Category: Light From Many Lamps

The essence of this last written speech of Roosevelt was, “The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be out doubts of today. Let us move forward with strong and active faith” (Watson, 1988, p. 309).  The context of this writing was very close to the end of the Second World War; April 1945.  Roosevelt was exhausted. He had just returned from Yalta. The grueling burdens and problems of the war years had taken their toll, and for some time now he had been ailing. The almost seven thousand mile trip he had just returned from and strenuous sessions there with Churchill and Stalin where they agreed to co-ordinate their military efforts for a swift decisive victory. Much had been accomplished, but much remained to be done; and the president was tired. For two weeks he had spent relaxing at his cottage. A remarkable amount of activity was still carried on with his small staff. Problems weighed heavily on his mind and he gave them much thought and time.  There were speeches to think about and plan.  The first on his list was to be given in a few days in honour of the Annual Jefferson Day Dinner on April 13, 1945. He finished it on April 11, 1945. The next day , a stunned nation learned that he had died.  He never delivered the speech.

A portion of his speech is as follows, “Americans are gathered together this evening in communities all over the country to pay tribute to the living memory of Thomas Jefferson” (Watson, 1988, p. 309). The first part of his speech eulogized Jefferson, the champion of liberty and the defender of the rights of man. “Today this nation, which Jefferson helped so greatly to build, is playing a tremendous part in the battle for the rights of man all over the world” (Watson, 1988, p. 309). Roosevelt expressed high hopes for the future , his dream of a firm and lasting peace, of a happier life for all people, everywhere. “We must conquer doubts and fears . . . We must cultivate the science of human relationships. The work is peace; more than an end of this war” (Watson, 1988, p. 309). His speech by some standards was short. He concluded, “the only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be  our doubts of today. Let us move forward with strong and active faith” (Watson, 1988, p. 309).

Profound, powerful, uplifting, but a similar speech given today could generate a lot of push-back, controversy, possibly riots, anger and maybe more negative impact than positive. Leaders need to be very careful when referencing any historical character. Teresa Sullivan, president of the University of Virginia, which was founded by Thomas Jefferson, quoted Jefferson and this act triggered intense criticism from hundreds of students and professors because Jefferson had slaves (Egginton, 2018, p. 7).

Closer to home, in Canada, our first prime minister, John A. Macdonald, is being attacked. When teaching a course at Ryerson University last year, I witnessed firsthand the intense attacks on Edgerton Ryerson (whom the university is named after) and protests to have his statue removed from the campus and even further to rename the university. Considering the fact that some of our future team members are, at present, university students it might be wise to understand the convictions that some of them may be adopting. A speaker who was banned from the campus of Williams College, said that students “are advancing the belief that what offends them should not be allowed on campus precisely because it offends them and people who agree with them” (Lukianoff, 2018, p., 50).  As leaders, we have to be increasingly sensitive to people’s sensitivities.

The essence of Roosevelt’s speech was inspiration and vision. “Achieving grand visions always requires a burst of energy. Motivation and inspiration energize people, not by pushing them in the right direction as control mechanisms do but by satisfying basic human needs for achievement, a sense of belonging, recognition, of self-esteem, a feeling of control over one’s life, and the ability to live up to one’s ideals” (Knotter, 2011, p. 49). Leaders, “are able to create a following of people who act not because they are swayed, but because they were inspired” (Sinek, 2009, p. 6). People who inspire don’t need to be extraverts, or high energy or profound. When Bill Gates, “speaks, he doesn’t rally a room, he inspires it. Those who hear him take what he says and carry the words for years” (Sinek, 2009, p. 133).

My takeaway from this speech is twofold. First, is the  importance of team work as evidenced by his frequent meetings with Stalin and Churchill. Secondly, Roosevelt’s incredible ability to inspire, which is the heart of his speech.

References

Egginton, W. (2018). The Splintering Of The American Mind. New York, NY: Bloombury Publishing.

Knotter, J. (2011). On Leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Lukianoff, G. & Haidr, J.(2018). The Coddling Of The American Mind. New York, NY: Penguin Press.

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Sinek, S. (2009). Start With Why. New York, NY: Penguin Group.

Watson, L. E.  (1988), Light From Many Lamps. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

The essence of this chapter is the question, “What is happiness?” Will Durant’s answer to the question is lengthy, but his definition of happiness is that “there can be no real or lasting happiness without love . . . [and] there can be no fulfillment of life’s ultimate purposes without a successful marriage and a good family life” (Watson, 1986, pg. 246) This definition, the author of the chapter claims, “has inspired many to seek their happiness where they are most likely to find it: in their own homes” (Watson, 1986, pg. 246-247). As an aside, I might ask Durant, if he were alive today, if he would argue an unmarried person can find happiness.

In the various, recognized definitions of what a leader is or does, Durant was not a leader. He had no followers, only readers of his books. However, I believe that it is important for a leader to be happy. I feel it is safe to say that a “happy” leader, is a satisfied person. In the context of a team, individual satisfaction occurs when the team members feel that participating in the management team results in them working together more effectively, when they appreciate their colleagues and their contributions to the team processes and they get energy from the collaboration within the team (Bang & Midefart, as cited in Myrtveit, 2016, pg. 7).

A leader or team member who is happy and satisfied, emulates a happy, satisfied spirit. One of a leader’s skill sets is to oversee constructive controversy. Constructive controversy may motivate an active search for more information and new and more adequate cognitive perspectives “in hopes of resolving uncertainty” (Johnson & Johnson, 1987, p. 21). Constructive criticism may introduce a slowing down of the problem solving but seems to stimulate both individual task performance and “satisfaction” (Johnson & Johnson, 1987, pg. 21). Relationship conflict reduces group members’ individual satisfaction (Wall & Nolan, as cited in Myrtveit, 2016, pg. 14). If teams practice constructive controversy, the team members will not likely so easily interpret new and unexpected information or ideas in a biased manner (Shaw, Zhe, Duffy, Scott & Susanto, as cited in Myrtveit, 2016, pg. 15). The leader who is happy and satisfied will convey such a sense of calmness, control and peace. Constructive controversy should be a major component of team discussions.

In my context of leadership, I encourage constructive controversy because in my experience it opens people’s minds to better ideas, generates a greater acceptance of each team members passions, and ways of thinking.  Constructive controversy, releases energy, makes discussions much more interesting and to me at least generates good will.  Constructive controversy can become the normal, regular form of discussion only if the team is conveyed a sense of calm, peace, happiness and satisfaction from the leader.

References

Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1987). Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Myrtveit, R.B. (2016). The Mediating Effect of Constructive Controversy. (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

Watson, L.E. (1986). Lights From Many Lamps. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

 

 

Because of its brevity, I quote the closing paragraph of Abraham’s Lincoln’s second inaugural address in March 1865: “With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nations; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and orphan; to do all which we may achieve and cherish a just a lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations” (Watson, 1988, pg. 106)

In reviewing Lincoln’s speech in its entirety and focusing on the above quoted paragraph, I identify six leadership traits of his that are revealed in his speech.

1. Lincoln identifies the reality of the war-torn states. De Pree states that the “first responsibility of a leader is to define reality” (1989, pg. 11)
2. He stated a goal – “lasting peace with liberty and justice for all” (Watson, 1988, pg. 106) Northouse also notes the importance of having “common goals” (2019, pg. 6).
3. He listened well – he knew that above all else, the United States needed “malice toward none; with charity for all” (Watson, 1988, pg. 106). Northouse also notes the importance of listening (2019, pg. 227).
4. He sought for healing – he wanted there to be “an end to sectional bitterness and strife” (Watson, 1988, pg. 106). The trait is also noted by Northouse (2019, pg. 228).
5. He had empathy – He mentions specifically the war wounded, the widows and orphans (Watson, 1988, pg. 106). This trait is mentioned by Northouse (2019, pg. 227).
6. He had foresight – Lincoln clearly envisions a nation where there is “lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations” (Watson, 1988, pg. 106) This is a trait identified in Northouse’s Leadership: Theory and practice (pg. 228)

I am mindful of the first three leadership traits in my own experience. The ability to identify reality in a church context is something that I have often seen lacking. Points of illustration would be some of these frequently heard comments:

• “Everything is going well because everyone is happy” – despite the fact that attendance and member involvement is dropping rapidly.
• “It worked before, so it should work now” – when reality shows that explosive growth has outgrown processes
• “We have to change the process in order to accomplish the goal” – when the problem is, in actuality, with having the wrong person in the position

My response to these illustrative examples is to listen more than I used to, ask questions throughout and try to involve as many people in seeing the “big picture.” I often find that people, who outside of the church context, may be decisive, aggressive (in a good sense) and confident are much less so when working within a church context. My opinion is that being seen as passive, easygoing and quiet is viewed as more “spiritual.” Because of the contrasting outside-church and inside-church personas, I try to really get to know people outside of church to better ascertain their real strengths and abilities.

References

De Pree, M. (1989). Leadership Is an Art. New York City, NY: Doubleday Business.

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Watson, L. (1988). Light From Many Lamps. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

The essay I selected from Light From Many Lamps is a piece on James Gordon Gilkey a teacher, pastor and chaplain (1988). He discusses bereavement and the necessity of facing and accepting that a loss is the first stem to manage treatment. My take away lesson on leadership from this essay resonated in the bigger context above and beyond bereavement. The fact that many leaders will inevitably face failure, disappointment and, likely, grief. Too many times, leaders faced with these realities engage in denial and have difficulty accepting it in short and have a very difficult time getting past the issue. My own situation, with the sudden death of our son, has taught me to a greater extent the necessity of accepting reality and not lingering in denial. One of my favourite sayings is: “10 per cent of life is what happens and the other 90 per cent is what you do with it.” As a leader, more important than what has happened is the question of what you do with the situation.

Watson, L. (1988). Light From Many Lamps. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.