- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Been reading lots of Max Dupree recently. He wrote “Leading without Power”, “Leadership Jazz” and “The Art of Leadership”. One of his pieces of advice for leaders is “When you ask someone to do something, make sure you wait for an answer”.
This implies that people have a choice to do what we ask them to — even when the person is a leader with formal authority and power.
Is this sound advice? The reason I ask is that I just got an email indicating I must clean the chapel on a Saturday in September. If I can’t do it on that date, then I must switch with somebody. I wasn’t asked if I wanted to do it, is willing to do it, etcetera.
Do you think Max Dupree’s advice is sound? Should you always wait for an answer when you ask someone to do something? Or should you simply assign and expect, particularly in volunteer/non-profit contexts?
I think waiting for an answer is the way to go. Assuming or expecting someone to do something just because you asked them to feels a bit arrogant to me. It also shows a lack of respect or interest in the other person’s feelings or opinions. When someone just tells me to do something without asking if I’m willing or able to, I’m much less inclined to actually do it. Yes, absolutely – in most cases, and in ALL cases in the Church that aren’t natural components of a calling we have accepted. For example. I always told people about any possible calling and waited to see how they would respond before officially asking them if they would accept the calling. I also disagree strongly with assignments without consultation or input.
We have this thing called agency. We ought to honor it.
Yes, even in business. Or for that matter personal lives. It’s bad to expect things. It will lead to much hurt emotions. Even if the person is very willing to do it, it’s still bad to expect it any any relationship, marriage, friendship business or otherwise.
However in repetition things can get out of hand with repeating a certain task and expectations.
We do the same things and expect the same results. It’s a natural human condition. Without thought process taking place, which tends to happen in repetition.
Wow! Yes, definitely wait for an answer. I suppose in a business situation where it’s a boss/employee relationship the answer might be more of a formality. Who wants to lose their job because they didn’t do what their boss asked them to do (within reason, of course). Seriously, my jaw hit the floor when you said you got an email saying it was your turn to clean the building. I have no problem saying no, and if I was asked to clean the building I may agree (as long as it didn’t unduly interfere with family time or time when I need to clean my own house, etc.). If I’m
toldto clean the building, that’s a different story all together and the answer will most assuredly be no and the answer would include a return directive that theyfind somebody else to do it. It’s very presumptuous for them to just assume you will do this because you’re a member. I’m sure most TBMs would do as directed without question, but the church is a volunteer organization and we are all free to participate in whatever we choose. SD, I would likely respond with an email with the title, “Undeliverable: Your Turn to Clean the Church Building” and then go on a family hike that day. Cleaning the church building is a fine act of service, but I wouldn’t do it under the circumstances you described. Now, about waiting for a response. I think it is generally good, but in terms of the necessity of it, I think it depends on the context. For example, at work, your boss “asks” you to do something, you just do it. Why? Because it is assumed that if you are working there, you’ve already accepted the responsibilities of the job. Each task is not up for consideration (unethical/illegal activity excepted, of course). Even within the Church, this can be true… If a person goes on a mission, they are also already accepting of the overall project, so little tasks, like where you will serve and who you will work with are not open for discussion; not because of any draconian authoritarian abuse… it’s just that the missionary has already made that decision, so acceptance can be assumed a priori.
The problem you’ve described probably arises from someone assuming that members of the ward have already made that commitment, so assignments can be made and can be assumed to be accepted, making any ‘ask/answer’ an unnecessary and inefficient formality. To that person, it all makes sense. It’s like the HT thing. The EQP will get up toward the end of the month and plead, cajole, beg, instruct, and harangue people to do their HTing… and the reason that this repeats so regularly is that it is more important to the EQP, who sees it as de facto responsibility, than to the rest of the quorum, many of whom are just wondering whether they can make it home in time for the game.
I concur — I first experienced this 10 years ago when chapel cleaning was new. Not only did they simply tell me it was my turn to clean the chapel, when i didn’t show, they lectured everyone in a fifth sunday about how “no shows for chapel cleaning do not go unnoticed”. I didn’t feel badly about it, as I never agreed to go in the first place, so no commitment was made. Also, chapel cleaning is not a baptismal covenant. I think it’s reasonable to expect that people will try go participate in meaningful ways, but to script the specifics — like chapel cleaning — is not cool. And then to rip on people who don’t show, when they didn’t agree in the first place, is not at all kosher.
On Own Now wrote:The problem you’ve described probably arises from someone assuming that members of the ward have already made that commitment, so assignments can be made and can be assumed to be accepted, making any ‘ask/answer’ an unnecessary and inefficient formality.
Bingo. Ray mentioned that we have agency, but if the person making the assignment sees this as a responsibility/commitment of the members – then it doesn’t matter. It would be like saying that you are not going to make child support payments any more because you have agency. Do you want to use your agency to become a “deadbeat” member?
SilentDawning wrote:Also, chapel cleaning is not a baptismal covenant.
This baptismal covenant thing is squishy – on one side it is limited and specific (mourning with those that mourn, etc.) – OTOH it can be expansive and all encompassing (consecrate all that you have and may ever have).
Quote:(consecrate all that you have and may ever have)
That’s not a baptismal covenant. even if too many members act like it is. Just sayin’.
This janitorial assignment is a real issue. I personally wish the church would create some jobs and hire janitors again. Life is so challenging and many folks are working second jobs and crazy hours to make ends meet. The churches are also not as clean in our area as they used to be. At the very least, just posting assignments well in advance would be helpful. Some people are being notified during the week that they are assigned to clean that Saturday. To think that people will just drop what they already have planned for that Saturday because they are assigned to clean the church is over the top. afterall wrote:This janitorial assignment is a real issue. I personally wish the church would create some jobs and hire janitors again. Life is so challenging and many folks are working second jobs and crazy hours to make ends meet. The churches are also not as clean in our area as they used to be. At the very least, just posting assignments well in advance would be helpful. Some people are being notified during the week that they are assigned to clean that Saturday. To think that people will just drop what they already have planned for that Saturday because they are assigned to clean the church is over the top.
I agree the cleaning thing is an issue and I liked it better when they had janitors. Our building was much cleaner then. It’s not like the Corporation can’t afford it….
That said, our ward does seem to have the assignments down. I don’t do it, but I do get the email schedule. Basically each area is assigned a week, and people who live in that area then sign up for it. It seems to work, although I also realize it’s the same few people who do it – but that is their choice.
Waiting for an answer is also a tool of negotiation. A really good tool. When my son was 15, the BP called him to be president of the Teacher’s quorum. My son did not want to be president in any way. He didn’t even want to be there, let alone lead. So he said to the BP that he didn’t want to do it. The BP replied that he understood, and that he too, didn’t want to do a lot of things that he did. Then the BP just sat there looking at my son in silence. My son tried to resist, but in the end he could not take the silence and said that he would do it.
DS comes home and tells us about it. My DH laughs and tells my son that he just learned a lesson ….he who breaks the silence first loses.
The BP didn’t have to verbally pressure, persuade or lecture on responsibility. He just sat and waited for an answer. Now, as an adult my son has used this tool of waiting for an answer to his advantage.
Outofstep wrote:Waiting for an answer is also a tool of negotiation. A really good tool.
When my son was 15, the BP called him to be president of the Teacher’s quorum. My son did not want to be president in any way. He didn’t even want to be there, let alone lead. So he said to the BP that he didn’t want to do it. The BP replied that he understood, and that he too, didn’t want to do a lot of things that he did. Then the BP just sat there looking at my son in silence. My son tried to resist, but in the end he could not take the silence and said that he would do it.
DS comes home and tells us about it. My DH laughs and tells my son that he just learned a lesson ….he who breaks the silence first loses.
The BP didn’t have to verbally pressure, persuade or lecture on responsibility. He just sat and waited for an answer. Now, as an adult my son has used this tool of waiting for an answer to his advantage.
That’s an interesting perspective. I think the intent of the quote, however, was to show respect for the other person’s agency — and ensure that when people agree, you actually get commitment and results. The antithesis is what happened to me last week. Someone simply handed me some flyers for a Latin Heritage event to hand out. They were in Spanish alone, and I couldn’t even read them. All my friends are english-speaking. The person didn’t ask me if I wanted to do it — just handed them to me. They are now sitting destroyed and wrinkled in my car as I never had an appropriate place to hand them out — that is why one should wait for an answer before giving a “command” or “request”.
They taught us the “whoever speaks first loses” technique when I was a missionary. I am very comfortable with silence, and would likely have replied to the Bishop “Well, accepting this calling at this time is not something I’m passionate about, so I would suggest you shake more bushes”. And then wait for an answer (I realize this approach might be well beyond the reach of a youth).
You only lose when you break the silence with agreement or something that weakens your position.
By the way, how well did your son function in the calling? Did it turn out to be a good experience?
He made the goal to be the most ineffective TQP there ever had been in that ward. And he accomplished that goal very well. And so, the principle is confirmed. I think this is why they say leadership is an art — when personality interacts with the task at hand, you get art. And true art is when leaders achieve results by combining passion and personality with the needs of the organization and task at hand. In this case, your Bishop was not successful….nor an artist.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.