A great piece on how leaders can do better at hearing the "whole truth" and how they can get good feedback on how they are doing

I hope you all know about the Alban Institute. I found this post interesting.

How could I not share this? CRG, from Alban, is a marvelous resource for ministers and those who care about the flourishing of congregations. And while this post is brief, it makes some interesting distinctions that differ just a bit from what we've already discussed.

A gesture of friendship for my Christian (especially Methodist) friends in Leadership, but also I think this is a good leadership model of using new media and technology to send out a very old message, and also of adding a substantial level of communication by signing as well as speaking the message. And as a bishop, of course, we are looking at a religious leader in action. Happy Easter, all.

OK, this is a stretch - but it shows poor leadership, a leader who is not merely "laissez-faire" but who misses the point entirely. And since Amy Erickson originally posted it to FB, I think it's fair game here. Current and future church leaders, don't be like this fake prof - speak your truth (even if you pay the price)! Be a leader!

I remember Nadia and her church from last year's Journey Days and I think she is a tremendous religious leader and proof that leadership does not always come in a business suit. She knows how to motivate her flock and I think her "anti-excellence, pro-participation" style leads, ironically, to both excellent and participatory worship. She's humble where it counts, knows how to talk to people, lives her values, and is a phenomenal preacher. And an Iliff alum.

This is an unlikely choice, but I picked it because it represents Judas' opinion about how well Jesus is doing as a leader. (And I happened to hear it yesterday.) And having just read the Drucker, I can't help but think about the haunting complexity of what it means that organizational success is about the leader prioritizing the task, not the leader. What does that mean in this context? I have an easy, possibly snarky UU answer to that question, which is almost certainly wrong.

As someone with a day job in higher ed (and who has been a college professor) I am always very interested in how gender intersects with higher ed leadership issues - and I do think these include the professorate as well as college administrators. An overlap I note here with the Northouse chapter on gender is the article's observation that some believe that the attempt to hire women necessarily means that standards are being compromised - reminiscent (to me anyway) of the textbook's observation that male raters tend to rate male leaders as more effective than female leaders. Both the article and this aspect (and some others) of the chapter point to the continued dilemmas of sexist structures and culture, where women (and other traditionally powerless groups) are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

(Amanda Udis-Kessler) Alban Institute theorist Gilbert Rendle has written a thought-provoking book on how congregational leaders (ministers and lay leaders) can facilitate change in one of those settings we all know must deal, inevitably and irrevocably, with change. The book covers the spiritual assumption of leaders, systems theory, congregational change as a spiritual journey, and other topics; each chapter ends with exercises for leaders. The book is full of interesting ideas and I recommend it highly.

Bought this book when I got my current mid-level college administrator job. I like Grove's definition of a (middle) manager: "individual contributors who gather and disseminate know-how and information."