Integer Leadership Consulting

The papers that will be listed below, written by Jeffrey D. Yergler, are available by request at no charge. It they can be useful to your leadership and organizational influence, wonderful! Please contact Jeffrey at jdy@integerleadership.com to submit your request.

*The Servant-Leader and Forgiveness in the Context of Organizational Leadership

*Managment and Grace at Work in the Organization

*The Vocabulary of Leadership: How Mere Words Shape Organizational Realities

*Teleological Clarity: Exploring the Critical Link Between the Work of the “More” and the Work of the “End”

*Mentoring Experienced Leaders when Experienced Leaders Fail

When I was in theological graduate school I remember well the rift between two eminent theologians in the Catholic Church: Hans Kung, the articulate liberal theologian and Dr. Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, who was originally referred to by Kung as a “grand inquisitor.” Their differences were primarily theological in nature: Kung held to a liberal interpretation of the pope’s infallibility (Kung believed the pope was indeed fallible) and Ratzinger held eventually to a much more conservative tone about papal infallibility (Ratzinger believed the pope was indeed infallible). Kung, because of his radical position, was expelled from his teaching responsibilities at the much heralded University of Tubingen. Ratzinger was involved in that decision believing that Kung’s scholarship “was no longer in accord with Roman Catholicism.”

The article in the NYT, Old Foes, Pope and Dissident, Meet to Find Shared Ground, describes a four-hour meeting between these two bitter rivals. They met to discuss their common ground about the Catholic church rather than their past animosities and differences.

“He (Kung) said it would be inappropriate for him to discuss their meeting in detail. But he did say they had spoken at length, and in accord, about two issues on which Dr. Kung has been working: the idea that science and religion are not incompatible, and the role of the church in a secular and pluralistic world. They spoke about secularism in many nations, especially in the United States.”

This story illustrates what I believe are five key themes in overcoming systemic (long-held) conflict in relationships.

First: They were no longer willing to let their differences keep them from connecting. Their present situations of polarization were intolerable and unacceptable…more so than living with their alienation from one another. This kind of meeting for the purpose of some measure of reconciliation is always powerful and transformational for those observing from the outside.

Second: They were willing to sit down together…to be in the same room together. They were willing to risk and express vulnerability.

Third: They recognized that as leaders of other like minded people, their meeting was highly symbolic and would model or signal a new movement toward healing and reconciliation. Insightful leaders understand this symbolic aspect of their leadership and take it seriously.

Fourth: They spoke of the common ground together and left their obvious differences at the door. False conversation you might think. Not really. The key to rebuilding a new relationship from the wreckage of the old is in finding something on which to agree. In this way trust and conversation can begin to be reestablished. Low expectations are the key.

Fifth: They affirmed their successes and gains publicly and resisted the temptation to either speak out of turn or allow others to create division through assumptions and insinuations.

If there is one thing that intuitive and authentic leaders understand, it is the fact that life is filled with vicissitudes most of which are unpredictable and often tumultuous. Each season of disruption in our lives often leaves us painfully aware of our finitude and total lack of control. This prayer by Thomas Merton, one of my favorite writers, seems to sum-up with amazing accuracy what “I” often feel about the unpredictability of life, my own flawed humanness juxtaposed with my own desire to be in the right place, doing the right thing, and making the maximum (positive and beneficial) impact in this world:

Thomas Merton, “Thoughts in Solitude”

My Lord God, I have no idea where I am going.
I do not see the road ahead of me.
I cannot know for certain where it will end.

Nor do I really know myself,
and the fact that I think I am following your will
does not mean that I am actually doing so.
But I believe that the desire to please you does in fact please you.

And I hope I have that desire in all that I am doing.
I hope that I will never do anything apart from that desire.
And I know that if I do this
You will lead me by the right road
though I may know nothing about it.

Therefore will I trust you always
though I may seem to be lost and in the shadow of death.
I will not fear, for you are ever with me,
and you will never leave me to face my perils alone.

If there is one thing that intuitive and authentic leaders understand, it is the fact that life is filled with vicissitudes most of which are unpredictable and often tumultuous. Each season of disruption in our lives often leaves us painfully aware of our finitude and total lack of control. This prayer by Thomas Merton, one of my favorite writers, seems to sum-up with amazing accuracy what “I” often feel about the unpredictability of life, my own flawed humanness juxtaposed with my own desire to be in the right place, doing the right thing, and making the maximum (positive and beneficial) impact in this world:

Thomas Merton, “Thoughts in Solitude”

My Lord God, I have no idea where I am going.
I do not see the road ahead of me.
I cannot know for certain where it will end.

Nor do I really know myself,
and the fact that I think I am following your will
does not mean that I am actually doing so.
But I believe that the desire to please you does in fact please you.

And I hope I have that desire in all that I am doing.
I hope that I will never do anything apart from that desire.
And I know that if I do this
You will lead me by the right road
though I may know nothing about it.

Therefore will I trust you always
though I may seem to be lost and in the shadow of death.
I will not fear, for you are ever with me,
and you will never leave me to face my perils alone.

One of the “leadership intensive” stories emerging out of the hurricane Katrina disaster relief effort appeared in the New York Times, Wednesday, September 7…Navy Pilots Who Rescued Victims Are Reprimanded (A21).

“Two Navy helicopter pilots and their crews returned from New Orleans on Aug. 30 expecting to be greeted as lifesavers after ferrying more than 100 hurricane victims to safety. Instead, their superiors chided the pilots, Lt. David Shand and Lt. matt Udkow, at a meeting the next morning for rescuing civilians when their assignment that day had been to deliver food and water to military installations along the Gulf Coast. “I felt it was a great day because we supplied the people we needed to and we rescued people, too,” Lieutenant Udkow said. But the air operations commander at Pensacola Naval Air Station “reminded us that the logistical mission needed to be our area of focus.”

After reading this piece from the NYT, I immediately thought of the story in Mark’s Gospel of Jesus healing on the Sabbath. Jesus, in response to the condemnation of the religious experts (Pharisees) due to Jesus violating the Sabbath because he “worked” (or healed a life), says, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Translated into the language of leadership, I believe that leaders are continually asked to make these kinds of “preserving the life, dignity and esteem of people within the organization” decisions when there are competing agendas. When given a choice between following protocol, policy and process or ensuring that people are honored, esteemed and encouraged (and, at times “rescued”), I believe we are called ultimately to attend to the needs of the human spirit….people. I realize this is a complex issue. What happens when the very existence of the business is at stake in this decision? It is not easily solved. Nor can one decision stand as “the” decision that casts the die within an organization. However, leaders must always exercise timely judgment and wisdom given the unique situation. If we take the words of Jesus to heart, then we are forced to acknowledge that the organization exists to serve the well-being of the person “first” rather than itself.

One of the “leadership intensive” stories emerging out of the hurricane Katrina disaster relief effort appeared in the New York Times, Wednesday, September 7…Navy Pilots Who Rescued Victims Are Reprimanded (A21).

“Two Navy helicopter pilots and their crews returned from New Orleans on Aug. 30 expecting to be greeted as lifesavers after ferrying more than 100 hurricane victims to safety. Instead, their superiors chided the pilots, Lt. David Shand and Lt. matt Udkow, at a meeting the next morning for rescuing civilians when their assignment that day had been to deliver food and water to military installations along the Gulf Coast. “I felt it was a great day because we supplied the people we needed to and we rescued people, too,” Lieutenant Udkow said. But the air operations commander at Pensacola Naval Air Station “reminded us that the logistical mission needed to be our area of focus.”

After reading this piece from the NYT, I immediately thought of the story in Mark’s Gospel of Jesus healing on the Sabbath. Jesus, in response to the condemnation of the religious experts (Pharisees) due to Jesus violating the Sabbath because he “worked” (or healed a life), says, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Translated into the language of leadership, I believe that leaders are continually asked to make these kinds of “preserving the life, dignity and esteem of people within the organization” decisions when there are competing agendas. When given a choice between following protocol, policy and process or ensuring that people are honored, esteemed and encouraged (and, at times “rescued”), I believe we are called ultimately to attend to the needs of the human spirit….people. I realize this is a complex issue. What happens when the very existence of the business is at stake in this decision? It is not easily solved. Nor can one decision stand as “the” decision that casts the die within an organization. However, leaders must always exercise timely judgment and wisdom given the unique situation. If we take the words of Jesus to heart, then we are forced to acknowledge that the organization exists to serve the well-being of the person “first” rather than itself.

The artcile begins with the byline…“Despite Warnings, Officials Say There Wasn’t Clear Plan For a New Orleans Disaster. Bush: Recovery To ‘Take Years’

“Nearly three days after Hurricane Katrina blasted past New Orleans, federal officials announced a broad mobilization of government aid to assist nearly four million people in devestated areas of Louisiana and Mississippi. But the storm is exposing serious failures by government leaders and crises planners before Katrina’s arrival and flawed execution by relief agencies as the disaster unfolded. Despite decades of repeated warnings about a breach of levees or failure of drainage systems…..local and federal officials now concede there weren’t sufficient preparations for dealing with a catastrophe of this scale. “

The expression “the storm is exposing serious failures…” caught my eye. Leaders area asked to be intuitive thinkers. They are asked to be, according to Robert Greenleaf, people who possess foresight. This means that effective leaders are thinking continually about different alternatives, possible scenarios, variable outcomes BEFORE they actually take place. They are seldom, if ever, unprepared for crises because they have already considered the possibility of an emerging crises and thought through how they would lead if that crises were to unfold. Compare this to leaders who fail to exercise foresight. They refuse to think through unpleasent scenarios believing that the likelihood of such a scenario actually taking place is exceedingly rare.

Those federal officials in charge of disaster relieaf, those charged with crises contingency planning “apparently” failed to exercise enough forsight to keep New Orleans from deteriorating into a malstrom of anger and anarchy in the wake of Katrina.

Lessons for leadership are very clear. First, discipline yourself to necessarily factor in the most unpleasent of scenarios and their resultants. If a leader is aware of what is possible, a leader will be preapred for (as opposed to being surprised by) the most inhospitable of outcomes. Second, because of number one above, leaders are therefore aware of available resources and prepared to bring those critical resources to the most urgent of situations. Third, leaders prepare their teams for these contingincies. They share their knowledge with those who are in positions of influence and leadeship. Fourth, leaders and teams understand the risk associated with failing to apply the appropriate resources in a reasonsable time frame. Fifth, leaders cause significant systemic damage throughout the organization by their failure to exercise foresight. Not thinking with foresight is not only about what a leader fails to do, it is ultimately about the damage done to both people and organizations. There are always personal and professional “Katrinas” looming just beyond the horizon. It is a fact of leadership and of life. Leaders…be ready and prepared.

Finally, another “window” into the matter of leadership foresight comes from the word, Prescience, which means to know beforehand…to anticipate the course of events before they actually happen. Prescience is not predicting but rather thinking enough about possible future outcomes that one is reasonably confident that most possibilities have been examined and considered. Effective leaders are those who exercise Prescience.