Understanding how listening, discerning, and

decision-making come together for the

servant-leader

 

In my organizational experience, working 16 years for a

Fortune 200 corporation, the common expectation set upon

leaders is a pressure to meet and supersede organizational goals.

Servant-leadership establishes a framework for leaders to take into account the collective interest as it relates to goal achievement. It is an investment that contributes towards trust (hearts and minds) and subsequently individual as well as group buy-in (participation and action).

 

A fundamental strategy for the servant-leader to meet their organizational goals starts with a foundation based on listening, discerning and towards making decisions for collective-interest as opposed to self-interest.  I think of team mates as Partners with a capital P! A move away from the “egocentric” or “boss” paradigm (Cooper, Loop & Trammell, 2007).  Our success is as “Partners” working as co-owners towards a shared vision, values and goals. 

 

To achieve goals in a sustainable and consistent manner, leaders need to develop a strategy. Servant-leadership is designed to maximize a leaders output by nurturing the leadership creativity in everyone on the team. For this reason, I am a believer that servant-leadership is the strategy for long-term organizational success.

 

Robert Greenleaf (1996) tells us that leadership strategy “can be learned” and consciously cultivated (p. 299). At the crux of strategy is listening before acting, especially when others need to be involved with implementing the solution. Collaboration is a skill that is rooted in listening, and it is a competence that “a good leader has got to develop,” (Fullhart, 2013). When you are listening-deficient, you are stifling ideas that can otherwise lead to team success and growth. I subscribe to the idea that leaders can’t do it alone “no one is smarter than all of us” (Fullhart, 2013).

 

In this paper I will examine my capacity as a servant-leader to listen, to discern as well as my decision-making skill. I will also examine my capacity for discernment (in modes one, two and three) in conjunction with listening; and consider ways for improving my capacity of listening and discerning. Finally, I will conclude by applying Vroom’s decision model and look at how it contributes to listening, discerning and the decision making process.

 

I will apply relevant examples of these concepts from the following authors and their approaches: 

1. What do you think? And, are you an 18 Second Manager? (Tom Peters)

2. Systematic neglect; Listening; and Goal Setting (Robert K. Greenleaf)

3. Collaboration (Col. Randall Fullhart, US Air Force)

4. Silence (Robert Sardello, 2008). 

5. Applying the steps and procedures outlined in Mode 1, Mode 2, and Mode 3 decision making in spiritual movements (Sparough, 2010).

6. Silence; speaking from the heart (Sardello, 2008). 

 

What is my highest level of listening?

 

Listening to the rational and feeling self, openly and intuitively to others is the canary in the coal mine for servant-leaders. It is the manifestation of a natural desire to serve, to serve first (Greenleaf, 1996). Maintaining this mindfulness for listening I believe strengthens the discerning and decision making process. To this end, I am truly a servant-leader in training in large measure because I am truly a listener-in-training. No matter how much I recognize the dynamics of listening, I revert to bad habits daily. The gadgets, deadlines, e-mails, calendar, conference calls, on-call phone, work phone and general busyness preoccupy me.

           

I pride myself with having an open door policy. My door is wide open for people to drop by, and they frequently do unannounced, which has a tendency to bounce me in and out of attention on what I was doing in the first place. As a result, I don’t always do a great job of concentrating on what the person is saying. I may be present at 75%, but the remainder is still focused on what I should, could and will be doing. A friend said that I have attention deficit disorder (ADD) because he often sees me, as he said, looking like a bobble head. The idea of Silence is buried. My head and heart turn out to be easily unfocused.

           

John O’Donohue (1998) shares with us that “one of the reasons that so many people are stressed in modern life is not that they are doing stressful things, but it is because they allow so little space for the Silence, which is the sister of solitude.” The result is that communication has become so diminished, down to “surface” level or a “catalog narrative” (O’Donohue, 1998). 

 

What might I do to progress further (listening)?

 

Systematic neglect:

If I had a dime for every time I murmured “I wish I could add more hours to the day” I’d be rich, as pointed out by Robert Greenleaf (1996, p. 302). Isn’t it true that we’d “just find more things to do?” I tend to get so enthralled with getting stuff done, even when someone simply puts it on my plate, that I have developed a form of office ADD. I liken it to digging in sand. Take a shovel full out of the pit and more sand slides back in.

 

Robert Greenleaf’s (1996) insight into self-preservation was particularly influential to me, like a shot of self-compassion. I have a tendency to beat myself up when work is overflowing and out of control. Sometimes we just need to realize that we cannot do it all. Greenleaf (1996) sites “neglecting as much as you can get away with” as a “most valuable strategy” (p. 302). I plan on utilizing this strategy. I tell the employees I serve to focus on their goals and everything else is secondary. I need to practice what I preach and by doing so, I will set a good example for others success. 

 

Silence:

I am embolden to lead in Silence for inner wisdom and to also project Silence, which gives the servant-leader access to internal and external heart feeling qualities. Chris Lowney (2015) sites the importance of such feeling qualities: “we know that feeling qualities and inner stuff are important to decision making.” These feeling qualities help us to differentiate our own ego, but they also open us up to more readily listening to the other person in a way that conveys a connection. Robert Sardello (2008) shares that “the heart lives in service” (p. 103). It embodies body, soul and spirit and “generates another force, which is properly called projection” (Sardello, 2008, p. 103). 

 

Through Silence we become more in touch with our perception; and the other person senses being seen in a different way absent of judgment. The perception of myself “here” and the other person “over there” dissolves steering one to a servant-leadership sense of empathy, “I am you” (Sardello, 2008, p. 107). This connection leads to a stronger consciousness and interior heart attention. John Horsman informs us: “when we speak from our heart we are more apt to be authentic, convey wisdom and our passion about the topic.”  

 

John O’Donohue (1998) shares that “Silence gives us space to become aware of the contradictions within ourselves.” A greater patience to witness our inner contradiction, to allow the different sides that contradicts ourselves to come close to meet each other. My recent practice of Silence and meditation has helped me to more readily pause than before. I need to continue on this path of practice.

 

Since starting my meditation focus through this course I have found myself more approachable and present. My team members have said that I look more relaxed and focused. I placed a laminated card on my computer screen to remind me of the power of “PAUSE,” to step back and away to clear my thoughts (Heresy, 2009); and to remember to “NOT APPEAR OVERWHELMED” as it becomes how I act.  To bring this practice in the open, I plan on placing time for pause at the beginning of our staff meetings to alter how I/we show up.

 

Testing my listening skills:

Because listening is so vital to servant-leadership success, I will challenge myself to listen attentively. There are many straightforward tools for me to choose from. Testing my listening skills is as easy to asking myself if I am an “18 second manager?” (Peters, 2015).  Do I frequently interject? According to Col. Randall Fullhart (2013), Servant-leaders “ask more questions and make fewer statements.”  Quite simply, Col Fullhart conveys, “God gave you two ears and a mouth, and you should use them in those proportions.” This awareness leads to collaboration by those implementing the solution.

 

Collaboration joins the hearts and minds of every team member to achieve the best result in any circumstance. A fail proof way to encourage input is to ask “what do you think?” According to Tom Peters (2015), these are the four most important words in any organization, and they embody “what you need to know about managing and listening.”

 

My capacity for discernment (Modes 1, 2, 3):

Discernment is described as the practice of “sorting through our emotions” and the “process of decision making” (Frick, 2011). It is important to have servant-oriented intentions, which I believe sets us up for true listening and understanding. I agree with Parker Palmer (2015) when he explains the importance of accepting that we have limited viewpoints, and therefore it is necessary to accept things not as “either/or,” but “either/and.” “The opposite of one great truth may be another greater truth” (Parker, 2015). There can be many solutions; and the diversity of opinion made possible by exemplary listening gives us the benefit of access to them all on a team.

 

Ignatius believed that we can accurately discern God’s will when we get in touch with our deepest desires (Sparough, 2010, p. 110). It starts in Mode 1 with a prayer; to simply ask for help making the right decision. When it comes to major decisions, especially planning decisions involving big moves and marshalling our resources, I find myself praying in this manner and when I reach a decision it sits well with me. There is a tug of the heart (Sardello, 2008) that comes with listening in Silence and a “trust in God” allows to more convincingly move forward. 

 

Decision making in Mode 2 is an emotional “back-and-forth” movement between “consolation and desolation” (Sparough, 2010, p. 115) in the heart of a person.  One of the great tools in Mode 2 is to imagine having made the decision, or “trying it on for size” and conversely trying the “other option on for size” (Sparough, 2010, pp. 117-118). My bell-weather is how does such a decision serve our customers? How does it sit with those who have to implement the solution? is another perspective I maintain. Where these two intersect springs consolation. I “discuss it with someone” (Sparough, 2010, p. 120) so that I don’t overlook the discernable. 

 

Decision making in Mode 3 emphasizes a reasoning and analytical approach. “We use our mind to find the right path” (Sparough, 2010, p. 129) blending pros, cons and our imagination. In this mode, it is important to have all the facts “to make an intelligent decision” (Sparough, 2010, p. 131). First and foremost I need to ensure I have the information necessary to make an “intelligent decision.” This is normally the weakest link. It is part of the leadership risk taking. The question usually boils down to “am I willing” (Sparough, 2010, p. 131) making listening to God, self and others key to achieving inner freedom. I recently developed a list of advantages and disadvantages to accepting one job over the other in a reorganization currently underway at my workplace. I asked other team members to do the same. On the white board we brainstormed with two to four columns, depending on the jobs that team members were contemplating applying for. The decision would be mine to recommend upward. I wanted us to arrive at noble aims.

 

Applying Vroom’s Decision Making Model

 

Applying Vroom’s decision making model to the decision I wrote about in Module three:

My approach in Module three was to use a listening first discerning disposition. In particular, I applied concrete methods for astutely discerning using emotional senses in an effort to address what to do “when the heart conflicts with the head?” (Sparough, 2010). More specifically, I was working towards a job placement process for my team as part of a reorganization effort.  My working premise is to address major decisions with the benefit of my internal emotional exchange of ideas because it is my spirit that must live with the decisions I make. I wanted to be in “a good place spiritually” (Junker, 2005, p. 3) so I used objective discernment methods such as acting like a researcher hunting for the “raw data” using a procedure of verbatim notes (Greenleaf, 1996); and modeling a calm well-grounded and fact-based clerk encouraging the group by asking open ended questions (Junker, 2005, p. 3).

 

How I decided job placements in the new organization, was based on an approach of consulting team members individually and within the group, presenting the problem to get their suggestions, and inviting them to share their pros and cons (Vroom, 2003, p. 970). According to Victor Vroom (2003) predictors of decision success: “decisions that used participation to foster implementation succeeded more than 80 per cent of the time” (p. 968). This open leadership approach helped me to keep my personal biases at bay, especially the perception of favoritism, and aided me in arriving at a decision, or methodology, that I could live with.

 

Does Vroom’s process add/take away from listening, discerning, decision making process?

The decision making methods in Vroom’s “Deciding How to Decide” (Vroom, 2003, p. 970) Figure 1 and Table 1 are useful in a situational nature. The scale may tilt left toward the autocratic or “non-participative side” or right toward the “participative side” (Vroom, 2003, p. 970) depending on the level of information available, the levels of involvement necessary and practical. In a sense, deciding seems to be mutually exclusive based on immediacy of needs and the anticipated response of the group. Therefore, I believe that listening, discerning and decision making can co-habitat depending on the range of Vroom’s high and low situational factors.

 

Leaders must access the range of styles to meet the pressing demands of a situation. Colonel Fullhart, US Air Force (2015) shares that when you do more listening with the team, you are adding to the “bank of trust.” The autocratic style would have a tendency to stifle input. In defense of the autocratic style, Fullhart shares times when the urgency is such that a leader has to make a call without collaboration. With a collaborative approach most of the time, you are more likely to receive respect when you make the tough call. To illustrate the point, Fullhart shares that “when the plan is burning there’s no time to call a staff meeting;” the leader has to steer the plane.

References

 

Cooper, A. Looper, G. & Trammel, D. (2007). Being the change: Profiles from a servant-leadership learning community. Dallas, TX: AMCA.

 

Frick, D. (2011). Greenleaf and Servant-Leader Listening. Westfield: The Greenleaf Center.

 

Fullhart. R.F. Col. (2013). Reflecting on the importance of collaboration. Gonzaga University, ORGL 530, Video Gallery, Retrieved on October 21, 2015 from http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/orgl/mentors/Fullhart/Fullhart-collaboration_Broadband.swf   

 

Greenleaf, R. (1996). On becoming a servant leader. San Francisco: JosseyBass.

 

Hunter, J. (2006). The servant leadership training course: Achieving success through character, bravery, and influence. Audiobook. Portland, Maine: Sounds True.

 

Junker, L. (2005). Friends’ practice of group spiritual discernment. Gonzaga University, ORGL 535, Mentor Gallery, Module 3. Retrieved on October 9, 2015 https://learn.gonzaga.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_923159_1%26url%3D

 

Lowney, C. LowneyGU5, Decision Making and Life Path. Gonzaga University, ORGL 535, Mentor Gallery, Module 4. Retrieved on October 21, 2015 https://learn.gonzaga.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_923159_1%26url%3D 

 

Hersey, T. (2009). The power of pause: Becoming more by doing less. Chicago, Illinois: Loyola. 

 

O’Donohhue, J. (1998). Anam Cara: a book of celtic wisdom. New York, NY: Harper Perennial. 

 

Palmer, P. Spiritual Realm. Gonzaga University, ORGL 535, Mentor Gallery, Module 4. Retrieved on October 21, 2015 https://learn.gonzaga.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_923159_1%26url%3D

 

Peters, T. Leadership: listening and 4 words. Gonzaga University, ORGL 535, Mentor Gallery, Module 4. Retrieved on October 21, 2015 https://learn.gonzaga.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_923159_1%26url%3D 

 

Sardello. R. (2008). Silence: The mystery of wholeness. Benson, NC: Golden Stone Press.

 

Senge, P. Peter Senge on contemplation and organizational well-being. Gonzaga University, ORGL 535, Mentor Gallery, Module 3. Retrieved on October 9, 2015 https://learn.gonzaga.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_923159_1%26url%3D 

 

Sparough, J. M. (2010) What's your decision? How to make choices with confidence and clarity: an Ignatian approach to decision making. Chicago: Loyola Press. 

 

Vroom, V. (2003). Educating managers for decision making and leadership. Management Decision (0025-1747), 968-978.