Jacksssilky Leadership with Stewardship Question

Description

1 What does it mean to to replace leadership with stewardship?
2 What does it mean to choose partnership over patriarchy?
3 What does it mean to choose adventure over safety?
4 What does it mean to choose service over self-interest?
5 How could you embrace this in your organization?

1 attachmentsSlide 1 of 1attachment_1attachment_1.slider-slide > img { width: 100%; display: block; }
.slider-slide > img:focus { margin: auto; }

Unformatted Attachment Preview

PART I
Trading Your Kingdom
for a Horse
literature can top Shakespeare’s Richard III for self-centeredness and
inhumanity. Dismounted on the battlefield, with his life in the balance, he cries out, “A
horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!” At that moment, he would gladly give up all
the wealth and power he has accumulated for a practical means that will bring his
survival.
Each of us is in the same spot—facing the same choice. Our marketplace is the field
of battle, and we have to decide whether to hold on to the power and privilege we have
worked so hard to acquire, or to pass it on in exchange for a better chance for survival.
Copyright © 2013. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
FEW RULERS IN
Block, Peter. Stewardship : Choosing Service over Self-Interest, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nyulibrary-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1172489.
Created from nyulibrary-ebooks on 2021-11-12 06:02:32.
ONE
Replacing Leadership
with Stewardship
about how our institutions are managed and governed.
There is a longing in each of us to invest in things that matter and to have the
organization in which we work be successful. Our task is to ensure that when we step
aside, our job, the service we provide to the world, and hopefully our organization still
exist for the next generation. No easy task in this environment.
This book is also about living out democratic values, using the workplace as the
focal point. One of its goals is to quicken our efforts to reform our organizations so that
our democracy thrives, our spirit is answered, and our ability to serve customers in the
broadest sense is guaranteed.
THIS BOOK IS
Copyright © 2013. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Something More Is Required
THE EVIDENCE THAT our organizations are not working well is fully upon us. Something stark
has happened to our institutions that we were not quite ready for. Every sector of society is
constantly in the process of reform. Health-care reform, financial reform, education reform,
government reform. Crises that precipitate this kind of reform always come packaged in
economic terms first, even though the real issues are much more profound. Our schools, our
health-care systems, our government agencies, and our private businesses and industries are
under financial scrutiny. Our manufacturing capability has been exported to low-cost-labor
countries. Our service functions have been largely automated, to the extent that some
companies now consider that allowing you to talk to a human being is a competitive advantage.
All organizations continue to search for the latest program to reduce cost. Reengineering and
total quality movements have come and gone. Now we are lean and agile. Adaptability and
innovation are thought to be the critical competitive edges.
None of this is news. In fact, we are weary of hearing about it. The problem with all the
emphasis on economics is that economics is not the real problem. If we keep describing the
problem as one of economics and the need for economic austerity, it will lead us to the same
actions that created the problem in the first place. Focusing on the cost of health care, the cost
of education, the cost of energy, the pressure for higher returns, the cost of social problems,
will only keep us stuck in the old conversation. What the money talk reveals is our lack of faith
in the ability of these institutions to spend the money in a useful way. Money is a symptom; it is
never the real issue. Money is a language. It is easily measured, so it is easy and convenient to
talk about.
An economic crisis for any organization means it is failing in its core purpose. In some
Block, Peter. Stewardship : Choosing Service over Self-Interest, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nyulibrary-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1172489.
Created from nyulibrary-ebooks on 2021-11-12 06:02:32.
fundamental way it is unable to serve its constituents or the society as a whole. And if it is
unable to serve its constituents, that means it has failed to serve its own internal people. The
way organizations mobilize to serve customers and their own people has to do with the
definition of purpose, the use of power, and ultimately the distribution of wealth. Purpose,
power, and wealth are the chief concerns of the system and process traditionally called
management. Here we want to suggest the term governance. Management is a cool, neutral
term. It has a professional flavor to it and would treat power as a problem in social
engineering. Management is all about creating order in the world and constantly denies issues
of power and purpose and wealth. It is all about blueprints, not about what we are
constructing. The political nature of institutions is finessed when we talk of management. The
term governance gets more to the point. We are accustomed to equating power and purpose
and wealth with the process of government. Using a term like governance recognizes the
political nature of our lives and our workplaces. Hope for genuine organizational reform
resides in reshaping the politics of our work lives—namely, how we each define purpose, hold
power, and balance wealth.
Copyright © 2013. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
The Essence of Stewardship
Stewardship is the set of principles and practices that have the potential to make dramatic
changes in the governance of our institutions. It is concerned with creating a way of governing
ourselves that creates a strong sense of ownership and responsibility for outcomes at every
level of the organization. It is a buck that stops everywhere. It means having more of a
partnership with customers and creating self-reliance on the part of all who are touched by the
institution. It says that the answer to economic problems is not reduced costs or better funding;
it is to focus on relationships, reciprocity, and participation first. These are the elements that
produce the service we seek. This is what will put us closer to our employees and our
marketplace. Stewardship is creating a sustainable connection with the people in our playing
field that is the answer to our concerns about economics.
We know there is a need for reform; we are less clear about how to achieve it. Most of our
theories about making change are clustered around a belief in leadership. We think that
leadership is the key to fitting organizations to their marketplace and fitting people to their
organizations. If the organization fails, it is the leader’s head that we want. This pervasive and
almost religious belief in leaders is what slows the process of genuine reform. Stewardship
offers an approach to reform that puts leadership in the background where it belongs.
Stewardship is the choice for service.
Service is a stance that relationships are critical.
Relationships are built through partnership, rather than patriarchy.
Partnership is built on empowerment, not dependency.
Stewardship begins with the willingness to be accountable for some larger body than
Block, Peter. Stewardship : Choosing Service over Self-Interest, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nyulibrary-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1172489.
Created from nyulibrary-ebooks on 2021-11-12 06:02:32.
ourselves—a team, an organization, a community. Stewardship springs from a set of beliefs
about reforming organizations that affirm our choice for service over the pursuit of selfinterest. When we choose service over self-interest, we say we are willing to be deeply
accountable without choosing to control the world around us. It requires a level of trust that we
are not used to holding.
In its commitment to service, stewardship forces us then to yield on our desire to use good
parenting as a basic form of governance. We already know how to be good parents at work.
The alternative, partnership, is something we are just learning about. Our difficulty with
creating partnerships is that parenting—and its stronger cousin, patriarchy—is so deeply
ingrained in our muscle memory and armature that we don’t even realize we are doing it.
In addition to engendering partnership, genuine service requires us to act on our own
account. We cannot be stewards of an institution and expect someone else to take care of us.
Regardless of how parental our environment may be, we decide whether to support efforts to
treat us like children, which expresses our wish for dependency, or to keep deciding that we
serve the organization best by creating a place of our own choosing. The well-worn word for
this is empowerment.
The way we govern our institutions grows out of the stance we take on partnership,
empowerment, and service. How we define purpose, how we create structure, how we pay
people, how we set goals and measure progress—all grow out of the beliefs we have about
control, and about safety, and about self-interest. These are the essential questions about
governance. And they are more profound than simply asking who is at the top of our
organization or what management style enjoys popular support at the moment.
Copyright © 2013. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Choosing Partners
In deciding how to govern, one critical choice is between patriarchy and partnership.
Patriarchy expresses the belief that it is those at the top who are responsible for the success of
the organization and the well-being of its members. A measure of patriarchy is how frequently
we use images of parenting to describe how bosses should manage employees in organizations.
To create workplaces that provide meaning and are economically sound and strong in the
marketplace, we need to face the implications of having chosen patriarchy for the governance
system inside our organizations.
The governance system we have inherited and continue to sustain is based on sovereignty
and a form of intimate colonialism. These are strong terms, but they are essentially accurate.
We govern our organizations by valuing, above all else, consistency, control, and
predictability. These become the means of dominance by which colonialism and sovereignty
are enacted. It is not that we directly seek dominance, but our beliefs about getting work done
have that effect.
We pay a price for our top-driven, parenting, patriarchal governance system:
• Democracy cannot thrive if we experience it only for a moment of voting every two to four
years. If day in and day out we go to a workplace that breeds helplessness and
compliance, this becomes our generalized pattern of response to the larger questions of
Block, Peter. Stewardship : Choosing Service over Self-Interest, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nyulibrary-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1172489.
Created from nyulibrary-ebooks on 2021-11-12 06:02:32.
our society—and, in fact, most other aspects of our lives.
• In a high-control environment, what is personal and sacred to us is denied. Autocratic
governance withers the spirit.
• In the marketplace we operate in now, centralized control, with its strong belief in better
planning and clearer strategy, cannot create a more agile or adaptive future.
Partnership carries the intention to balance power between ourselves and those around us. It
brings into question the utility of maintaining consistency, control, and predictability as
cornerstones of management. It comes from the choice to place control close to where the work
is done and not hold it as the prerogative of the middle and upper classes. It also flows from
the choice to yield on consistency in how we manage, and thus to support local units in creating
policies and practices that fit local situations. Finally, with the world in flux, demanding
predictability becomes a form of institutional arthritis.
Copyright © 2013. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Choosing Empowerment
Another choice is between dependency and empowerment. Dependency rests on the belief that
there are people in power who know what is best for others, including ourselves. We think the
task of these leaders is to create an environment where we can live a life of safety and
predictability. Dependency also holds those above personally responsible for how we feel
about ourselves (we want that positive feedback) and for how much freedom we have. I will
never forget hearing a supervisor say to his boss, “I want my freedom, if it is all right with
you.” Dependency is the collusion required for parenting and patriarchy to endure.
We cannot be leaders without followers, and we cannot be good parents unless we have
good children. This dependent mind-set justifies and rationalizes patriarchy and keeps it
breathing. If we were not looking so hard for leadership, others would be unable to claim
sovereignty over us. Our search for great bosses comes not from a desire to be watched and
directed but rather from our belief that clear authority relationships are the antidote to crisis
and ultimately the answer to chaos.
Empowerment embodies the belief that the answer to the latest crisis lies within each of us,
and therefore we will all buckle up for adventure. Empowerment bets that people at our own
level or below will know best how to organize and innovate, make a dollar, serve a customer,
get it right the first time, or invent an alternate future. We know that a democracy is a political
system designed not for efficiency but as a hedge against the abuse of power. Empowerment is
our willingness to bring this value into the workplace. It is our willingness to claim our
autonomy and commit ourselves to making the organization work well, with or without the
sponsorship of those above us. This requires a belief that my safety and my freedom are in my
own hands. No easy task—therefore the adventure.
Choosing Service
Ultimately the choice we make is between service and self-interest. Both are attractive. The
Block, Peter. Stewardship : Choosing Service over Self-Interest, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nyulibrary-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1172489.
Created from nyulibrary-ebooks on 2021-11-12 06:02:32.
fire and intensity of self-interest seem to burn all around us. We search, so often in vain, to find
leaders we can have faith in. Our doubts are not about our leaders’ talents but about their
trustworthiness. We question whether they are serving their institutions or themselves. When
we look at our peers and our neighbors, we see much energy dedicated to making sure each
gets all of their entitlements. We ourselves are no different. We are intensely career minded,
even though there are so few places to go. Or we have surrendered to lifestyle and dream of
the day we will have our own business…a small but profitable guesthouse–marina–landscape
nursery–travel agency–bookstore–art gallery conglomerate. We were born into the age of
anxiety and become adults in the age of self-interest.
The antidote to self-interest is to commit and to find cause. To commit to something outside
of ourselves. To be part of creating something we care about so that we can endure the
sacrifice, risk, and adventure that commitment entails. This is the deeper meaning of service.
One need ask only one question: “What for?”…What am I to unify my being for? The
reply is: Not for my own sake.
—Martin Buber, The Way of Man: According to the Teaching of Hasidism
Copyright © 2013. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Let the commitment and the cause be the place where we work, even if we know we won’t
be there long, even though we are a contractor and work at home without meeting half the
people we interact with. Real commitment is an act made with no expectation of return. No
barter. Not only do we commit to the product or service at our workplace, but also we commit
to the culture and texture and efforts to create community. This means self-interest is replaced
by a care for the common good. Our task is to create organizations we believe in and to do it as
an offering, not a demand. No one will do it for us. Others have brought us this far. The next
step is ours. Our choice for service and community becomes the only practical answer to our
concern about self-interest.
We Don’t Act on What We Know
What is beguiling about our situation is that we already know a lot about service, about
partnership, and about empowerment. The books have been written (I wrote one), the
experiments have been conducted, and the results are in. We know, intellectually and
empirically, that partnership and participation are the management strategies that create highperformance workplaces. Virtually every medium-to-large organization showcases the success
it has had with self-management, partnerships, lean operations, creating a culture of
accountability, and giving superior service to customers.
Plus there are busloads of executives, authors, and consultants traveling around this country
to conferences and seminars, telling their stories of workplaces transformed, bureaucracies
flattened, employees involved, customers honored, and quality rewarded. They are all true
stories, with primarily happy endings.
So what’s the problem?
Block, Peter. Stewardship : Choosing Service over Self-Interest, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nyulibrary-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1172489.
Created from nyulibrary-ebooks on 2021-11-12 06:02:32.
Copyright © 2013. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
The problem is that despite this load of knowledge and evidence, there has been
disturbingly little fundamental change in the ways that business, government, health care, and
education manage themselves. Even the organizations that are out telling their stories have
enormous difficulty capitalizing on their own experience. One or two plants may be
accomplishing miracles, but within the same division, the other fifteen still operate through
business as usual: high command, high control, high predictability, strong class system,
employees worried about what their bosses think about them.
You can go all the way back to 1971 in Topeka, Kansas, where a Gaines Pet Food plant
created deep participation, with teams doing their own purchasing and controlling their own
work process. They even designed rooms with round corners to symbolize their intention to
honor the circle of the team. The plant was successful in its quick start-up, and in the
productivity and quality it achieved for many of its early years. It became a showcase, even
charged people for coming to hear the story, and launched several of its originators into
consulting careers. What it did not do was have much influence over the way the multitude of
other General Foods plants were managed around the world.
We are so actively engaged in change, yet certain fundamentals remain untouched. Like an
old western movie set where a cowboy actor, elbows flapping, pistol smoking, sits on a
stationary horse, painted scenery passing by on rollers. Every executive and manager in
America has given at least one speech in the last year on the need for change. Every company
in America has implemented at least one program intended to empower, one to spark
innovation, one to embrace customers, and one to “right-size” as a means to flatten its stomach
and reduce body fat. These efforts are sincere, and each taken alone is generally successful.
Something larger, though, like the cowboy’s wooden horse in front of the camera, remains
unmoved.
What remains unmoved is the belief that power and purpose and privilege can reside at the
top while the organization learns how to better serve its stakeholders and therefore survive.
When an innovative experiment challenges this fundamental belief about how to govern, one of
two things usually occurs. Either the organization rejects the local experiment and it is power
and privilege as usual, or an effort is made to drive the experiment across the bottom four
layers of the whole institution, never really touching the real centers of control. The way we try
to transform large groups of human beings bound together by common goals, with leadership as
a big part of the solution, is our wooden horse. Our strategies and beliefs about how to change
are not designed to serve but are the very acts that can keep us frozen. The purpose of this book
is to explore what is required to foster changes in our institutions that are truly fundamental and
long lasting. If we are not careful, we too quickly lose faith even in the change efforts that we
ourselves initiate.
The Leadership Question
The search for authentic reform, as well as the answer to the question why we have such
difficulty implementing what we know, begins when we question our current notions about
leadership. Though there is great appeal to the concept of leadership, it will not take us the
distance we need to travel. It is not easy to question something we have been searching for
Block, Peter. Stewardship : Choosing Service over Self-Interest, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nyulibrary-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1172489.
Created from nyulibrary-ebooks on 2021-11-12 06:02:32.
most of our lives, but it is the right starting point.
The strength in the concept of leadership is that it connotes initiative and responsibility.
Good friends in hard times. It carries the baggage, however, of being inevitably associated
with behaviors of control, direction, and knowing what is best for others. The act of leading
cultural or organizational change by determining the desired future, defining the path to get
there, and knowing what is best for others is incompatible with widely distributing ownership
and responsibility in an organization. Placing ownership and felt responsibility close to the
core work is the fundamental change we seek.
To state it bluntly, strong leadership does not have within it the capability to create the
fundamental changes our organizations require. It is not the fault of the people in these
positions; it is the fault of the way we all have framed the role. Our search for strong
leadership expresses the desire for others to assume the ownership and responsibility for our
group, our organization, our society. The effect is to localize power, purpose, and privilege in
the one we call leader.
Focusing power and purpose at one point in an organization, usually the top, has over time
the impact of destroying the culture and the very outcomes we sincerely intend to create. One
of the clearest examples is our efforts to control nature and exercise dominion over the earth.
We have split the atom, cleared our forests, and taken fossil fuels from beneath the ground and
placed them in the engines of industrialization. But these triumphs over nature have left us
vulnerable, and we do not yet know whether we have the will or the wealth to repair the
environment we have wounded.
When the chairman was a Protestant, the Protestants were disappointed; when the
chairman was a Catholic, the Catholics were disappointed. If we ever have a woman as
chairman, the women will be disappointed.
Copyright © 2013. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
—Earl Shorris, Scenes from Corporate Life
It is much the same with leadership as an organizing concept. Leadership’s idea that a few,
in charge, define the future, control the path, and know what is best for others interferes with
its own desire for cultural change as much as it fosters it.
We have the right language about change. We know it is a process and not a program. We
know it takes time and training and is evolutionary. We know it requires commitment, not
coercion. But then we begin to talk about leadership. It is at this point that we revert to our
underlying beliefs about control and direction, and our intent for authentic and lasting change
gets undermined.
The wish for leadership is in part our wish to rediscover hope and, interestingly enough, to
have someone else provide it for us. We hold on to the belief that hope resides in those with
power. In response to this need, we create modern folk heroes. People who have created
iconic brands. Executives who have turned companies around. Those who built Apple,
Google, Microsoft, Federal Express. Those who saved General Electric, Harley-Davidson,
Johnsonville Sausage. Our concern for education has created teachers and principals who
Block, Peter. Stewardship : Choosing Service over Self-Interest, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nyulibrary-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1172489.
Created from nyulibrary-ebooks on 2021-11-12 06:02:32.
stood tall and delivered. We want elected officials in government to get us a job, provide for
our health, and make our streets safe.
And how does all this attention to leadership and leaders serve us? Consider the price we
pay for attributing to people in power the ability to transform whole institutions:
• Great leaders reinforce the idea that accomplishment in our society comes from great
individual acts. We credit individuals for outcomes that required teams and communities
to accomplish.
• Our attention becomes fixated on those at the top. We live the myth that if you do not have
sponsorship from the top, you cannot realize your intentions.
• People in power who succeed begin to believe their own press. They start believing that
their institution’s success was in fact their own creation.
• And we don’t see that the leaders we are looking for have more effect in the media than in
our lives.
Is anyone capable of providing us the leadership we are looking for? And if not, is it the
failing of the people in power, or is the problem in the nature of our expectations?
The Underbelly of Leadership
Copyright © 2013. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
There is something in the way leaders define themselves that inevitably becomes selfcongratulatory and overcontrolling. Successful leaders begin to believe that a key task is to recreate themselves down through the organization. To make their beliefs and actions
reproducible. They begin to wonder, “How do I instill in others the same vision and behaviors
that have worked for me?” At the moment, this question may seem to the leader like a sincere
desire to be of service, but to an objective observer it has the stamp of self-interest.
People who cannot conceive happiness of their own accept a definition imposed upon
them by others.
—Earl Shorris, Scenes from Corporate Life
This becomes clear when you read about the way executives describe the basis for their
success. Take the president of a chemical company: we will call him John and the company
Atlantic Chemical. His story is an example of how we can do the right thing and put in place
the right pieces and programs, yet have the fundamental relationship of parenting leader and
dependent organization remain unchanged.
John took over Atlantic Chemical and initiated its turnaround by creating an empowering,
people-oriented environment. He decided that his competitive advantage, in what was
essentially a commodity business, was the attitude of his people. His strategy was to
Block, Peter. Stewardship : Choosing Service over Self-Interest, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nyulibrary-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1172489.
Created from nyulibrary-ebooks on 2021-11-12 06:02:32.
• flatten the organization by two to four levels, giving everyone more control over what they
did;
• create a participative culture and force the issue with those who did not support a
participative style;
• fully inform people about the business and how it was doing in the industry;
• implement worker pay systems geared to real outcomes and earnings;
• eliminate the trappings of privilege; and
• be clear in defining business outcomes in customer-response terms, both internally and
externally.
And more. All of which made sense. And worked for the business. He led a struggling division
of a large company into becoming a profitable independent business.
The steps that John took were intelligent. They served the business well. But somewhere in
the midst of this, John began to see himself as more and more central to Atlantic Chemical’s
success. Undoubtedly encouraged by others, he began an effort of a different nature. He started
to believe that he knew not only what was best for the business but also the best ways for
people to behave; he began to believe that he needed to supply direction and soft coercion to
create the desired behaviors. He decided then to define the specific behaviors required to be
successful at Atlantic. Consultants were brought in to create ways of measuring those
behaviors, and questionnaires were used to give feedback on those behaviors.
Just because you own the land doesn’t mean you own the people.
Copyright © 2013. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
—Philippine land-reform saying
A program called “Managing the Atlantic Way” was used to reinforce John’s vision, and all
employees were required to sign up for it. John continually talked about the need for him to
repeat his vision and behaviors for the company over and over and over again until people got
it and believed it. Everyone was appraised each year, measured against whether they were
managing the Atlantic Way.
The universal theme in John’s story is that people in charge begin to think that the way to
achieve and institutionalize change is to
• define the behaviors required,
• view themselves as essential to the change,
Block, Peter. Stewardship : Choosing Service over Self-Interest, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Incorporated, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nyulibrary-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1172489.
Created from nyulibrary-ebooks on 2021-11-12 06:02:32.
• use education as indoctrination, and
• redesign the performance appraisals to ensure compliance.
This is the way strategy turns into dogma. This manner of leadership too easily focuses
ownership at one point. It encourages the replication of one belief system and tends to be very
narrow in giving credit for success. Atlantic Chemical’s success is now John’s success. The
governance at Atlantic Chemical remains one of parenting, even if the content of “Managing the
Atlantic Way” has major segments on the importance of partnership.
The interest we have in people like John is the attraction each of us has to lead and be led.
The concept of leadership does not leave much room for the concept of partnership. We need a
way to hold on to the initiative and accountability and vision of the leadership idea, and to
abandon the inevitable baggage of dominance and self-centeredness.
Copyright © 2013. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
The Stewardship Answer
The alternative to leadership is stewardship. Not a perfect concept, but an entryway into
exploring what fundamental, sustainable change in our organizations would look like.
Stewardship asks us to be deeply accountable for the outcomes of a group, an institution, a
community, without acting to define purpose for others, control others, or take care of others.
Stewardship can be most simply viewed as giving order to the dispersion of power. It requires
us to systematically move choice and resources closer and closer to the bottom and edges of
the organization. Leadership, in contrast, gives order to the centralization of power. It keeps
choices and resources at the center and places power at the boundaries as an exception to be
earned. When we train leaders, the topics of defining purpose, maintaining controls, and taking
care of others are at the center of the curriculum. We were raised to believe that if we were to
be accountable