- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have a question. I was talking to my ex-boss a while ago. I was involved in a situation where a prominent local leader kind of put me on a short leash and levied some pretty heavy criticism on me after a period of considerable freedom and adulation. It caused me to enter a period of very strong disengagement in which I felt no interest in any of the projects I was pursuing. To my ex-boss, I commented that as a volunteer, I expected certain things — empowerment, a basic level of respect, and what I call a “soft hammer” when I make mistakes. When these things evaporate, I feel disengaged, and feel like seeking a new environment in which to participate and serve mankind. She indicated I should drop all those expectations, and keep serving as a volunteer at about 5-20 hours a week in spite of this turn of events. Expect nothing in return, not even empowerment, respect, or kindness.
And then she made this comment — you also have to look inside to see if you have the humility to not react negatively toward what happened to you.
It was an incomplete thought — which I’m trying to complete — hence this post.
This is my analysis. Yes, I’ve suffered from low self-esteem in the past, but as I’ve gotten older, and know who I am, the impact on my life is far less. But I do believe there is some residual effect from it in this situation. Related to this, is a book I read by a non-member called Healing Church Hurt.
The author indicated that when people hurt you, it’s not so much the arrow (the actual action), but the message wrapped around the arrow. This message is often interpreted as personal — what the person’s actions seem to say about you as a person. In this case, the message I got was that I was just another unimportant person to be interacted with through several layers of bureaucracy, with revoked access to get things done quickly as I did in the past. I was no longer worthy of the adulation and the access to power I had. I had been knocked down to my proper, lower place in life.
This may have partly been the result of residual (and I emphasize, residual) self-esteem issues, as well as the natural tendency for volunteers to want self-actualization and a more positive environment than they may experience in their paid work. I don’t think anyone likes the loss of power, and layers of approval placed between them and the power to act.
And this seems even more distasteful when you are giving of your time freely and voluntarily.
My boss is implying that the truly humble person would not take offense this way. They would not react with “You can’t treat me this way, I AM worth more than you are implying!!!” — and perhaps even lessen one’s service or withdraw entirely from the organization (whether the LDS church, or any organization — I speak generally).
So, my question is this — is humility and antidote for offence taken due to poor self-esteem? I’m not convinced at this point, but I have heard people say that humble people are not easily offended. And therefore, are more likely to keep serving in organizations, even when they engage in offensive behavior.
I would like to understand how you see the relationship between self-esteem, humility and Staying.
This is a very interesting situation. One where most of us has experienced from time to time. You said:
Quote:I was involved in a situation where a prominent local leader kind of put me on a short leash and levied some pretty heavy criticism on me after a period of considerable freedom and adulation.
The important element for me is:
1. was this a one-time issue or was this a pattern of behavior?
2. was this criticism in front of others or between just the two of you?
Criticism can be useful if it is meant to clarify previous instruction.
For example, if you went out on your own without asking questions.
Or, to motivate to improve personal performance.
Would you consider this person to be a friend after this incident?
Quote:1. was this a one-time issue or was this a pattern of behavior?
The criticism was a pattern of behavior I have observed against volunteers for at least 1.5 years. After most public events at which volunteers spoke in an official capacity, I would hear this person was unhappy with certain things the volunteers said — things that I felt were innocuous or matters of personal style rather than principle.
Regarding the short-leash and layers of bureaucracy, this was new. However, the organization had not done much up the point I started interacting with this leader; there was very little interaction and results occurring. So, the triggering circumstances and the resulting short leash and bureaucracy was all new. I am not sure if this is a pattern or not.
2. was this criticism in front of others or between just the two of you?The decision of this person passed through another layer of leadership, and the secondary level of leadership announced all the new policies and in front of 7 other people in an online collaboration platform. It was also described as a direct result of a meeting I shared with the leader. I think anyone would be a fool not to draw that conclusion. I was also told the reason for the policy was a meeting I held with the person who initiated the leash and the bureaucracy.
The announcement also departed from our social norms of calling everyone by their first name, and used formal titles phrases such as Ms. Mr., etcetera, as well the formal title of the public leader. It represented a huge shift in culture and power distance than our organization was used to.
3.
Quote:Would you consider this person to be a friend after this incident?
No, I wouldn’t consider him a friend, although I never did consider him a friend before the incident. But I now view him as sort of socially and organizationally “dangerous” to interact with.
As a person in a position of power, I see him as unappreciative of the many hours people in general put in for free, as well as a lack of understanding of co-missioning. This is an approach to leadership in which leaders try to provide service opportunities that speak to both individual, volunteers’ goals (such as personal growth) and organizational interests simultaneously.
Typical goals of volunteers are to grow personally, to be empowered, to make a difference and to feel good that they served society/humanity in some way.
Many expect a certain level of lighthandedness when mistakes or inefficiences happen. Many also expect an experience that is better than what you find in typical American paid work environments. Read “Leading without Power: Finding Hope in Serving Community” which makes these observations, as does “The New Breed: Understanding and Equipping the 21st Century Volunteer” — a very excellent book on volunteer recruitment and leadership. They reach similar conclusions.
I agree with the ideas in these books, and I see this person as violating the bedrock principles of volunteer leadership, to the point I feel disengaged. Trying to sort out if this is related to self-esteem, can be overcome with humility, or not.
Note: Partly due to this incident (about 20% of the reason), but also due to burnout from over-extending myself, I have withdrawn from the leadership position I once held. I still lead several projects though, in a non-official capacity, and still put in a lot of time in service capacities, and will continue serving in this organization.
I do see this as a parallel experience to my church service, and thus relevant to a discussion here.
I am sorry that there are people out there that feel that the only way for them to exercise leadership is to demean others. You should feel valued in whatever organization you choose to belong to in a free society. Endurance with stoicism is noble and can be character building, but often it just lets the offender off the hook. In a volunteer situation, there are probably other organizations that you could devote your time to in order to be able to serve and not have to put up with a boss or leader who treats people that way. I’m sorry you had to go through that.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.