who offer a more humanistic worldview.

A leader overwhelmed by the demands and expectations of leadership withdraws from positive networks and gravitates towards other disillusioned leaders.

While I don't pretend to understand the psychology of this pattern of behaviour, it is indicative of a 'fear of conflict' and 'avoidance of accountability' that seems so prevalent in our society.  This is not just an external observation, but one that comes from self-awareness of similar patterns I've wrestled with in my own life.  It is a strange paradox how human beings will withdraw from the very people who will contribute to our growth and gravitate towards people who will perpetuate our struggle.

In my discipleship and leadership journey I have learned the value of pursuing relationships with people who are further along their journey than me.  If I want to develop as a leader, then I need to align myself with leaders who are more experienced than I am.  If I want to seek marriage advice, then I need to interact with couples who have a strong and healthy relationship.  If I want to grow spiritually, then I need to worship and fellowship with the body of Christ.  For these relationships to really impact my life there needs to be a level of vulnerability and accountability where I am not afraid to engage in tough conversations and hear the things I don't want to hear.  It has been my experience that this is usually the point where people disengage.

We all like to be comforted during challenging times, but it is the willingness to engage in the conflict, in the context of accountable relationships, that we will grow through these challenges.

Heart & Mind

"And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus."  (Philippians 4:7)

The heart is emotionally fragile and the mind intellectually vulnerable in a world of complex relationships and conflicting messages. As human beings we are largely shaped by what we feel and what we think, bringing internal conflict when our feelings are trampled and our thoughts are confused. 

In addressing a conlict between two women in the Philippian church, Paul redirects their attention away from their conflict towards Christ.  His encouragement reminds them that amidst their brokenness there is a unexplainable peace that can be known and experienced by presenting the fragility and vulnerability of their humanity to God in prayer.  Prayer opens our spirit to receive an inner peace that defies human logic, giving us confidence to entrust our heart and mind to the protective custody of Christ.